A lot more can be said about yesterday's entry, but a few tidbits came to mind. First, my broader reading of "religion" is supported by various people. For instance, a lower court opinion that I read a long time back summarized it as a matter of "ultimate truths," creed and ritual.
I like that first term, and it reflects the Seeger/Welsh definition -- we have some central set of beliefs or precepts (if the former has a bad connotation for some) that provide meaning to our life, which for many is supplied by God and God's laws. The Random House definition of "religion" also supplies one in which a supernatural being is the "usual" foundation. The legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin in Freedom's Law and Life's Dominion also interprets the term in this fashion, particularly to define choices in matters of life and death as religious ones. And, Sen. Obama ... in a well known speech on religion in public life ... at times defined the term broadly, in part as a "way of life," what gives us meaning.
Second, let me re-emphasize my broad understanding of words like "faith" and "belief." I got into a debate with someone over this general issue, who simply was appalled at my reasoning. But, come now. We have "faith" in a spouse or love one. We "believe" in the American Constitution. Why cannot we "believe" or have "faith" in more ultimate things? And, without getting "God" into the equation either. Again, it must be noted that there is a basic feeling involved here that makes it more than a mental/scientific enterprise.
Still, such faith tends to come from falsifiable facts too. We do not have "faith" in some loser child of ours ... sure, we can love him or her, but we know at some point they are weak or will fail us in some fashion. OTOH, when loved ones show we can trust them, faith comes. The faith might arise from a "feeling" in various cases, but many decisions amount to a process that is hard to boil down to concrete objective facts. This includes something as scientific as a medical diagnosis. It is true we can use words rather broadly, so sports can be said to be a "religion," but it is simply not a very broad use of "faith" and "belief" to use it to mean something other than belief in miracles or life after death.
This is not to say that such belief can be done for very practical reasons -- many gain much solace and completion by believing in various things. Take vegetarianism. I support it for various reasons, in part because I don't want to be part of a factory farming system that is both (IMHO) cruel and bad for our country as a whole. This is practical, but like a single vote, it is unclear how much my actions change things. But, I think there is some practical value all the same, partially because what we do does affects other people, and it adds up to some tipping point eventually.
But, there is a personal value as well. A personal happiness in taking the path, a sense of contentment. One here thinks it is a bit misguided -- surely in the way it is defended -- but its practical effects over the last decade is there. It's not just a matter of "belief," but practicality. Belief in the long run is objectively useful, even in support of things where proof is not present, and might even likely not exist. This is not to say that is the ONLY reason for it, but it factors in. So, yes, there are different shades of "belief" ... but this only underlines my broader point.
Anyway, I guess the safest bet is to use a broad term ... "freedom of expression" (Charles Fried uses "freedom of the mind" ... religion and speech combo!) allows us to underline how things like hairstyles and even lifestyles in general warrant First Amendment protection, even if they are not strictly "speech" in a common sense view of things. So, and again this reflects history, "freedom of conscience" provides an open-ended understanding of that freedom.* Still, "religion" has a certain flavor (especially in an institutional and ritual sense ... a commitment ceremony is more than a matter of conscience) that warrants its use as well.
---
* Susan Jacoby's interesting book Freethinkers takes a similar approach ... she is not just concerned with atheists here ... Unitarians and others are discussed as well. We have such a wide range of people in this world, one of its charms. Why must we narrowly define things of this nature?