You seem to suggest that banning religion would end up wars or human nature.
And yes, noone should force everyone else, but not only om religious stuff. Sometimes there has been non-religious truths to which people are forced and that collides ireemediably with other thinkings.
I am not sure why one philosophical thinking should be better than other just bc it does not contain religion.
In fact, I consider a big part of most religious a compilation of wise advice about human nature. You can believe it or not, take it or not, that is a choice, but when not taken into fanatism I do not think it is harmful.
Again, that is not anreason to force a position to others. But there are a handful of things that are very controversial.
Nah. Between the two comments above there's an implication that in the absence of religion there would be somewhat less of those things.
The desire for wealth is one of the main things that makes it "somewhat less". But I think your "leave a void, someone will fill it" framing is too simple. Big religions don't block much greed, they overlap. So the increase in greed from knocking out religion would not be very much. Because of that and other overlap, the void is a lot smaller than the size of the religions that would be disappearing.
Neither parent was being this black and white about it so I have no idea why you are
In places where supposedly most of the people are in engineering or software, I’m surprised how often 1) people have to point this out, 2) people are willing to loudly pronounce their lack of basic logical skills.
In fact, in the absence of religion, the hole is filled with political power.
There is no void. If you leave a void, someone will fill it, after all. Bc there will still be social organization among us.