The Constitution of the United States of America is Unconstitutional

Now, what do I mean by that?
The conclusion stems from the manner in which the court system has interpreted the so-called separation clause of the constitution. Government must prevent itself from becoming excessively entangled with religion according to the Lemon test, a procedure established via court precedent. But how do the courts define "religion"?
There's the rub.

From "West's Encyclopedia of American Law" (via Answers.com):

To determine whether an action of the federal or state government infringes upon a person's right to freedom of religion, the court must decide what qualifies as a religion or religious activities for purposes of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to be a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons.

Let's ignore for the moment that the Supreme Court made belief in God (as a type of belief) the standard required for qualification of a religion.

Using a common contemporary church-state controversy, does belief in young-earth creationism stand parallel to belief in God among those who advocate its teaching in government schools? If it were a less important belief in terms of comparison to God would teaching young-earth creationism then be okay?
The court seems to have provided itself virtually unlimited wiggle-room. The fairly recent challenges to the "under God" version of the Pledge of Allegiance illustrates the point even better. Is the belief that the United States is a nation "under God" a belief comparable to role of belief in God in theistic religions? That hardly seems to be the case. In practical terms, the court seems hold the sincerely-held beliefs about the nature of reality qualify as religious beliefs--except that ideologies are largely excepted. It seems that the courts do not really have a method for distinguishing between what is religion and what is not. If the courts ruled consistently, then the beliefs about the nature of reality (that it is best for a government to allow for a free press, that providing for the general welfare is a legitimate goal of government) that are incorporated into the Constitution become unconstitutional.

Thankfully, hardly anybody looks closely at the issue, so the courts are more-or-less free to rule as they will on issues of church and state without worrying too much about principle. They can set their own principles via precedent (tests such as the Lemon test), or, if the court is of sufficient weight, overturn the old precedent in favor of a new one.

The remaining problem, of course, is that the new test (like the old test) is essentially arbitrary and only ends up discriminating against beliefs that the court classifies as religious.

There's a way out of the dilemma, I believe, but I'm saving that for another day.