I think if you reflect on your basic proposition: "religion does poison everything", I think you may begin to realise how visceral and unreasoned it is. Its like reviewing the last 100 years and reflecting on the millions killed by the followers of nazism and the further millions killed by the followers of communism (Russia, Cambodia, North Korea etc) and concluding: "You know, ideas position everything".
If you are anywhere in the western world you cannot even now be immune to the impact of Christianity - do a tour of England and visit the Cathedral towns and tell me if your heart is not moved by the concrete forms to which the spirit of the middle ages reached or do you want to make a caveat such as "Religions posion everything but architecture". Have you noticed the manic way people engage in seeking money for charity - where does this come from? I would say (and check out Islamic cultures to see if they replicate the west and I suspect they do not) that its origin is Christ and the gospel. Do you want to make a caveat such as "Religions posion everything but architecture and charitable giving".
And what is the origin of hospitals, where did they come? Monks caring for the sick.
And, listen to Bach (a Man for whom his Lutheran faith was everything) and let you mind and heart be moved or listen to Gregorian chant at a monastery and then say: religion posions everything or would you like to qualify your statement and say "Religions poison everthing but architecture, charitable giving and music".
Now take a journey to the National Gallery, London and go to the Renaissance rooms in the Sainsibury's wing and look at the beauty of these ethereal images of Christ, his Mother and the saints and unless your a philistine, your heart will respond. Now, perhaps would you like to qualify your statement and say "Religions poison everthing but architecture, charitable giving, music and paintings".
I could go and on but we both would get bored. I think what I am trying to say is that the proposition is fundamentalist one which is also unscientific.