This is just like the rules of Bitcion...you choose to conform to the morality by choosing what version you choose to follow. You can create your own, if you wish, but you'd be out of consensus with the rest of the network.

"Religion" made an attempt to define morality, and define its boundaries...that's true. But...

The concept of morality is largely a social construct and based in human terms.

It's a set of guide posts that help us in dealing with other people in a civilized way. In this way, we don't get to define our own morality-per say- we need to difine a common morality that does best to harmonize individual incentives across society. We choose to participate to social "norms", or not...if we don't, we risk being shunned. If we do, we are "accepted".

Great thinkers before us used the concept in an attempt to put us on a higher plain than the animal kingdom. If we viewed nature in terms of human morality, we would come up with a very different way of thinking about individual actions. "Eating your young" for example, is done often in the animal kingdom, but is not allowed in human society.

Religion is just a way of putting a supernatural wrapper around this idea for "normies" of the time to reinforce the ideas without needing to teach grammar, logic and rhetoric to explain it. That's where the short cut is. (A protocol is another way to do it 😉) It's not outsoursing, its just branded as "sin" for anyone that doesn't have the time to study the rationale.

Having said all of that, every religion and every sect of each religion has a different tolerance level for free thought. We each must choose wisely. Not all religions are created equal.