I think it has to do with a deeper need of acceptance and inclusion. People will rationalize their beliefs with enough degree of plausibility in order to fit in, even if it means a bit of a sacrifice of integrity along with it. Individuality is something hard-pressed to pursue for many. Safety in numbers is easier than self-actualization. Fear of individual freedom drives a conservative approach to life. Identity is found outside themselves.
Clicks, is what comes to my mind. Maybe I'm slightly autistic, but never understood, nor knew that clicks existed in school. Although my mind quickly felt drawn to the saying, Don't walk in front of my, nor walk behind me, rather walk by my side. I always preferred group decisions rather than allow a 'leader' call all the shots. I worked with a fellow who one time said, "I went to a church and observed from the rear. All it is is a social group, no real attachment to the religion." I feel it might be the Nuclear family, we've lost so much, at least in my family. Lost the extended family. These group allow a Camaraderie without deep personal connections. Like a TV on in an empty house helps dissolve the chill of being isolated. But yes, I was in a group which most obviously over looked blatant dependencies of rules. I've never met any religious person who wouldn't wash over an insane belief but still say they were a follower. I was always of the frame of mind that if you didn't completely all that the faith professed. You ought not stay.
Q;The fault lies in fear, and those who are controlled through it. Others control them through their fear. They hide from reality in their fear. Fear keeps them from life.
Fear is a factor with forced groups, N. Korea comes to mind. Or Control in USA of fear of losing jobs and sorely needed benefits. But in self chosen groups, perhaps the need to be needed. Everyone has their specific emotional needs, but humans mostly seem to mostly want to extend the infant / parent model for their entire life. I often simplify human behavior as similar to dog pack hierarchy.
Q;I wouldn't call that as much a secular agenda, as a postmodernist one. Postmodernism is at its better end, more inclusive of a spiritual perspective than a strictly modernist, rationalist, atheistic perspective.
'I prefer a secular agenda'; I prefer a community based upon secular and not spiritual guidance. Community by full group choices. Keep personal concepts of life and death to the individual to mull over, and never as a group of robot believers.
Q; That's an interesting interpretation of that. Do you take that statement to mean free for individual interpretation, beyond what the speaker is telling you what you should understand from it?
Simply that all groups/organizations seem purely to exist to obtain wealth, power and control at the top. All of the, secular, business, religious. I used Saul/Paul just for example of a religion gone wild. Many professional teachers, in it for the money. The purity is gone as they all evolve into MLM. For example I'm mulling over what a political third party would work best and stay free of the sociopaths who will always seek out the top post where money is control and handled. It must be able to accept donations, but strictly anonymous. None of that money can go to any person to provide a personal living. All must be volunteers, leaving the monies for practical party actions. Which primarily are advertising. Just a rough idea and mind experiment on how to prevent the inevitable corruption all groups and organization eventually devolve to.
When capitalists meet Jesus, you get a religion.