Two points, neither antithetical to the main thrust of your argument.

From the outside of any faith looking into Christianity, a defining characteristic of it is the persecution complex which you mention, but don't take to its logical conclusion. When a religion is strongly supported by the state, it's hard to play the persecution card, the us against the world card. When you are the establishment, it's hard to rail against the establishment. Many Christians seem to get off on that. Certainly it's a major part of white Christian male grievance now, with the "Freedom Convoy" claiming that their rights and freedoms, including religious ones, were being trampled.

Without that buzz of rebellion, a significant part of the energy of a religion disappears for many people. And a big part of the bonding tribalism disappears.

More tangentially, your assertion that people believe in science, and that science and religion aren't mutually exclusive is not correctly formulated. I suspect it's just amibiguity in the words, but to pull it apart slightly, science isn't a belief, it's a process. You accept the reality exposed by science, you don't believe it it. Science isn't a faith, and scientism is a nonsense word invented by people of faith to pretend otherwise.

And science and religion are mutually exclusive as they deal with very diffferent domains and have radically different outcomes, but faith in an irrational set of beliefs is not necessarily incompatible with the ability to rigorously apply the scientific method at senior levels, or to accept the results of science, it just makes it harder, especially around articles of faith. After all, Young Earth Creationism is fundamentally incompatible with evolution, and you have to paper over absurd numbers of observable facts with nonsense theology to deal with the disconnect.

Belief in an inerrant scripture is mutually exclusive with the vast majority of science and its results, I assert, although there are likely edge conditions even to that.