I do not agree with the use of the words religion and sacred in this context. The flag is a symbol that stands for something real, namely, the country and cultural order that allows us, or not, to live our lives. And in that sense it is very important, but not sacred (in fact, all empires will fall at some point, and this one seems to have passed its peak; nothing sacred about it). We stand at Gettysburg in remembrance of real people that faced real death for what they believed and helped in building what would become the empire. I may have the outmost respect for them and the ceremony may help us to work harder toward building a better union (to delay somehow its inevitable fall), but it does not need to be considered sacred. Civic acts in remembrance of real history are not sacred, and therefore their conglomerate is not a religion. Why using the terms religion and sacred at all? Reminds me of vegetarians that try incredibly complex ways to use vegetable material to prepare something that resembles meat. Just quit eating meat, period.

I had never heard of the phrase "civil religion." I guess that I feel that we can honor the worthy aspects of our history and culture without involving religion. That is what I would prefer.

I practice a lot of religious rituals with my family as well as religious holidays but I find virtues in them that are not of the supernatural I don't necessarily impose believes that might cost people their rights. It's like telling fairy tales to your children or reading fantasy books or performing in plays or singing Fantastical songs I may not believe in anything about them but still be entertained or appreciate the virtues they may promote.

I would be more likely to call these things traditions rsther than religions. Religion implies the existence of universal higher power of some sort.

While some people can certainly approach these types of activities with a religious like fervor, to call them religion just doesn't fit the definition.