> for that the obvious choice is religion. religions aren't good structures for transmitting knowledge and/or discipline because of their basis on blind assertion and authority. religions will generally teach the precept or the conclusion, but it won't teach the rationale that gets you to the conclusion. this means the conclusion eventually seems arbitrary or stupid; it becomes a "tradition," which is a solution to a forgotten problem. traditions inevitably get subverted or transgressed when nobody remembers why we started it in the first place and the only rationale becomes "because i said so," never lasts. they're obviously not good methods for maintaining knowledge from one generation to another; a book would work better. religions are also very obviously not as strong culturally or legally as they used to be 500 years ago. in nazi germany hitler didn't weigh in on protestant vs catholic, he obviously didn't consider it important, all the 25 point plan says about it is that if they start fighting he's going to shut them both down. in america we have religious freedom as well, because it's of zero threat to the power structure. if religion mattered or was strong it would be more tightly controlled. the obvious choice would be an ideology. ideology actually matters. you can be a christian or a muslim or a jew or a satanist even in america and government doesn't mind, but if you're a fascist or a communist you'll get treated to government scrutiny; because those ideas are actually dangerous. in america you can have religious freedom, but you're not free to not be liberal.
United States