Not all religions mandate or even promote asceticism. And while to live an ascetic life requires a degree of discipline, being disciplined does not automatically equate to commitment to belief.
I agree: like I said, it depends on the religious doctrines in question. But my main point generalised was that
most religions out there
do promote (from 'divine sources')
certain discipline/asceticism. It's the selective memory of most followers that I find hypocritical - remembering all of the good things that the doctrine will bring to them (a utopic heaven and immortality), and quietly forgetting or extremely toning down all of uncomfortable elements (be it abstinence from drinking, drugs & materialism; philanthropy, etc.).
And asceticism has really nothing to do with use of religion as a psychological self defense mechanism.
Agreed again - my point is that asceticism should be practised if the doctrine is fully believed (for most of the doctrines
do promote this, to some degree - which is disproportionately followed by most "followers")
I do disagree regarding the religious self defense mechanism in most people (though certainly in some). Most people use religion as a social club. They go to church because it is the social norm, what they are used to, and because they feel that they 'should' without really thinking very much about why. It is part of western societal norms of decency that are several centuries old. It is assumed that if you go to church, you are 'better than' one who does not. Which isn't really true, given that mafia hitmen can be quite 'religious', but it is a cultural norm.
This parallels my views, although I think social issues can't account for
all of this, even if individually-speaking it is the most dominant factor.
From most of what you say, actually, it seems to me that we are for the most part on the same page - most apparent differences between our points seem to stem from simply focusing on different aspects, and your taking of my previous post to be universally applicable, rather than a 'for the most part of'.
But personally speaking I think religion is based on such flimsy and subjective evidence, that there's no concrete and objective point of reference to discuss anything - it seems that as a result, the participants in most religious debates, despite apparently polar-opposite views, are actually 'violently agreeing'. Consequently, religious debate universally heads nowhere.
For the record, I think a lot of the lifestyle tenets promoted by the various religions are most noble. If religion lacked this unprovable 'divine' stuff, I think I would quite certainly subscribe.