Defining religion as believing in things and science as examining things is a misleading approach. By your logic, Behaviorism, Communism, and Fascism are religions, and Catholicism is a science. (Catholic theology includes a number of conditions which, if true, refute the Catholic religion -- two contradictory infallible statements being the most obvious case.) I would agree with all of these propositions, as it happens, but I don't think that's what you intended people to come away from your post with. I agree that thinking doesn't have much of a lobby; but those who are not part of the rational-thought lobby include the people who most energetically assert that they are.
Also remember that "religion" is a very big word, with very blurry borders. Is Nietzche a religion? Is atheism? Is Buddhism? (Some of the greatest Indian Buddhists would say that it is not.) If being a religion requires being mutually exclusive with other religions, Greek paganism was not a religion (most of the time), China and Japan have never had religions (not even Mahayana Buddhism or State Shinto would qualify), and even Christianity's status as a religion is somewhat dubious -- look up the beliefs of the Taiping sometime.