My epistemology combines pragmatism with existentialism. Naturalism works in supporting scientific and technological advances, which in turn support capitalism and thus liberal civilization. Theistic religions may have other social functions, including outdated ones, requiring us to update our myths. Pantheism could do the trick. I've argued these points in lots of other articles.

The upshot is that I sort of agree with you, but for different reasons. Calling naturalism a "faith-based" "religion," though, is an empty semantic move (or a sophistical tactic of Christian apologetics). "Religion" has several meanings, so we'd likely have to equivocate in comparing naturalism to theistic religions. Is Buddhism a religion in exactly the same sense as Christianity?

I remember taking a course on the anthropology of religion, in which we learned that there's only a family resemblance between the world's religions. Naturalism may be comparable to theistic religions in certain respects (both may be based on ideologies that unite social groups), but not in others.