Don't you see a blatant inconsistency between you criticizing others for not putting their faces and names on a public attack to such high-status biases, and yet you hesitate to speak clearly even when you are anonymous through the Internet?

I don't think people have any obligation to speak publicly against anything, and I am not criticizing anyone for mere failure to do so. What I am criticizing is when people claim to be skeptics, free-thinkers, etc. loudly and proudly, while at the same time effectively demonstrating this skepticism and free-thinking only on issues where it's safe and easy to do so. (Safe in the sense that it won't result in a controversy dangerous for one's status, reputation, or career, and easy in the sense of sticking to topics where the existing official intellectual institutions provide reliable guidance -- as opposed to those where they are unreliable, or worse, and one needs genuine skepticism and independent thinking to discern the truth. Unless you deny that any such topics exist, would you not agree that they are the ones that represent a real test of whether one deserves to be called a "skeptic," "free-thinker," etc.?)

Right now religion is arguably still killing more people than any other bias in the modern world - and unless one defeats it and it's accompanying delusions of a just, designed, meant-to-be world, one has little chance of defeating deathist or other biases as well.

This is a complex and difficult topic in its own right, but in my opinion, if you operate with "religion" as a special category of metaphysical beliefs and accept the customary distinctions applied to this category in the contemporary ideological debates, you have likely already fallen prey to some deep and widespread biases. The main difference between ideologies and religions is, in my view, principally in the way that the former masquerade their metaphysical beliefs, instead of declaring them explicitly, in order to misrepresent themselves as commonsensical or even scientific. It shouldn't be hard to see that this introduces only greater problems and dangers, and recent history, in my opinion, readily confirms this. (If you don't think this position is reasonable, I can provide arguments for it at greater length.)

Moreover, if one engages in selective skepticism that consistently refrains from targeting high-status and official institutions, one can't avoid sending off the implicit message that these institutions are fundamentally sound and trustworthy, that we shouldn't be reluctant to put our destiny in their hands, and that people who have deep disagreements with them should be immediately written off as crackpots. Even if nothing of the sort is stated explicitly, such a message is clearly implied, willingly or not, and I don't consider it a positive contribution to public discourse under any reasonable criteria.