Thanks for the thoughtful clarification.

I did not intend 'religiously' to mean fervent or faithful - although I realize that is how it's usually used, and thus was probably not the best way to communicate my idea. Sorry for the confusion.

I'm operating from the stance that there is ultimately not a useful way to distinguish a religious belief from a non-religious one - and so I think we should actually consider every belief to be a religious belief. Or perhaps, more accurately, that every belief either is a religious belief itself, or is derived from a religious belief.

And here's my reasoning: Religious beliefs are the things we believe, but can't prove, right? Or how else should we define them? But at some level, nobody truly knows or can prove anything definitively; we all start with some best guesses, and then we figure out all our other beliefs based on those initial guesses. But since the initial guesses are just guesses - and not proofs - we ought, therefore, to think of them as our religion. And since all our other thoughts derive from the initial guesses, they are all derived from our religion.

So in that regard, every belief is either a religious belief, or is derived from a religious belief. I don't see any other way around it, or better way to think about it. And so when I used the word 'religiously' in my comment, I really meant ‘based on a guess’.

And I think if we started operating under that mindset, we'd be able to have more fruitful conversations about where exactly we want to draw the lines between freedom of thought, speech, and action, in a global community where nobody has a privileged perspective on a definitive truth.