"I think that a pluralistic society is far healthier."

Well, it depends. If by pluralistic society you mean that anything goes, I think it needs qualifying. A fully pluralistic society in political/social terms would include socialists, conservatives, fascists, revolutionaries, antisemites, Islamophobes, homophobes and mysogynists, all given free rein. Some things are just wrong and should be opposed. In extremis, the law may be invoked to maintain human rights and proscribe hate speech. I think that religion has done, and is still doing, far more harm than good. It is your human right to embrace whatever beliefs you want to. It is an abuse of someone else's human rights to force religious instruction on children. Many people of faith will use a number of excuses for why this should be sanctioned, including vilification of people like me who oppose it even though its traditional and promotes a cosy sense of community among like-minded people. If your definition of a pluralistic society includes the right to sign up your child to a very adult club at birth and make them sit under classroom crucifixes and chant mindlessly repetitive prayers in an attempt to brainwash them, then I'm not with you. That's certainly what happened to me.

By the way, I don't think the word "belief" belongs in any definition of atheism. An atheist is a person who admits to not knowing whether there's a God or not and who lives his or her life fully free of any shackles that God or any of his adherents might impose. That should not be taken to imply a fence-sitting so equally balanced that the pointy timber on top of the fence is digging uncomfortably into one's scrotum, legs akimbo. Au contraire, if you look carefully from one side you can just see the tips of my fingernails showing at the top.