I think you're onto something here. I'm highly skeptical of the idea that anyone needs religion specifically to teach them morality and ethics, but some people really do seem to yearn for the structure that religion provides.
People want structure. They want to know there is order in their environment. Atheists can create that order themselves.. but not everyone is equipped with that ability. Religion creates a lot in a person--abstract thinking, challenge, success, second chances, etc. etc. It isn't like adults don't know right from wrong on their own.. society dictates that generally (however flawed and not-actually-right society tends to be sometimes) .. but let me take a smaller scale example.
My sister was told "no processed foods--no 'white' foods" which she took to mean 'wheat bread instead of white, no junk foods, no potatoes either' in her diet she was given by her doctor. I challenged her and said, "potatoes are not junk food nor are they processed at all... So why do potatoes rank up there with donuts? And isn't flour processed the same way regardless of if it's wheat or white?" and she had no answers to give me. Without any science laying the foundation, the rules that really seemed clear to her were suddenly arbitrary and .. well.. stupid.
A lot of debate, science and evidence based practice, and even more personal opinion based on personal experience all went into answering my question after that. And the personal experience was necessary.. She knew onions were a good-for-her food and don't require banning despite clearly falling under the 'white' umbrella and this diet saying she shouldn't eat them. Sugar was a bigger criminal in her diet than potatoes. She feels better when she gets to eat whatever she wants at least two times a week, and she knows her weakness is sweets and prepackaged foods. Even so, she can still follow the diet knowing those things aren't really true and see if the diet works for her or not and try to reason why as she goes.
If I were to replace such a simple thing with a more complex issue like killing a person... While society can account for debate (via court rulings and sentencing), and evidence based practice (with laws and what's generally acceptable and what studies are showing and if those studies are valid or not), only the person can fill the void of the last bit. Is there ever a time it's okay to kill another human truly and absolutely? It's a question only people can answer and the answer is subjective to whatever society agrees upon. Having society on the same page generally is beneficial to everyone.. and religion is a great unity tool. Even if the message is stupid in some sections (like women can't teach and should be silent) the bigger over-reaching messages (Jesus's story of the fish and bread shows he accepted EVERYONE who was there and fed them, regardless of if they were douchebags or nice people, and thus people should accept others and help without judgment) are not invalidated by the writings of humans in times long ago where saying those things was okay in society at the time.
But I don't think that paganism or wicca have any generally accepted canonical texts? So I'm curious to hear your perspective on the double-edged sword that religion seems to be; whether your own faith and/or the big western three and/or others.
Wicca has some... writings that are considered fairly standard. No big Bible-esque thing, the idea is to create your own (commonly called a book of shadows) masterpiece filled with your experiences, ideas, spells (what wiccans call prayer), and encounters. Sometimes people mooch off of other books because they have wiser words or they're just too young to have experience truly yet or.. simply want to experience things from another person's perspective. Nothing wrong with that.
But for me personally.. not having a standard, and creating my own standards as I went along, really helped me develop my critical thinking as a person. Of course, it isn't for everyone.. my sister lacks critical thinking entirely, and has no desire to develop that aspect of herself. She doesn't find it desirable to have. Everyone's different. But the big message of the diet (no junk food, eat vegetables, limit your sugar and eliminate white sugar entirely, more protein, etc.) makes the diet (even though it's misguided in its reasons and representing things a bit wrong here and there) not a terrible message.. and perhaps even a good one if she can stick to it and enjoys seeing results. (Of course, it's a difficult diet, and she might end up falling off the wagon after 3-4 weeks of it. Most religions are not easy to maintain in one's daily life and require active effort and thought.. so most people just sort of change it to suit their needs and walk mindlessly after that.)
(Buddhism seems to be mostly lacking in terrible ideas, but then I'm not an expert on Buddhist texts.)
I take issue with Buddhism because while zen is enlightenment and all of that is cool sounding or whatever... it seems like the way to get there is to lack spirit and zeal in things. I just can't vibe with a message that doesn't emphasize the richness one gets from competition, challenge, and feeling things intensely both good and bad. Taken slightly wrong, the message can quickly turn into 'be apathetic about everything and you won't care enough to suffer anymore.'
I think the yearning for spiritual structure is also very much a double-edged sword. There seem to be a lot of people who are all too happy to do whatever their religious leader or holy book says, regardless of compassion or reason, simply because it creates that feeling of structured fulfillment. If such a person falls into a group that focuses on all the positive aspects of religion, all well and good! But if such a person falls into a hateful and backwards religious group, s/he will live just as zealously by that hateful belief system. Thus some individuals and even entire congregations become cancers to society.
People think they get their best ideas in the shower. In actuality, people get their best ideas when they're comfortable and doing a mindless task so that they can think. The shower fits both of those criteria. Being active in one's daily life is difficult.. active thinking, actively making decisions, and actions, and making results happen.. it is exhausting.
Having to currently deal with the pressure and awkwardness of being pretty much hated just because I wasn't born into a religion, I can see why people would be resentful of it all. But... Those people are anomalies. And people have to remember that.
For every one Jihadist terrorist there's over a million Muslims that would never hurt another human. For every Westborough (howevertf you spell it) Baptist Protester there's a group of Christians building homes for people in central america and passing out food during disasters. For every douchebag atheist that just screeches like a hen every time a Christian farts there's plenty who are fine to be surrounded by others who don't agree with them, respect and accept them, and still live their life the way they choose. A tool is a tool.. and if people use those tools for bad things, the tool isn't transformed magically into something evil. It's neutral, and subject to the chaos or order that society brings to the table.
The crusades were a lot of people doing a bad thing all at once.. and a great demonstration of the power of religion.. but there are other psychological factors at play that stretch far beyond the religion itself. Religion had little to nothing to do with WW2 and yet millions of Jews and other groups were killed. Their religion didn't dictate that on either side.. psychology and sociology had huge plays in that, and the hands were stained with bystander effects and other well known principles of people following in masses blindly.
So I wouldn't let the anomalies cloud the message necessarily.
