What is it in a religion that binds human with his environment that defines worldly morality for him? Religion becomes politically necessary to justify any act of goodness or, evil.  However, I don't think religion is necessary to make an independent judgment on moral and ethical issues. I think it is more of your conscience and your own relativity to the environment that counts, for a man, in my view, should be defined more by his core, not his religion, because religion blinds a man from seeing evil he's committing in its name.

An implication is that it is because of religion  people keep themselves from committing evil. Is it not? I disagree.  If you look at it more closely, it's basically a heed your "conscience" is giving to what it feels right, otherwise, had I considered and accepted the holy texts, I could have become a literal Jihadist who kept themselves from having free thoughts.

The assertion why religion is important is because it can give you some moral guidelines in an otherwise "materialistic" world. If one wants to cite examples where land expansionism and greed for more catapulted bloodshed, then he/she must consider reading history one more time. The expansion of empire throughout the history had been the prime reason why there'd been so much chaos around. In fact, religion itself had been quite materialistic and goal-oriented. Why? It's all about the Holy Treasury! The more the followers, the more powerful it becomes. There's no such thing as an un-materialistic religion. If there is such a thing, then that's spiritualism and mysticism. That has nothing to do with dictates of religion. It follows its own course, and remains quite personal.

Another assertion is the moral codes. As I mentioned earlier, morality is nothing but a personal judgment and that too depends on how you relate yourself to your environment. However, hegemonic dictates of morality have proved to do more wrong than good. There are times when the circumstances run stronger than predetermined moralistic impositions by the society. It is, but only a religion that gives no respectable place for homosexuals, ‘illegitimate’ children, women who have fornicated, or have even been raped in some cases, infidels, heretics, sense of humor, freedom of speech, lifestyle and thought.

Never under any circumstances can you find two people who can think alike, because they have their own convictions. What they seek is not a judgmental religion to lead a civic life in a given society. They need secularism that can ensure that nobody oppresses them, transgress into their personal liberties and that their right for protection is well guarded.

Not all ideologies are evil, or even the practitioners/ followers of it are necessarily evil. However, the very concept of religion, which otherwise wouldn't exist without its propagation is what I find troublesome on two counts:

1) When it tries to propagate its righteousness and is absolutely judgmental against those not falling within its realm. (Which religion doesn't say that only its followers will go to heaven?)

2) The second inherent trait of it is "preaching", which in my view is taken in two ways: brain washing by using fear tactics (fear of doing something that can result in God's curse/punishment) and the other is authoritarianism – failure to comply can result in one getting ostracized from the community, or even punished by death in some cases.

As for people like Desmond Tutu are concerned, yes, I admire him a lot, not because he used Bible as a justification to help bringing down the apartheid in South Africa, but because his intentions were much stronger than the religion itself to bridge the gap. But what if Desmond Tutu were a segregationist himself? Then his use of religion to propagandize in favor of apartheid would have been equally justified. It was the conscience of the man, and intentions based on it that helped South Africa move in the right direction.

The question is why can't this all be done without having to rely on religious beliefs? Are people really that naive that they cannot feel, think and relate themselves with their reality without having to rely on some sort of divinity about it?

Something's been stopping them to take such a "risk' to feel independently. That fear of rebelliousness against an orthodox is caused by none other but religious brainwashing.

This is about the illusions we create about our shaky existence in a world that demands conformity to homogeneous institution we know as religion. With variation in human perceptions, to consider somebody's lie as an absolute truth and legislate non-compliance as a punishable crime rapes freedom, individuality and soul of all those who refuse to subscribe to such unnatural bidding. There is no peace. There are just open confrontations, chaos, revenge and perhaps, bloodshed.

Perception of any god(s) comes with associations. They can't be perceived without an idea of personal revenge. And to link this personal revenge with universality has been successively tragic for civilizations. This can be blamed on primary denial of how God is actually a creation of our mind. What he universally wants to be depicted as, especially because of his powers to grant punishment and reward, as our absolute truth. Absolutism is delusional, and in a way sadist to the very human understanding that desires simplicity, but needs deliberate vagueness to ensure convenient suitability. But when this ambiguity is implied as divinity, it only suits a particular influential class who lobby into mainstream to dictate their needs to be fulfilled through certain hegemonic control. Yes, in a way, humans themselves are gods, and they have always transgressed each others’ liberties to show competition and power, to exploit the weak (the weak are actually the ones who claim to be stronger in their faith—because for them strict adherence and containment within religious constraints is crucial to ensure their loyalty). It is but a power play between the weak and the strong (those who know how to manipulate sanctimonious fear of the weak and use them as puppets for their advantage).

But then again, what is it that keeps us apart? What about those who don’t want to remain in any of the domains belonging to the exploiters and the exploited decreed through man-made laws in the land controlled for gains? So many incidents have we come across of murder, rape, public lynching, arson, land seizures, alleging serious charges of blasphemy and forced conversions to a religion.  What about the linguistics that have shaped itself to new bigoted annotations that call for alienation and complete subjugation of those who do not confer to the mainstream religion? With militants allowed to band together to be used as proxies against the vulnerable to entertain their far-fetched goals, how do we relate our loyalty if we start bringing less people friendly contexts that define to serve loyalty to the institution more?