Nowadays (Christian) religion is being criticised from the Left and from the Right. The criticisms from the Left have little originality and can be summed up by "F*** you, Dad!" approach. As with so many things by the progressives, militant atheists appear to be forever stuck in the teenage rebellion against authority.
The Right, on the other hand, with just as little originality, resuscitates the talking points of Nietzsche about "slave morality" and drones on about the inherent limp-wristedness of "Turn the other cheek" approach. (Outside of these two groups there also exists the autistic "spaghetti monster" approach, but they hardly deserve any serious consideration).
In other words, lefties claim that religion in general and Christianity in particular is too authoritarian, while rightists think it's not authoritarian enough. There is no denying that any authority can be easily abused by those wielding it and that it certainly happened in the church, too, and will probably happen again in the future, since no human institution is perfect.
The modern liberal idea that since authority can be abused it should be abolished altogether, doesn't seem to be working too well, though, and its full as opposed to partial implementation, will eventually lead to total anarchy. Anyone who doesn't engage in magical thinking should be aware of that. The criticism from the Right about inherent pacifism and otherwordliness of Christianity has some grounds in reality as well, especially when we take into consideration the doctrine (or the lack of it) preached by modern, liberal churches. Unfortunately many contemporary Christian bloggers either don't discuss this topic, or are too busy trying to earn their credentials with the progressives.
On the other hand, we too often encounter (no doubt, well-meaning) conservatives who will comment about the problems of society and then say something along the lines that "these people need Jesus" and if they find Him, things will change for the better immediately.
As a Christian myself, I surely can agree with the thesis that everybody needs Jesus in their life, but religion is only a part (though a very important one) of a healthy, functioning society. The late Lawrence Auster once had a discussion about it on his blog, which I can't refer to since I don't have the link, and his blog contains an awful lot of material. So instead I'd like to feature this article which presents a very interesting point of view on the topic:
The essence of religion is realism
While it states that religion by itself is not enough, it also demonstrates that religion is necessary for a healthy society to function properly and that its rules are not arbitrary, but do in fact, keep a society, any society, from degeneration.
Below is an excerpt:
Those who hate the methods of civilization — religion, identity, aristocracy and culture among them — try to style religion as arbitrary.
They wish to portray it as its own domain, which chooses its ideals for
its own convenience, rather than what it is: another method of
describing reality and regulating individual behavior correspondingly so
that civilization can thrive. Through culture, we study success in
social and family matters; through aristocracy, success in war,
diplomacy and leadership; through identity, principle and purpose.
Through religion we discover success in discipline of our souls, but the
subject of that study is reality itself.