Haha. Agreed. I suppose it was not the best form to express my notions on religion, eschatology, and ontology; all of which are interwoven even in their independent use of disciplinary terminology. I was attempting to be rhetorical and draw attention to the nature of religion not as a need but as a system constituent of faith. Religion is not a business, its purpose is not to serve us, but for us to serve 'it'. Humans need food, we need water and shelter but we do not need religion per say. 'Religion' will not give us these things, that is an abstract hope that religious hierarchies feed the uncultivated and which is championed by the bourgeoisie. Religion has nothing to do with humanities need for 'it'.
For example, Islam by definition means 'submission'. Religion, in my interpretation, is about giving and not needing, and it is in this understanding that I think religion is in opposition to the concept of need. As such I maintain my statement, 'Religion is not needed'.