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.