A friend of mine read my article Midwits and Culture and had mistakingly took some things I said about religion (by my own fault for not elaborating) in the wrong way: I never outright denounce religion, but see it instead as a tool for keeping people in line.
While yes I do not believe in any sort or form of God (or Gods), I never denounce religion outright as an institution. I specifically avoided trying to say this as religion preforms a vital, tride-and-true way of community bonding and enforcement of the rights of the individual. I am in the state of mind that religion, when overstepping its bounderies, can be highly harmful on a nation's success (see instances of Iran and Middle Age Europe as examples), but there are also times where Atheism too steps over its bounderies and harms community, see The Soviet Union, The United Kingdom, and other failing European and highly secular American reigons that have lost their sense of identity. What I am suggesting is using religoin as a tool to bind communities, but never oppress individuals. Most, if not all, people need a community in some way to get ahead, its a mutual benefit for most people to participate in a community, but this must be consentual as refusal to follow seemingly arbitrary rules (such as religious doctrine on morality or secular doctrine on banning of showing religion) will crop up and respecting the individual is a key part of any successful, free nation. Hopefully this clears up some of the meaning of what I meant when talking about religion in that article, if anyone else brings anything up I will be sure to make a rebuttle (or correction) post here again.