Morality is a work product of society, not of religion. Religion just appropriates the morality that's already there and claims to be its inventor and protector.

Think about it: who comes after you if you break the law or don't pay taxes or leave dog poop in people's yards or molest someone's child? Is it the church? No, it's society, generally in the form of government law enforcement. Who comes after you if you fart constantly and lavishly at the dinner table? Is it the church? No, it's really other members of society, churched or not, who sanction and shame and pressure you over social taboos.

Sure, the church is part of society and as such influences the constant formal and informal dialog around what behaviors and actions and attitudes are [not] permitted and encouraged. But the fact is that the church itself must substantially conform to societal morality or it would itself be sanctioned as ... immoral. So what it does typically is practice a modified superset of societal morality with extra add-on restrictions, and also, demands certain exemptions for itself so that it can at the same time practice a bit of a subset. This is for example how the RCC gets away with molesting young children with relative impunity. It's how the church in general deploys special pleading so that it doesn't have to defend itself with actual evidence in the marketplace of ideas.

In general you're not going to get a believer who has been conditioned from the cradle to think that the world would fly apart without the "leavening influence" of the "body of Christ" in the world, to think otherwise. Merely suggesting otherwise turns their whole way of thinking about it upside down, and the result is their heads explode. The best I've ever been able to do is point out some glaring logical contradictions by getting them to agree to X and then asking "what about X in the presence of Y" type questions, forcing them to equivocate and backpedal.

A really relevant example right now is to get a fundamentalist to agree that, say, adultery is a terrible sin. Intolerable. Get them all stirred up so they state that in an ideal world it should be punishable by stoning, like in Biblical times. Then ask them when they are going to stone Donald Trump. Or get them to decry child sexual molestation, and wax eloquent about how pedophile priests are allowed to do their thing. Then ask them why they look the other way over Roy Moore or, say, Donald Trump's occasional trips on Jeffrey Epstein's "Lolita Express", or the really interesting confluence of events where Alexander Acosta prevented Epstein being exposed and brought to justice, right around the time of the 2016 presidential campaign, and then suddenly found himself with a high appointment to Trump's administration. Watch them suddenly say words to the effect of ,"well, that's different".

In other words their vaunted, arrogant, condescending, supercilious, self-righteous "morality" is all a great big sham.

It is irrational IMO to make moral judgments about another person. From my perspective a moral person is one who does things I like. If he does things I don’t like, then he is immoral. Either way, my opinion doesn’t mean much. Maybe I’m the one in the wrong.

JC got it right IMO. When asked which of the Ten Commandments was most important, he indicated that the first two were more important because they call for love, and are the basis for all the other commandments. But are those two really commandments? How can you “command” someone to love? Love comes spontaneously from deep awareness and appreciation.

So the root of morality and about everything else is deep conscious awareness.

Codes of morality and ethics come to us from way back in our evolutionary development. The first hominids who contemplated things outside themselves and began to delve into abstractions were the original inventors of such things. They learned the hard way lessons of how to treat their fellows in the clan because their existence depended on it. These ideas of fair treatment (moral conduct) and trustworthiness (ethical behavior) were massaged and considered for hundreds of thousands of years before they ever became part of any kind of written code. They have been written in many places by many cultures, the bible being just one of hundreds.

Folks of the religious variety (think Dead Jew on a Stick) like to draw distinctions between such things by saying that the bible was the first time morality was included in the mix. This is not at all true. Most laws don't need to say anything about morality. What the law and any associated penalties connected to it are designed to do (in the old days because things are a bit different now) is force moral and ethical ideas. For example, in the Code of Hammurabi there are laws against stealing from your neighbor with severe punishments attached to them. Anyone knowing this law and what would happen if they broke it would be motivated to behave in a particular way.

I have heard it said that you can't legislate morality, but that is nonsense. Most legislation is doing just that, either obviously and directly, or subtly and indirectly.

Morality is a system of values which regulates human interaction and not the interaction between humans and God. Actually God can be the reason behind someone's immoral actions. People can kill in the name of God! (See the bible). Also there are lots of similar examples in the history of religion. But religious people cannot see this and it doesn't surprise me, that's why they are religious after all.

Morality for me is a code of values to guide my choices and actions — the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of my life.