I understand this because I am an alcoholic. I'm addicted to the Internet and these days my body does not let me drink much. Last weekend I bought a 15 can pack of beer and did not even open it yet. I also have other booze in the house. I'm now a teetotaler.

I've learned to live with alcoholism. Religion is another story.

I suspect that those who are confronted with intolerance from religious institutions may tend to produce an equal and opposite reaction. I've been lucky that this is rare in my society. Religions wither and die of their own accord I don't feel any need to help them along. However where they demand religious privilege then efforts to oppose that are fair and just.

When governments make unnecessary wars sane people campaign against war - they don’t campaign against “government”.
But when it comes to atrocities perpetuated by religions, for some reason, many people say “religion” should be abolished. “Religion,” like “Government,” is not a thing, but a category. Things might be susceptible to being abolished, but categories generally are not.

The bad behavior of religious practitioners should be called out, just as the bad behavior of government officials, or indeed any person, should. But imagining that Religion, or Government, or Business, can or should be eradicated because bad things happen under their watch is like saying Science should be outlawed,
because... Monsanto. Hiroshima. Tuskegee. Auschwitz. Etc. Ad Infinitum.

If anyone would like to continue thinking “Religion” deserves to be banished but “Science” does not, you shouldn’t click on this link:
[en.m.wikipedia.org]

Every ounce of energy we spend decrying the demons of “religion” or “government” or “art” or “business” or “science” is an ounce that could be more constructively directed toward the ethical reform of human behavior in all fields. Bad behavior is real. Categories are ghosts.

If you truly follow the Abrahamic God he is a jealous god that requires the religious recipe you are part of to harm the other recipe of religion claiming it to be wrong. Eventually you or your loved ones gets his jealous god on and you as a citizen of such master racist religious recipes should not be caught as the Germans. It’s OK to be religious teetotaler. Don’t discourage it please

It is reasonable to abstain from something because it has a tendency to cause issues, problems or negative consequences, especially if there is first hand experience. In fact, one might consider it a logical conclusion. It is also important to understand what caused the problem. People used to get sick from eating tomatoes. It's true. People did not eat tomatoes because they thought they were poisonous. In fact, only the greens are poisonous. It was reasonable to avoid tomatoes but it turned out that the reason was incorrect.

Abstain from religion not because bad things happen to religious people or it causes people to do bad but because it is false. It is only as good as human nature. There is no god and so religion is not inherently bad. If you look for the positive aspect of religion, you might find some but it will still be fantasy and unreal.

I mostly abstain from alcohol because of the destructive force on friends that I have watched go down the rabbit hole. Not for any other reason than it put a bad taste in my mouth.

Imho, a persons choices are their OWN personal choices, be they religion, alcohol, drugs, sexual orientations, etc, and so long as those choice do NOT adversely affect/infringe upon others or the Community at large then so be it, they HAVE made their choice, they MUST live with it and any consequences resultant from those choices.
But, should they try to impose/force, etc, their choices, etc, upon those around them then it IS a NO WAY Jose situation in my opinion.
Personally, I 'hit the bottle' big time back in the early 90's, drinking as much as 2 Litres of Black Label Scotch per week at times and regularly UNTIL my G.P. noticed that my health was suffering. I then went on a treatment of medication that actually forces the body to become violently ill from a mere sip of any alcohol, that treatment went on for 6-7 months and was 100% successful, now, many years later, I have a " take it or leave it " attitude to alcohol and can enjoy the very rare and occassional drink of beer or spirits when and IF I feel as though I might like just the one.

That is about like asking if we should abstain from politics because there are Trump fanatics.

If someone is a severe alcoholic or drug addict, we try to get them the help they need to return to a healthy productive life, through support groups and rehab programs.

If someone is extremely religious, we give their organization a tax cut. Their is nothing in society to help people transition from "drink the kool-aid or else you go to hell and everything I don't like or understand is the devil praise the Lord amen" to some more healthy version of spiritual growth.

The end result is our leaders decide that to keep homegrown terrorists from joining isis they have to kick out and deny Imigration to all muslims.

Hit a nerve there Matias!

Should we not eat meat because a baby can't digest it?

We do fight what society considers to be toxic. First: any religion significantly different from “ours.” Second, any religion society labels as a “cult.”

Personally, I DO think alcohol should be banned permanently. Also cigarettes. Both are EXTREMELY bad for you.
Today, we have the potential to design drugs which perfectly mimic the alcoholic "buzz" without the disadvantages of hangovers, drunk driving, the violence, horrible health consequences, etc.
AND, like other designer drugs, the "buzz" could be devised to last a certain period of time like, say, the length of the party attended, or up until bedtime.
If we put all the money spent on cleaning up the mess alcohol causes, and put it into creating such a wonderful substance, we would save in the long run countless billions, even trillions, of dollars.
Similarly, we could invent a "religion pill" to emulate all the "warm fuzzies" religion provides the religion addict. For those of us NOT so addicted. I suggest a Manhattan Project to devise a religion without the toxic side effects:

1. proveable, at least circumstantially,
2. replaces all extant religions,
3. no holy books, dogmas, liturgies, rituals, etc., with lone exception of the Golden Rule. (In fact let's make that the name of this new religion.)
4. no churches or other 'worship centers.'
5. Please add own features.
   Of course, this is impossible.
   But making the new drug universally available (let's call it the Golden Rule pill) we can stealthily replace all religions THAT way.
   To address your actual point, I think it depends on the religion. Abrahamic religions are hopeless. Inherently toxic. Lots of religions to choose from, though! As an agnostic "deist," I can freely move from one "religion" to another effortlessly. Right now I'm favoring Gaia, that is, Mother Nature, with a smattering of Confuscianism, maybe some Buddhist reincarnational flavoring, along with...aliens, crop circles, lots of other stuff.
   I make a stew frequently...frozen vegetables and whatever else is handy. Because I always add different things, it always tastes different. "Religion" is that way for me.
   Depends on what I'm reading/doing/feeling at the moment.

Would be easier if they were a minority more religious extremist than you would believe evangelical Christians are just one example. There are some good people who are believers just not a majority