Meh. Freedoms are freedoms, and people want them for whatever reason they like. I don't think this really tarnishes anything.
If a vague reference to the "Mark of the Beast" applies to a lanyard, then why isn't my [belief] allow me to get out of [whatever I want].
Courts have often ruled that rights of minors can be restricted in school. Fighting that is enough of an issue to try to get a judgement call on a particular fine point of someone's faith.
(To put it in policy debate terms, there's a more obvious (though still plenty blurry) bright line for privacy violations than there are for individual faith exemptions).
(edit, sorry, to note, I don't disagree with you, but the courts have also placed limitations on "religious freedom" as well. There are lots of things in the [various religious texts] that aren't allowed under US law, regardless of the individual's faith, etc, etc.)
The stereotyped view of the US is of a nation gripped by religious fervour with crazies at all levels and branches of legislature and executive and judicial and etc government.
I've seen many things which would have been unthinkable in the US before 9/11 become normal afterwards. I've seen many privacies and freedoms become restricted.
While you fight this on privacy grounds it's useful to have other people fighting this on grounds of religious freedom. It leaves you free to make the arguments that you're comfortable making; that you really believe in, and it provides more people to apply pressure.
Again, I think people are treating me as anti-religious. I seriously just want "privacy" to be the forefront issue. It's much more universal, it's easier to make a brightline ruling on and it's not subject to the muddying of people saying "my religion prohibits me from, paying taxes, doing jury duty, etc, etc".