You have that backwards. I believe that Religion will disappear after certain advancements are made. It's a biproduct of that advancement, not a catalyst for it.
As for "natural progress in society" and in people's values and lifestyles, a progress that would lead to the ultimat demise of religion, are you seeing this as getting helped along by swiping at, not people's rght to hold a faith, but their right to raise their children in the faith they hold as a family, to provide any kind of religious education for their childen or reach out to - yes - evangelize a local community?
Of course if one is convinced enough of the superiority and the non-biased objectivity of an atheist perspective - you guys are emoting and telling tales, my side is just being objective and sane - it might smply be argued that
- every time religion steps into the public sphere without asking every single person who could be present if they approve (and asking them before the outdoor mass, the blessing of a new building, the church-run flea market, the scholl visit to a church) can even get a permit)
- every time parents send their kids to sunday school without waiting till the children have grown up and can make a free choice of what religion they want, if any
- every instance of a christian, muslim etc cemetery being set up on ground that somebody else could have wanted
- every time an infant child is baptized or a boy circumcized (I'm saying boy
because that is the act that matters in a seriously religious sense and because I think the comparison with female genital mutilation is simply scaremongering, and unwarranted)
with all of those, it might be argued that a religion makes an intrusion past the limit of individual free self-governance ("I own myself and no one can make any decisions for me except if I knowingly allow it"). You could make that kind of argument and I've sometimes heard it. but how reasonable is it to define 'the freedom not to be exposed to any given religion' that way? I don't think ayone would dispute that if you allow people to speak a language
but make it a crime, with serious consequences, to teach the same language to their kids anywhere, to print books and newspapers in that langauge except for limited home circulation, to broadcast or make ads in the language, to use it in any way at any public-run place of work then you effectively kill that language within a hundred years. Religion often is like a living language, it can't exist without a faith community where people are able to get together outside of church services too, and feel free to take their religion into the public realm in some ways.