"we should treat it as any other irrational belief"

How do you distinguish between a rational and irrational belief?

I am strongly influenced by Kurt Vonnegut' "granfalloon" - "a group of people who affect a shared identity or purpose, but whose mutual association is actually meaningless". Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granfalloon :

> The most commonly purported granfalloons are associations and societies based on a shared but ultimately fabricated premise. As examples, Vonnegut cites: "the Communist Party, the Daughters of the American Revolution, the General Electric Company—and any nation, anytime, anywhere." A more general and oft-cited quote defines a granfalloon as "a proud and meaningless association of human beings." Another granfalloon example illustrated in the book were Hoosiers, of which the narrator (and Vonnegut himself) was a member.

What makes you certain that believing in "the US" is any more rational than believing in various gods?

To be certain, there is a consensus reality which says the US exists, and if you fail to go along with the consensus you may be subject to negative consequences. Just like if you fail to express certain religious beliefs, you may subject to negative consequences, even in secular countries.

"the idea that hijabs are protected and your employer must accommodate you"

This is not a correct understanding of the US law. An employer is not required to accommodate someone's religious beliefs if it would create an 'undue hardship'. See http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/qa_religious_garb_groo... .

For examples of 'undue hardship', see http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html. One is "It will typically pose an undue hardship for an employer to accommodate an applicant or employee’s asserted religious belief against providing or using a social security number.", citing:

> Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr., 192 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 1999) (hospital not liable for refusing to hire applicant who declined to provide social security number on religious grounds; because federal tax law required the hospital to obtain all employees’ social security numbers, accommodation of applicant’s religious belief would pose undue hardship); Hover v. Florida Power & Light Co., 1995 WL 91531 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 1995) (employee’s proposed accommodation that employer “make up” a social security number rather than obtain employee’s actual social security number posed an undue hardship), aff’d, 101 F.3d 708 (11th Cir. 1996) (Table) (unpublished).

Another example (example 34) would be if a nurse did not want to participate in abortions, for religious reasons, and the hospital did not have another position which she could transfer to, then the hospital could terminate her employment.

Or, for an example of how religious garb specifically can be prohibited, in Larocca v. Gold a lawyer who was also a priest was prohibited from "wear[ing] his Roman Catholic collar when appearing before a jury as a defense lawyer in a criminal trial" http://www.leagle.com/decision/1981806662F2d144_1792/LaROCCA... .

Religion is a highly personal thing, and for me, saying that you shouldn't discriminate people based on it is far different than saying anything relating to religion gets a free pass. There's a valid discussion to be had in the question of "when does a person end and a behaviour start?" - but alas that discussion is misplaced here because trump did not even attempt to hide his message in softer words.