But the desire to be as little of a dick as possible should be there and I think for most people, it really is.

Depends on your definition of "dick".

You can be a very agreeable person, and to you, "being a dick" would mean simply disagreeing with someone, since it is in your nature to act in harmony rather than (constructive) disarray. If you are, on the other hand, very disagreeable, it might mean "don't be actively involved in harming another person you've never crossed paths with". That's a broad spectrum of allowed ground: it would mean you are allowed to slight someone who did you wrong, including bloody revenge (if you're so inclined, but other factors - like aggressiveness and certain natural sadism - would have to play into it).

There seems to be no natural, objective line whereupon crossing which you'd be considered universally evil. Making others follow your definition is a disrespect to the natural differences between our worldviews and character traits. Any one person is not legible for setting that line for everybody else.

Not disagreeing with the quote, but adding a dimension to it that seems often missing.

I'd like to think that maybe if people think of religion as "Look at all of these wonderful things we're encouraged and empowered to do," there'd be a lot more positive focus and definitely more acceptance and inclusion

That's a good way to think of it. The problem, I believe, is how religions portray our flawedness.

If you keep telling me that I must eternally repent for the sins of an imaginary character simply because I am related to that character by blood, I would naturally not feel well about this idea. It's an application of an antiquated idea (that I am my ancestors, therefore I must pay their debts - vengeance gone awry) to establish what is, fundamentally, a reasonable idea (that we must improve upon our imperfect being) in an authoritarian way.

If, instead, you tell me why I'm flawed and what can I do about it, I'd be inclined to go ahead and do it. Now, I understand the rationale behind my nature and know that I'm not trapped in this terrible state of deep flawedness. I am enlightened as to my being and empowered to change it, as is in my nature as a human.

We're all flawed. There's nothing perfect lest we perceive it as such (thus, a perfect moment with the person you love is attainable). We can't act out our fantasies of power and control without consequence. I feel like the difference between psychology and religion is that psychology acknowledges and teaches us to be better.

It doesn't seem possible for religion to turn this aspect of itself around any time soon, if at all: there's too much baggage. I'm even going to say that there's too much trash: holding onto old, antiquated ideas, making no apology for the things the church as an entity made or allowed to be (as Stephen Fry so eloquently put) and continuing preaching the same old story that existed for millenia where the rest of the world has made moral, psychological and otherwise scientific discoveries about ourselves and other people.

If I were king, I would gather philosophers from all over the country - or, indeed, excellent ones from abroad - and make them use their understanding of the human nature and being to construct a system of beliefs that corresponds - and continues to correspond as time goes on - to the most accurate contemporary representation of existing as a human being. It is from that point that I would make them construct a supplimentary system of beliefs that would ensure that human beings who understand the main system could apply certain certified and tested methods to improve their own lives and, once they're rid of major flaws (like being incapable of holding a relationship due to fear of abandonment), others'.

I don't religion is up for the task as it is. Not with the constant news of how the church hides and protects their child abusers from justice. Not with the way priests drive expensive cars when their believes advice them to abstain from excessive luxury. Not with the fatalistic idea that we'll never be perfect as God has supposedly made us. At the very least, I believe a fundamental restructuring would be required. At that point, it would be almost easier to simply invent something new.