Thinking on it religion has two techniques it uses to ensure it stays tied into the issue of morals and ethics in society in order to sustain its sense of self-importance and influence on society.
1) The ability of religion to impose its views on society
And
2) The ability of a religion to adapt to changes in a societies morals
Looking at the various religious belief systems the first of these techniques is by far the prefered means and can be extremely sucesful as it taps into peoples vulnerability fo childhood indoctrination and peoples willingness to cave in to peer pressure, or at the very least suspend their skepticism. It also makes good use of oppression through mental and physical assaults on individuals who deviate from what that faith considers acceptable behaviour. Even better their brain-washed masses are enthusiastic (At least those on the top of the pile) to dish out punishment as they've been deluded into thinking that they'll get some kind of reward when they die.
The second technique seems to be adopted by the more benign and englightened (I use this term in a relative sense) religions who have lost their iron-grip of society and instead must bring their beliefs in line with that of the majority of society. Take the CoE's stance on homosexuality and women clergy which has been softening (Although not across the board) over the last few decades. In some ways this is good but in others its bad as it also means that such flexiable religions can adopt the most heinous beliefs simply to appease their followers.
There is also a major problem with religions claiming that they are the source of morals and smugley pointing to their holy books rules (Or more commonly a select few of the more humans ones) as proof of this. Not only is this a rediculous claim but its also plagarism as religion certainly didn't invent morals. Morals are part of our behavioural evolution.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
