Put this here, as to not sidetrack the thread.
I can't say I agree with the below definition,
"Religion is the institutionalized way to mass control through dogmas, rituals and vane hope.
That's why most people are leaving the churches because they're beginning to realize that religion is a lie and instead they are taking on spirituality which is more of a personal search, people are free to choose what is beneficial for them."
For one, I think religion can be individual. whether born from or in use.
Additionally I do not believe religion always created or used for the purpose of controlling others.
Philosophy, History, Math, Art,
Do not have to be created with the purpose of controlling others,
Do not have to be used with that as purpose.
. . .
I don't think politics fits under that definition either, or religious the one below.
"being religious is more like being political."
Though religion 'can and 'has often had a role in the law, that is because people's laws are often formed by their values, and their beliefs/religions are high values.
If a people believe murder to be wrong according to some Deity/Working of the Afterlife/Or even just in this world,
If they argue such and their argued beliefs become agreed upon,
The beliefs can be seen as a religion perhaps, whether as an individual's view and creed, or a group of people holding and practicing similar tenants.
Such beliefs are often spread and taught to others,
But not always for control, not always forced.
Many times simply offered, or seen in another,
One can 'say control, but if I offer someone else a hand up, is my intention to 'control them into taking my hand?
I don't think of it that way.