When Hitchens says, "Religion poisons everything", I shout, "Hurray!", even though I am well aware of the meaningless, minute exceptions. I dare not say, "Well, you know, Chris, there are some exceptions that are worth pointing out..."
First of all, a minority is not meaningless. Look at atheists. We're a minority. Look at non-heterosexuals. We're a minority.
The difference here is that Hitchens is also aware of the meaningful
exceptions. I don't know if the OP is, though.
Also, given the wording in his OP and his unwillingness to explain the misunderstandings, it sounded like he was suggesting that we should do what many dictators have tried to do in the past - brainwash everyone who disagrees with us so they'll agree with us and, if unsuccessful, lock them away permanently or make sure that they can never express their opinions (remove freedom of speech), or even worse - kill them all.
I do not believe that this is what he meant, but I have nothing else to go on. No clarifications, no confirmations, nothing.
I don't agree with all the dodgings. I, myself, would have given you an answer. If I didn't have one, I would have to admit I was wrong. The OP might feel he doesn't have to answer. I would have.
And if the OP had bothered to justify his PoV, I might be inclined to agree with it, or at least understand it, depending on the evidence presented. This is all that I've wanted and asked for since I first posted here.
However, it is clear that this OP either possesses no evidence for his claims or is just here to post his opinion. If it's the first, then it is an irrelevant PoV, IMO. If it's the second, then this is not a discussion, and the OP doesn't care about "advancing the cause" at all; once again, IMO.