Dear "In the words of no one" (nulliusinverba):
I don't understand what you mean by "religion".
By the term, I understand "giving to God what is his due", such as prayer and thanksgiving and honor.
By the term, "morality", I understand, "giving to neighbor what is his or her due", such as respect for his or her life, property and other elementary human rights.
Unfortunately, there have always been "priests" or castes of priests that stand between God and us using or abusing this charge to extort monies or services. In this way, they not only violate morality, but authentic religion: God does not need our goods nor does He want to rob us (if you want to believe it). These "priests" or "preachers" screw both God and human persons. The worst part about it may be that they give God a bad name. God is not a thief. But because of the priests, an outraged humanity rises up against the priests -- understandably -- and also against God, but God is not directly at fault.
It seems that you are starting from a misunderstanding of religion to justify a rejection of morality. Why mix the two?
Okay, so there are nasty preachers, priests and Pharisees, but why should rejecting God and religion be an excuse for rejecting morality as well? (And by the way, I believe there are also good priests and preachers.)
Here's a moral law, the most fundamental of all moral laws: Do good, and avoid evil.
As it stands, who can disagree with that? Someone may say "good" and "evil" are different for each individual, so this can't be a universal and objective law. But the "Golden Rule" defines good and evil in a way that almost everyone (except truly psychopathic people) can agree:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Do not do unto others, as you would not have anyone do unto you.
Does that rule not apply to (almost) everyone? If it does, then "good" and "evil" do have universal meaning and are objective, and the meaning of each term is not reducible to that of the other.
I think you should hold that "good" and "evil" and the Golden Rule provide an elementary groundwork for holding that there is universal, objective moral law. The problem of bad "religion" is a different problem that should not be mixed up with that of authentic morality, of rendering to the neighbor what is due here on earth, where we must live with each other.
@apollonius
I didn't reject morality in my article. I actually made a separation between morality and religion. I even mentioned how the 'Golden Rule' is something that most humans understand subconsciously and behave according to that. If they don't, the society usually rejects them. But even within the Golden Rule, morality can be subjective. For example, I will assume that the majority of humans will tell you that murder is a ''bad'' thing. But then if you go ahead and ask them ''When is it okay to kill someone?'' you will see that you get a variety of responses, subject to each individual's morality. Some will tell you it's okay to kill someone who breaks into your home, others will tell you that it's okay to kill someone who killed someone else. Some will tell you that it's okay to kill a suffering human to get him out of his misery and others will tell you that it's okay to kill only if your own life is being threatened. The point I made in my article that morality is subjective and it has absolutely nothing to do with religion.
Amid the commentary to your article, I may have lost its main thrust. I do not believe that there exists a perfect objectivity, so objective as to be deprived of all subjectivity. Similarly, I do not believe in a perfectly pure subjectivity. In particular, I don't see morality as purely subjective or objective. But I do have trouble with reducing morality to pure subjectivity.
Notice that if we can discuss whether in certain circumstances it's permissible to take a human life, we are nevertheless presupposing the notions of good and evil. That tells me that these are primordial notions that cannot be reduced to pure subjectivity.
And yes, "religion" is related to morality, but it's on another plane and not the same thing. Religion is between God and me, morality between me and other human persons. Maybe that expresses your viewpoint too.
Thanks for the clarification.
Jesus said, "Blessed is he whosoever is not offended in me." I had a problem understanding this because I could not comprehend why anyone would have issues with teachings that promoted peace among men of good will.
I found the answer in the conversation between Eve and the serpent [ caution - easy diversion ]. Eve was told, "...you will be like God, knowing good and evil". The word "knowing" includes the idea of DECIDING. The adversary was telling her she could decide right and wrong on her own, and the rest is, as they say, history. A history of chaos, heartache, destruction and misery.
Smart folks [ meaning those that worship intellect ] are offended by anyone telling them they are sinners [ antinomian - 1 John 3:4 ] or unqualified to decide right and wrong for themselves.