Well, 'Religion' as an abstract concept does tend to make people more loving, tolerant and open minded- not to mention that it gives peace, and above all, liberates from the fear of death.
HOWEVER, in modern times, religions are hardly ever 'abstract' or for that matter, personal- it tends to have a social, collective identity of its own; an identity which tends to be shaped as per the whims of a laughably small minority of the said religion's followers: the so-called 'leaders'.
That is where the danger lies.
I think that religion CAN advance development, but only if we take the trouble of carefully weighing each teaching that our respective religions offer us- and separate the evils from the actual gems.
I'll take an example from Hinduism, for example.
As per widely accepted Hindu laws:
A)"One should always go barefoot inside sacred precincts, as an act of respect."
Well, there is no such things as an excess of reverence- so I have no problem following this. Some things SHOULD be sanctified
"Amongst Bengali Bramhins, at least, a widow is not only allowed to dress up, she is also prohibited from eating non-vegetarian food."
Huh? So, it isn't enough that the poor lady lost her husband, AND she's always expected to wear drab clothes, but you have to go and place restrictions on her FOOD too? Why? If her husband loved her, I see no reason why his spirit/soul would be satisfied to see her unhappy and deprived.
This is the kind of teaching which should be rejected altogether- and the people who believe in them should be made to feel as low as possible- they don't qualify as humans in my eyes; and I have no pity or patience with them.
Religion, can be and is, a double edged sword.
