My point is that it seems hypocritical for westerners to single out Islam, or otherwise imply that Islam is particularly bad, considering that the west (America) is the cause of so much of it. America has wiped out so many progressive or revolutionary Muslim states and installed repressive regimes in their place.

It wasn't my intention to single out Islam or imply that it was somehow worse than any other religion, just note that we shouldn't be giving it a pass just because it's currently widely held among countries and peoples that are currently engaged in anti-imperialist struggle. It's also worth noting that these areas had secular socialist groups as well; Palestine had such groups until Israel decided to prop up Hamas as its preferred enemy. The Iranian revolution also had a mix of factions, not all of which were Islamist.

But I don't think it's fair to blame religions. It seems imperialists could weaponize any belief system at all. Even the most innocuous religion, only preaching peace and love, could be co-opted and used as a smokescreen for endless bloodshed. That's kinda what happened with Christianity -- a pacifistic anti-imperialistic religion got co-opted by the empire it was resisting, and used to further imperial endeavors for centuries.

It's not like Christianity was the innocent victim here; the early Church was happy to go along with the Roman Empire so long as it got a favored position. The modern notion of Jesus as a peace-and-love proto-hippie is contradicted in many places in the Bible (generally the parts that get glossed over nowadays), and there's probably a reason why the current flavors of Christianity rose to dominance while the harder-to-corral gnostics were stamped out. I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that all religions are equal here - there's a reason we're not complaining about Zoroastrianism and Jainism right now - but it is my contention that religions tend to have common features that make them useful to imperialists, including a mandate to spread, the promise to followers of an afterlife that justifies the suffering incurred in this one, and a way to reinforce in-group/out-group divisions and paint the out-group as deserving of extermination and that the ones that are culturally dominant now have achieved that by successfully leveraging these ideas.

Practically speaking, I think being completely anti-religion is counterproductive, since the vast majority of people (especially in the global south) have some kind of religion. You have to meet people where they're at. Also, it's kind of a bad look when it's mostly militant atheists in the global north condemning the opiate of the masses.

The idea that religion is too entrenched in the Global South to be deposed has a whiff of paternalism and glosses over the secular and indigenous religious movements that have had to struggle against the dominant, colonially-imposed religion. The construction "militant atheists" is also pretty rich given the explicitly religious coding of the recent major conflicts (Bush described the Iraq invasion as a "crusade") and that similar terminology was wielded against the "godless" USSR.

And then:

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.