See, if you post an article in order to support your argument, you must first read the article.
It begins anecdotally about how religious fanatics like to ascribe religious meaning to U2's music. This part of the article says nothing about the band, it just lists how others react to them. This reminds me of people who love songs, even though they completely misunderstand them. The state of New Jersey wanted to make Springsteen's Born to Run - a song about getting the hell out of Jersey - the state song of NJ.
People think Mellencamp's Pink Houses paints the perfect picture of Americana, even though it's about hopelessly getting nowhere, and being stuck with the same shitty little house as everybody else.
Anyway, the article eventually talks about the band.
Their break with organized religion was probably inevitable. But it was still traumatic, which is perhaps why almost every U2 album contains a song about their decision to belong to a band rather than a church.
Greg Garrett, an English professor at Baylor, a Baptist university in Waco, Texas, explains U2’s lack of religious identification in his book “We Get to Carry Each Other: The Gospel According to U2.” In high school, Bono, the Edge, and Mullen grew close to a faith community called Shalom. Ultimately, they left Shalom. “I realized it was bullshit, that what these people were getting close to … was denial, rather than willful surrender,” Bono told an interviewer.
I don't read many books, but one of them was about the origin of the band U2.