people are flawed, so is religion. Rigid views that can't adapt are comforting to some, but can marginalize an organization over time. Personally, I respect "cafeteria christians" more than whole-hog doctrinaires, because they've at least thought about their religion, rather than allowing someone to dictate to them.
Plenty of people 'see' the hand of god (by whatever name) in their everyday life. Shall we disenfranchise them and call them fools for seeing Mary in a muffin? Beyond that, churches are social clubs, and give children a good early exposure to a moral code. Shop around and you'll find a variety, ranging from infallible KJV bible zealots to barely-recognizable as religious unitarians and non-denominationals, wiccans who only believe in skyclad sex magic, pagans who earnestly and strictly believe in Gaia, buddhists who hardly deserve the name and those who are a shoe-in for nirvana. They help some people, and comfort others they don't directly help. That's good enough reason to let them be.
I don't deny that there are nearly as many flavours of religion and believe as there are people.
But there can only be one truth.
Truth is not a flexible thing. Either it is, or it isn't.
That means those many many different flavours of believe are by definition not true. Only one of them can be in theory, and what are the chances of that?
If there is something supernatural, chances are no one got it right yet, and as long as there is no evidence there is no reason to believe it.
And evidence means, something universally observable, verifiable allowing others to come to the same conclusion.
The face of Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich is no different than seeing bunnies in the clouds. Someone can be convinced it is true, because he WANTS it to be true, but that doesn't mean the Easter Bunny is real, even though you can't disprove it.
It is also true, that some people draw some form of comfort and hope from religion.
But again, those is true for all religions and beliefs, so for most if not all people this must be purely psychological or a placebo effect. No supernatural being required.
Religion as a source of morality...
Yeah, can't let that fly, as I always find it mildly insulting when religion is declared a requirement for a moral compass.
That implies that atheists are immoral, which is not the case.
I am sure you know a few atheists and you wouldn't call any of them immoral.
Morality comes from reason and compassion for others and is found in any social structure.
What is or is not moral is defined by our experiences and what we deem acceptable behaviour in a social context.
No ancient books that claims exclusivity on moral required.
Now if someone finds himself incapable of being moral without his religion and starts murdering, raping and stealing, please, let him stay religious, it's saver for others. but I trust that this is not true for most human beings.