I am having trouble here sorting the linguistics from the feelings (and whatever else). Perhaps tomorrow will be better.

My thoughts:
1. Lincoln was a Marfan. It influenced his thinking, his brain, and his religion. (So was Amenhotep IV - check out his religion some time.) He was known at times to speak truth as he saw it, and to see it differently than some others.
2. Primate behavior studies are surely important to this discussion. Humans seem to be hardwired to small communities, and to us-them thinking. This is ideally useful for a politician or religion that wishes to create a following just by separating us-good from them-bad.    I am not sure we can outgrow it.
3. An introduction to Carolyn Myss would be good as well. She began by studying how humans used their available energy, and explaining it very well. Then she (a Catholic) tried to bring religion on board, but was lost studying the difference in Catholics who used all their energy in belief, and those who gave it over as something for their God to worry about rather than themselves, and allowed something else to take over.
4. There are, IMHOP, clearly defined inner-directed and outer-directed individuals who will never be able (perhaps) to understand each other. It seems to be built in. You can put an inner-directed person in an outer-directed fundamentalist family, and the person will just grow up and walk away. The reverse is also true. If someone is looking for an external guide, he or she will find it.
5. Religion can mean too many things. Either experience or belief in many categories. I can speak for hours here, and perhaps will.
6. Some people choose politics for power/prestige/money -outer directed goals, some for what they see as human betterment - inner directed goals, or self-delusion. Choosing to appear to support a particular religion that many are already trained in is an ideal door for those who wish to profit from already trained followers.
Am I staying on subject?