Sartre

Ok, so I have been reading some old philosophy and I have just finished much of the early work of Jean-Paul Sartre. By early work I mean before he became a political activist and protester. Anyway, I was reading about his existential theories on freedom and it occurred to me how wild it is for a person to believe in an individual’s freedom so much that they denounce the fact that the person in question may have chosen religion freely rather than by obligation. Basically Sartre has decided unilaterally that religion (particularly Christianity) is not a decision one makes freely. Also, wouldn’t the decision that God does not exist constitute denying of one’s freedom to believe?
And lastly, his views on nothingness seem to me to be his way of filling the place where religion generally fits into a person’s life. I know it seems odd to think of nothingness as a filler, but he makes reference to ideas like: “nothingness lies coiled in the heart of being --- like a worm.” To me, this nothingness has substance and it fills the void where religion generally resides.
To be considered a great philosopher and to have this as one of your main points with regard to freedom, I am sorely disappointed. One last thought, I could write contradictory statements and paradoxes and give them meaning but that doesn’t mean that in reality they actually hold up. Example: referring to the idea of God as “objective existence of a non-being.” I rest my case.
Conclusion: Monsieur Sartre, I am disappointed.