Religion certainly plays a regulatory role within society - historically, for a very, very long time. It also promotes values such as charity, empathy, and humility as virtues. The problem, unfortunately, is that this system of order is frequently abused in practice - just like the legal system, whose guidelines are often derived from religious values. So it is not religion itself that is the problem, but the way it is abused.

A good example of this is the ultra-conservative Christians in the U.S.: Since this ideology is being exploited politically to promote a ruthless form of hyper-capitalism that serves only a tiny elite, there is no room for values such as humanity and empathy, which the Bible clearly prescribes as positive values. Thus, inhuman policies are legitimized in the name of God and Jesus, though only those aspects of religion that enable the propagation of “in-groups” and “out-groups” are utilized. On the one hand, this serves to convey a sense of community, and on the other, to deny all rights -including the right to exist - to anyone who does not belong. Of course, this could no longer be reconciled with Christian ethics, but since this is not about ethics but about power, these schizophrenic movements are nevertheless very successful.

This logic is present in nearly all forms of religious extremism - from ultra-Christians to fanatical Muslims and Jews to Hindus and so on. These fundamentalist movements always have one thing in common: they are not interested in good, peaceful coexistence, but solely in the dominance of one group over another, which is because they are political movements whose leaders use religion merely as a means of power to legitimize their inhumane ideology.

But please don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here: It is not religion itself that is the problem, but the way it is abused to pit people against one another and distract them from who actually benefits from the corresponding policies.

This effect is by no means limited to religion: the same can be achieved, for example, by emphasizing nationality - in this case, concepts such as “foreign infiltration” serve as a backdrop of fear, so that the corresponding out-group can be denied basic rights, even their humanity.

I don't disagree, but it's precisely these "moral frameworks" that lead to rigidity, stagnation, in-groups and out-groups, and so on. These "frameworks" externalise/alienate "morality" (from the subjective, emotivist sense) into something sacred, inviolable, that exists above us (absolute morality, "the truth"), and whoever controls this morality controls everyone else. And this goes for not just religion, but every ideological+social "framework" in general; the centralisation/hierarchicalisation of power is inherently susceptible to exploitation and corruption. Even science, for example: consider how "objectivity" has been used as "absolute truth", when what it really is, at least in science, is the union of many subjectivities.

The subjectivity of our experiences is inescapable, by definition, really (what is experience, if not subjective?). So when things are justified with "morality", "duty", "objectivity", oftentimes it is to obscure this fundamental subjectivity, I think; there's this kinda taboo dynamic to it. But if we instead embrace our subjectivities, we can see ideas for what they are and where they come from, and use them as tools for building community (or whatever else we might find useful), without letting them become exploitable backdoors to our minds.

I think you're both right. They are right about religious institutions in class societies. You use the word "initially" and are right about religion in those very early, classless societies called "primitive communism". When people started using agriculture, classes arose with material surplus, patriarchal structures formed to manage inheritance of that surplus and over some time, the violent suppression of oppressed classes by the ruling class was taken up by various institutions that coalesced into states. Religious institutions fit in here. They became tools of oppression or were oppressed and destroyed themselves. Those that survived fell in line. And their task in class societies is to produce hegemony. In a revolutionary moment, religion has sometimes been adapted to serve liberation and that could happen again.

It's important to make these two distinctions when talking about religion. First, between individual believe and organized religious institutions. Even a deeply religious person can still condem all religious institutions. And second, based on the societal context: religious institutions at what time, in what society? Religious believes of members of which class? Do they help to liberate or oppress? Do they urge to accept circumstances or to fight for freedom? Both is possible.

There's also a third distinction that comes up often: between orthodoxy (for example what's written in holy scripture) and lived historical reality.

Personally, I'm an atheist, but I have religious friends who I respect deeply.

Maybe we can think of religion as a multi-tool. Such a tool can be used as a screwdriver, a nail file, a bottle opener, etc.

OP is saying religion has always been used for control. However, religion can be used for many other things as well, like spiritual fulfillment, moral guidance, and providing a social community. It being used for control doesn’t mean it can’t also be those things, just as a multi-tool used to open a bottle can also be used to tighten a screw.

At least, that’s the way I interpreted this situation.

What makes you think I’m not fully aware of that?

I’m talking about the dangers of exploiting religion, which remains one of humanity’s most serious problems, as is currently and undeniably illustrated by the monstrous regimes in the U.S. and Israel, for example.

I never said that religion should be rejected outright or that it cannot also do good.

I don’t understand how you came to that conclusion.