Re: Articles you might find interesting.
BTW, you are correct about judging religions according to today's standards. The Enlightenment was guilty of such chronocentric hubris.
However, the dominant power structures always appear to be religious in nature. Whether under the theocratic order of nebulous gods or the theocratic order of scientism, the control apparatus of the elite rests upon religion. Remember the quote from Bainbridge regarding secularization. There is no obliteration of religion, simply segues between religious paradigms.
I am not personally religious. I am a Christian, but I consider my Christianity a personal relationship with the Creator and not some formalized program of rituals. Thus, I concern myself with spiritual realities, not ritualistic practices with no spiritual value.
Religion, entymologically, means "to bind." Again, I have found this to be the case, whether in the case of theocratic orders or "secular" orders (which employ ideology as a surrogate for religion).
So, I am all for spirituality. I am not entirely in favor of religion. Of course, each person must make up his/her own mind.