The field of religion and its definitions are as complex as those for science Scholars point out that it’s difficult to define religion in terms of set content. Many religions involve belief in God – but not all do, and there are different versions of what ‘God’ means. Some, but not all, have ‘scriptures’. Ditto hierarchical structures, a particular saving figure, mystical experience and an elaborated beliefs test. And then there’s the exclusion clause: “my religion is true, all others are false”.  
Rejection of religion is itself a religious position It is saying that ‘My deepest convictions regarding life and death are different from what I understand religions to entail.’ That may be true, in which case this becomes an alternative religious position. Equally, it may be that within the range of religious traditions there are very close similarities. Religious language is diverse, sophisticated and subtle. Armistice should be a reminder that though the word ‘Religion’ may be used to refer to hardened institutional traditions, it also signals a universal concern for long term meaning and future in my own life and that of the universe.
No surprise in the reaction to all of this which concludes: “I can do without all of that – I’m not religious”. Such a judgement makes sense only until it emerges that this is itself a religious position. It’s a personal basis for day to day living, which might say “I’m free to do anything I want to do”, which is either lived out consistently on all fronts (quite difficult), or qualified when it’s realised everything is not always acceptable (but why not?). Armistice should be a reminder that though the word ‘Religion’ may be used to refer to hardened institutional traditions, it also signals a universal concern for what individually and/or collectively matters most in life and death. In and out of school, in the interests of peace and justice, this deserves special attention.
A story of confusion over religious meaning by GK Chesterton – and on his part?
“The following extract from a daily paper seems to me both strange and interesting in itself and curiously symbolical of the world in which we live. I quote it first as it stands. - A dock-worker who said he was “not religious” gave some trouble to the Rotherhithe Coroner’s Officer when he sought to induce him to take the oath at an inquest yesterday. The Coroner’s Officer commenced: “Repeat after me, ‘I swear by Almighty God’.” Witness “No, I don’t.” Officer: “Repeat, ‘I swear’.” Witness: “But I won’t.” “Will you take the oath?”  “No, tain’t religious.” “Then affirm, ‘I do solemnly and sincerely affirm’.” “No, I shan’t.” The Officer: “But it is not religious. Repeat, ‘I do solemnly and sincerely affirm.’ “--” Yes.” “--” Repeat it. “--” “Yes.” “Will you please repeat what I say? ‘I do solemnly and sincerely affirm.’ “–-” Yes.” Officer (sternly): “Will you either affirm or take the oath?” Witness (looking disgusted): “No.” The Coroner: “If you do not, you will get into trouble. Repeat after the officer.” Witness said he would not, but the officer urged: “But it is not religious,” and witness consented to have another try. Finally, he rounded off the last words of the affirmation with the addition of the words from the disliked oath “So help me God, Amen.” It is a very appropriate prayer for a docker in these days. But what interests me in the incident is the curiously vivid portrait of two frames of mind–the mind of the working class, and the mind of the class that considers itself above it; minds that are both vague, but vague in very different ways, and which do not understand either each other or themselves. The sulky and muddled honesty of the docker, the worldly and fundamentally frivolous patience of the officer - these are the two elements of society to-day, and I think rather explosive elements. The poorer and more ignorant man has been told by somebody that religion is a fraud. But though he thinks it is a fraud, he cannot endure its being merely a formality. He inherits just enough of what our fathers meant by the existence of God to be an Atheist. The official, on the other hand, does not in the least dislike this disrespect to the celestial authority of the Bible. But he does very much dislike any disrespect to the earthly authority of the law-court. The man who disbelieves in the oath thinks it important; the man who administers the oath thinks it ordinary. The poor docker was left free to invoke any gods or no gods, so long as he respected the magistrate: as Swinburne says, “a visible god.” Doubtless the docker would have been allowed to make his deposition in any of the ways which may, for all I know, be required by the widely varying fashionable sects of our time. Doubtless he might be sworn in the manner of the New Thought, standing on his head; or of the Higher Thinkers, suspended in the air; or as a Futurist, by saying he would tell the truth to-morrow morning; or as a Christian Scientist, by disappearing altogether, like Apollonius of Tyana. But he must choose one or other of the methods officially offered him; he must extend his reverence to the court, the magistracy, the civil power. This seems quite reasonable, and there is a sense in which it is quite reasonable. Nevertheless, the fire of something finer than all such reason was smouldering in that little Atheist docker. In some blear-eyed way he had the instinct that modern religious liberty is only the obverse of modern social tyranny…”.
Illustrated London News July 18^th 1914, p 3. https://www.illustratedfirstworldwar.com/item/our-note-book-iln0-1914-0718-0003-001.
Chesterton’s may be wrong in interpreting the man’s reluctance to swear as evidence of atheism, when it actually arises from his perhaps Quaker belief that swearing an oath is itself wrong. According to the Sermon on the Mount, plain speaking should itself guarantee that truth is being spoken.... What people actually mean when they use or reject religious language deserves careful listening and exploration.