Maybe because the Greek word used in verse 26 is different than the Greek word used in verse 27? The first Greek word used in verse 26 does mean religion but the second Greek word used in verse 26 and the Greek word used in verse 27 means worship more so than “religion”. If you translate those words correctly you get a little better picture of what is being said.
James 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion worship is vain.
James 1:27 Pure religion worship and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
Maybe because the Greek word used in verse 26 is different than the Greek word used in verse 27? The first Greek word used in verse 26 does mean religion but the second Greek word used in verse 26 and the Greek word used in verse 27 means worship more so than “religion”. If you translate those words correctly you get a little better picture of what is being said.
James 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion worship is vain.
James 1:27 Pure religion worship and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
I checked: the word used for "religious" in v. 26 and the word used for "religion" in vv. 26 and 27 are etymologically related. (If you use Strong's numbers, the associated two are respectively G2357 and G2356.)
At least one lexicon explicitly mentions an emphasis on ceremonies or on the externals of worship concerning G2356 ("religion") but not explicitly G2357 ("religious"), but at least to me, the context in these verses doesn't seem to justify a recent usage of "religion" as a universal negative.
I just don't see the justification for that usage, whether in the changes in the wider language (we no longer ordinarily use "prevent" in its sense of "come before") or in alleged progress in our theology.
I even admit that seeing that sort of thing--for instance, "religion" treated as a sort of opposite of "faith" or "relationship [with God]"--raises a red flag for me concerning the credibility of what I'm reading or hearing.
Now, some people are indeed unclear on the idea that "having a religion" isn't the same thing as "having faith" or "having a relationship with God," but adopting this reaction is overkill--especially if you happen to belong to what by any reasonable definition is indeed "religious." (Included in "reasonable" is the suggestion that your definition isn't both nonstandard and tendentious.)
The original poster has posted about "rescuing souls" from "the bondage of religion" in--where else?--the "religion forum." ("In the Religion forum, on a thread titled Rescuing Souls, CynicalBear wrote:") I'm not being too literalistic about the name of this forum, but neither is the name meaningless or misleading.