Weakness and Religion

been speaking to a few of my friends about religion. the topic just came up randomly, but they all had different and interesting views about religion that i want to share here.

Keith, avoiding the topic, said that religion is a personal experience that is difficult to explain to others without them experiencing it firsthand. this was an argument examining why religion and religious experience is so difficult to disseminate and spread in the modern world.

Keith's girlfriend (i forget her name), said that religion was for the weak, and that it was a tool for those with less morals to abide by to get them to follow the law and civil society.

Kashish had a mish-mash of the two.

my view shares some sentiments with the "weak" argument, but in a less derogatory fashion. if we call others weak, are we not implying that we are strong? thus, i feel that religion is for the "weaker" of us, but that does not mean that we can judge them based on this, for all of us are still weak. what is important to know and remember, is that religion is simply a social group, a structure created and adhered to by the "weaker" who need to have hope, who need a reason to hope and strive on in life. these people who are "weaker" may be in their weak situation by circumstance, and they do not have the energy to carry on. thus, clinging on to an external symbol may be the only way for them to continue living. in this context, then calling them "weaker" may also be a misnomer (!). in a way, we who have all the comforts of life may have no need for religion, but those who do not may view it as an indispensable part of their life. why it has this effect on them can be explained psychologically, but i will not venture my hypothesis here as it is tangential, but i definitely have an opinion about this as well.

speaking more about my thoughts about religion, think of a group marginalised in wider society at the moment, such as the LGBT. they, too, form school clubs and band together to practice and bounce around their ideas about their own identity and their place in society. likewise, in my university there is a catholic club. assuming that most university students are not religious, the religious ones have to band together to find like-minded people to hang around with. this is fine. the main problem with religion and the religious nowadays (or maybe we've just begun noticing this recently, rather than before) is that they have an almost antagonistic belief and view towards some of those that do not subscribe to them, and they act to cause harm to those same people. the imposition of these beliefs and worldviews are the problem, that should be stopped. groups that advocate coexistence are fine. groups that impose on others are not fine.

two other issues raised:
1. fundamentally, is religion flawed as an outlook? if all religions tell their followers to "spread" the belief, is it in fact a parasitic, expansionist and imperialist philosophy that is immoral? (note that this in itself fuels the debate about the existence of an absolute morality)
2. if we accept that a part of religion and religious belief is this form of evangelism and conversion, then would it be wrong for its followers to not act on this? is it truly possible for religion to still hold this principle of evangelism while remaining civil and not imposing itself on any other groups or people?