Atheism: The Fallacy

Per Wikipedia: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

I disagree. That claim is lacking in logic. A more honest assessment would be:

Athiesm is the religious believe in the non-existence of any deity.

But let me be clear: Atheism and theism are on equal footing,  as neither can demonstrate through reproducible experiments the veracity of their theories. However, most believers are quite happy to acknowledge their faith, while most atheists pretend that theirs is a simple matter of fact.

If we properly understand that atheism is a belief system, then what of the ACLU challenges mounted by the atheists?

These cases then reduce to the demand by one religious group to dismantle the demonstrations (statues, signage, etc.) of another religious group. I grant that this does make them nearly unique among religious groups. The only other which seems bent on obliterating other groups is Islam.

But think of it, long and hard. If you can offer a solid proof in support of atheism as other than a religion, I am all ears.

Update:
A few people on other sites have challenged my position, as I expressed it here. They hold with the definition given by Wikipedia. A rejection of belief in a deity is a position only incrementally different to agnosticism. Most of those I have met who proclaim their atheism are adamant, often strident about it. Theirs is no longer a rejection of belief--it has become a belief in the non-existence of God. To some, the distinction may appear subtle; I do not find it so. It is a glaring difference.

Hard-core atheists try to read the 1st Amendment as declaring the right to freedom from religion. Sorry, but that is not what it says. These are people who are antagonistic to the faithful. They file suits through the ACLU to banish any religious display from public view. These people do not merely reject the belief in a deity--they propose to reject the right of others to such a belief.