[little jeremiah]

There are some basic moral absolutes which are common to all monotheist religions, and even some which aren't like Buddhism.

I'd list the basics as:

No murder.
No fornication. (Which includes other sexual vices such as sex with children, incest, same sex acts, bestiality, and so on.)
No adultery.
No theft.
No lying (especially in court or as a public statement.)

And then there's ones such as:
Respect the elderly.
Protect the helpless.

THese are off the top of my head. I am naturally familiar with the 10 Commandments; I am also famliliar with the Yamas and Niyamas of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, the Vedic system of morality, and have a passing knowledge of Buddhist ethics. Judaic morality as written in the Torah is the same as Christian morality.

Abortion? It's wrong to murder. But if someone rejects moral absolutes as given in the religions of the world, there's nothing at all with which to refute Peter Singer. If you aren't familiar with him, do a FR search.

I'm not advocating that all the above should warrant jail sentences when not followed. But if the "don'ts" are encouraged and glorified, and the "do's" are disparaged, then everything goes to hell in short order.

[risk]

I think our mutual enemy is post-structuralism, which in the wrong hands (most who use it) becomes moral relativism automatically. When truth and reason die, so do any hope for ethics, political effectiveness, and security.

The founding fathers would have been happy to debate you on the existence of God, or anything else; and they they would have been quite comfortable communicating on a rational basis.

But the post-structuralists, who by the way dominate our educational system, are brilliant at turning logic on its ear. Without logic, intelligent men have no purpose. While the uber post-structuralists make the case that their reasoning does not neglect logic, they represent an infinitesimal minority of those who use it. Its frequent companion is Marxism, and they complement one another well.

[B4Ranch]

>>No lying (especially in court or as a public statement.)<<

Why the "especially in court or as a public statement"?

When the justice system fail the people, why should we continue to honor it? Our Court system no longer seeks justice, just legal controls of the people.

Is this the type of court you mean?

Have you ever read this White Paper?

[notamused]

You can't like the A.C.L.U. they don't have morals.
Boy Scouts do.
Scouts are...
Trustworthy
Loyal
Helpful
Freindly
Courtious
Kind
Obediant
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean
Reverent