If your position on the issue would change if we replaced the Sun Salutation with the Sign of the Cross, it's a good bet you should reconsider your position.
Once again you fail to understand the basics and pull random facts from your arse to contort reality to Gbaji-land. One is series of stretches that can easily be detached from any sort of religious undertone and the other is a highly religious gesture that is not only an activity that is impossible to separate from its religious undertone but is as far from physical education as one can possibly get.
If neither of us had ever heard of the Sign of the Cross, and someone did it, would we assume it was religious in nature? It's a series of motions done with the body. Period. It's no different than waving, or a salute for that matter. Yet we don't assume a religious undertone with those? A NAZI salute has a specific connotation to you and I, but there's nothing inherent in the salute other than our own associations (and they aren't religious in this case either).
I'm just pointing out how arbitrary some of our interpretations can be. What if it was an Islamic prayer position instead? That's got some stretching involved. Is that ok as long as we just don't tell people that doing this stretching exercise, while facing a specific direction is also a religious act? Does ignorance make it ok? At the end of the day, that particular stretch, the prayer pose at beginning and ending, and every step in between were created to fulfill a physical act of prayer. In this case, to the Sun. Does just not telling people what the exercise's true meaning is make it ok?
I'm not even taking a firm position here. Just pointing out that things aren't nearly as cut and dried as some people seem to like to think.