@MakBerberovic Gonna do this point by point once again.
1) What you're describing is only a "disease" in rhetorical terms, yours, and religion is hardly the only or even the primary facilitator of abuse or coercion. That remains the state form, which is almost certainly younger than religion at large.
2) Which religion does sexual education clash with? Because it does clash with "religion" itself. The answer the question I posed is clearly fundamentalist iterations of Christianity, as well as Islamic fundamentalism and similar tendencies within other religions.
3) Not making excuses for abuse and being more empathetic does not equate to not continuing to be religious. If anything you can find plenty of atheists who will make excuses for the abuses of other atheists, even while condemning the abuses carried out by religious groups. Look at the New Atheist movement for instance. For some reason a lot of them decided to defend various abuses that feminists were talking about, and some major figures went on to commit sexual harassment, while repeatedly claiming that they're victims of some feminist conspiracy against men.
3) I'm not quite as worried as you about the future I describe. Struggle is in many ways a cornerstone to the anarchist analysis. Some of us, however, may choose to embrace that wholeheartedly, and others simply try to, ironically enough, pray it away.
4) "Abrahamic" is barely a thing. It's an ambiguously convenient umbrella term designed to mesh Christianity, Judaism, and Islam together as sort of interchangeable parts of a shared family in a way that ignores crucial differences between the three of them, especially Judaism.
5) Religion is not some great seed of conflict or "tribalism". Humans have the habit of finding reasons for fighting each other. But even then, I would say that the conflicts I describe are potentially avoidable. The thing is, people could choose to not fight other people over religion, but they instead choose not to. For the Christian, or similar religious groups, they fight others because the word of their God demands it, so that all of humanity may be converted. For atheistic anti-theists, the religious must be fought not even because of oppression but because, to by the likes of William Gillis, such beliefs pose an inherent epistemic threat to the agency of others. For this reason, they choose to fight, even when they could choose otherwise, because the strictures of their philosophical dogmata demand it.
6) Your device for "mitigating tedium" does nothing except obscure your subject. You're renderning yourself unable to discuss what you mean to discuss, or understand what you mean to understand.