Glyn Bindon was the founder of this company (formerly known as Armson Inc.) that's been helping to supply the U.S. military and various other agencies for many years. I find it hard to believe that the U.S. military did not know about the Christian themes imprinted in their equipment until recently.
You know Islam is often criticized (deservingly) for its high tendency to generate extremism and "terrorism". Yet reports like this illustrate that religious extremism is non-exclusive to Islam.
Religion cannot create itself. Human beings create religion. It's neither bad or good. It's simply a conceptual tool that people can use as a means to reference the natural urge of believing. In broader terms, it doesn't necessarily have to do with spirituality and divine faith, even. Consider the word "Religion". In Latin, it translates to "Religio", as well as "Religare" which means "to bind to", "to be bound to" (in other words to rely on). The word "Religare" also means "to reconnect" -- Re = "again"; Ligare = "connect".
You see many people (including myself before) often blame religion for many of the problems in this world. But that conclusion is inaccurate. It's like trying to convict a gun for murder. Can a gun shoot by itself? Likewise, can a microphone sing by itself? Just because Humanity has created destructive religions, it doesn't mean that religion in itself is destructive. A religion's ideology, whatever it maybe, will always reflect the mindset of its creator / author. It's simply a reflection (a reconnection).
Are religions today (and most throughout history) dangerous and destructive? Yes. But that's because they were created from dangerous and destructive mindsets.
You can't successfully fight intolerance with intolerance
I believe the best thing we can do is to come up with a way to end religion...
If I'm reading that correctly, then I will respectfully disagree with your approach. Remember that Christianity and other religions have a long disturbing history for condemning and silencing any form of dissent or opinion that did not agree with their doctrines. I can understand why you maybe anti-religion (I assume for ethical reason), but going overboard with this position can mutate into a form of religious extremism in itself -- as it may eventually parallel the same level of intolerance as that of the religions you justifiably criticize.
Like I said, it is not the concept of religion in itself that is the problem. The problem lies in the extremist mindsets which lay the very foundations for these dangerous religions throughout history.
Similar to you, I do not respect these destructive religious ideologies and their forced indoctrinations. But I respect the right for people to choose to be religious. If we seek to take such choices away, we fall into the same pattern of forcing our beliefs on others. By doing so, it could be perceived by others as a form of forced indoctrination as well. Because of the potential perception, it could stir away readers from possibly supporting your stance against destructive religious ideologies. That would then be an example of how anti-religious movements can be used to reinforce religious movements, either inadvertently or deliberately.
Besides, you can't possibly "end religion". There's just this natural urge for people to attempt to believe "beyond" themselves sometimes. People have imaginations, and with imagination comes creative incentives for art, theologization, competition, storytelling, technology, exploration, the list goes on. What I think you wanted to say was to find ways to prevent religion from becoming intolerant, forceful, encroaching, domineering, oppressive, tyrannical, and genocidal.
Though we may agree on many issues, our approaches to these challenges can be different.
The problem lies in the extremist mindsets which lay the very foundations for these dangerous religions throughout history.