I think you're misunderstanding me.
Oh ok, my bad, fair enough, then I'll answer the question properly.
Without the distinction between the problem and the catalyst we could have people thinking that religious people are bad since they think religion is bad, I mean it makes sense right? In fact there were many religious families in Europe (many in the US as well) who's homes were torn apart and robbed with some families being beaten because of what the Catholic Church had done in the past. These were innocent people being beaten for crimes commited by bad people, but since they associated themselves within that same religion then they too must be bad. But this isn't how it should be and why we need the distinction.
The 'root problem' is useful in clarifying that we need to take responsibility for our actions and be held accountable. There are laws in place that inform us how we should/could act.
As human beings we should be able to subject ourselves to whatever it is we want to subject ourselves to so long as it doesn't interfere with other people. We shouldn't let a few (MUCH more than a few, I know) bad apples get in the way of human rights. Instead what should happen is already kind of happening in that people are becoming more and more aware and accepting of science and scientific findings. People aren't necesasrily becoming more atheistic but more questioning their religious values. Conversion rates are at an all-time high in the States with people becoming more 'spiritual' than religious according to PEW results and studies. A lot of European countries have been on the right track for a while what with their majority non-religious views.
The intelligence is there, society just needs proper education.