but

But there is, the more I think of it, one thing like nationalism: religion.  Both are tools that the one or the few use to control the many.  Both are prime examples of both the "and" and the "or".  In both cases, these elements are used to bring people together and to create a sense of exclusivity among them.  And both, throughout history, have been means to horrible ends.  Religion, of course, is a much more powerful tool, for while nationalism appeals to pride, religion relies largely upon fear, a feeling of powerlessness, and the lack of any objective marker (other than a priest, imam or rabbi) upon which the individual can rely to tell whether he or she is on the right path.  For God is someone who can't be seen or heard.  And one who can't be seen cannot be destroyed.  And unless one can experience him through  visions or auditory hallucinations, one can't be sure how one should behave or believe.  And the fear, the fear of death and of harm, is a fear all biological beings are programmed to have.  And the sense that one "should" behave a certain way is a feeling all social units have programmed into us in order to propagate their survival. (More on this later.)  Thus, the religious leader(s) takes advantage of this fear, this uncertainty, by providing a "way". By thus doing, he resolves the terror of death and harm,  relieves the the uncertainty and exercises his grip upon the many.  And when one or some of the many protest that the evidence mitigates against the existence of a just God or a practitioner of miracles, the religious leader  chastises them,  saying this evidence, and the ability to close one's eyes, is a test of faith.
In religion, of course, we see other relationships.  Each practitioner is led to believe he or she is in a personal relationship with God.  However, when that individual reaches out to God, he or she neither sees nor hears anything concrete.  Which leads the practitioner to reach out for the religious leader for guidance on what he or she should be feeling.  In essence, the "and" reaches out for something that isn't there, and thus reaches out for the leader and the written word with "burning questions".  That leader becomes an incarnation of God,  answering those questions and assuring fidelity.  In sum, we see that religion functions in a similar manner to nationalism in acting as an agent of the "and" (providing for social cohesion among the followers) and the "or", in acting as an agent of their exclusivity.   However, for the reasons stated above,  "and" between the religious leader and his/her flock is infinitely stronger than the "and" between the nationalist leader and his countrymen.  The religious leader takes advantaget of the feeling of powerlessness and poverty of his followers, promising that in another world, all past wrongs will be remedied.  He thus appeals to their craving for justice.  He appeals to their fear, even terror of death.  He appeals to the human belief in a "should", in rules and the desire to know what those rules so, so one can be a "good" person.  He appeals to the uncertainty and confusion that results when the follower reaches out to God and finds no one there. All these bonds, when considered cumulatively, are almost impossible to break.
   It is also likely that the "and" between the members of a congregation or considerably stronger than the "and" between countrymen under the sway of a nationalist leader.  At most, the countrymen are headed towards world dominance.  The flames of nationalism can be extinguished, at least temporarily, by defeat.  Something as concrete as defeat is not a possibility for those who believe.
In sum, given the reality of the "and" and the or, the development of religion seems almost inevitable.  For it is the strongest manifestation of these two forces.