Read Seeger (the decision you linked to). Here's an analysis [1]. The decision is specifically about expansion of "religion" to not require belief in a suprem

Read Seeger (the decision you linked to). Here's an analysis [1]. The decision is specifically about expansion of "religion" to not require belief in a supreme being. Seeger supports my position. Again, they're not trying to define what is a religion, they're trying to set criteria for what falls under the 1st amendment. From the legal analysis linked below: "The Court rejected a distinction between beliefs derived externally (that is, from a religious tradition) and internally (that is, from purely personal beliefs). In Seeger the Court moved definitively away from requiring theistic belief — that is, belief in a Supreme Being — as a necessary condition for a belief to be religious under the First Amendment." And further, in 1970, Welsh v. US went even farther: "In Welsh the Court made explicit its rejection of a distinction between personal belief and affiliation with, or practice of, a recognized religious tradition." [1] https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/240/united-states-v-seeger https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/240/united-stat...