I'm a little unclear on why you make the assumption that people must work out without contradiction their commitments and justify their practices in terms of reason. While there are clearly moments for such justifications, it strikes me that this is not how most people live their lives. Not only is life rife with contradiction, but we engage in numerous actions which are embodied as opposed to discursive, and which are not only meaningful, but fundamentally lose or alter their meaning when put into language. (art, music, ritual etc)...when we explain these things, we change their meaning(s) through the act of explanation.

If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that there is something about religion specifically (i.e. its roll in genocide, colonial expansion, racism, etc) which requires us to work out contractions in our commitments lest we cause more violence, then you seem to be prescribing that religious people resolve contradictions (I assume it is a contradiction with "logic" which you are referring to), rather than (as you claim) describing a contradiction which must be resolved. This also seems strange, not only because you prop up "reason" where "God" once stood as a means of legitimation, but that religion has often been put to as much good use as evil (civil rights movement, catholic liberation theology, etc).

Which brings me to my next point—your insistence that "religion" is somehow a separate entity which we are capable of isolating (as separate from politics, economics, nationalism, race, etc.), describing, and then judging. I think it might be more helpful to look for the ways in which religion intersects with other aspects of society and culture; particularly when we are trying to explain why some might be "extremists" and others "moderates" (terms which are relative, and context dependent themselves).

Particularly in a place like jewcy, I'm not sure what pushing people to reject religion achieves, aside from challenging the inspiration and motivation which buttresses people’s life projects and creative capacity. Such projects and capacities need not come from religion, but why not extend your argument—why not strip down and force people to work out the contradictions which mark all their identities and practices? I think you'll soon find you're left with an empty vessel, the liberal ideal or the “sovereign self” who can create their identity and existence out of nothing. This idea is spurious at best (even as articulated by Marx) and has often served as a cover for those who actually have the power to impose their vision of the world onto others so that it ceases to be a vision at all, but reality itself.

We need things like religion--not as a bounded, ridged set of instructions, guidelines, identities, etc--but as a source of creativity, identification, and change. We should certainly be self-reflexive, and wary of those contexts in which religion plays a role in power and domination; but to jettison the entire project seems, to me at least, somewhat rash.