[Tom Jefferson]

It is a sad state of affairs, but if we can not even agree on what the authority is for defining right and wrong we can't even talk with each other about it anymore.

Can you and I agree that the basis for defining right and wrong is set forth in the 10 Commandments and the Judeo-Christian moral code? If we can, then we have moral absolutism, not moral relativism.

[CWRWinger]

Next time a moral relativist dogmatically says, "There's no right or no wrong", respond by saying, "And that includes your statement, also."
Notice, "no right or wrong" is not an inclusively relative statement in itself. And you've got them at their own game.

[poindexters brother]

You asked

Can you and I agree that the basis for defining right and wrong is set forth in the 10 Commandments and the Judeo-Christian moral code? If we can, then we have moral absolutism, not moral relativism.

Yes, you and I agree and we can discuss right and wrong because we have an absolute standard against which to test our assertions. When we try to engage Dan Rather, et.al. however, our standard means nothing to them, and moreover, they have no standard against which to test their own assertions.

I believe that Rather's way (which is now the domant worldview of our culture) is the path to tyranny. It leads to chaos and where there is chaos, there is always someone around who will promise to do whatever it takes to bring order.