Bad is whatever you don't like
Evil is whatever makes you unhappy

Jynthier, sounds like you will be surprised, if one day you meet a seriously F'd up individual who'd you rather not have do onto you as he would have done onto himself. These people do exist out there. (for extra flavor we can say this person was made this way by religious fanatics)

I'll make another post later on about where society has been, and where it will /needs to go, and we can get into more concrete discussions on this aspect.

Why would that surprise me?  That's why good isn't specified by how I'm feeling, or how someone else feels about it.  Yet there will always be that feeling, when wrong is done, that wrong is in fact being done. 

On what then, do you base your certainty? 

Re: the highlighted...this is called the Natural or Moral Law, engraved in our heart and established by reason. 

There is no moral relativism for the faithful who follow Christ, Church teachings or the Natural law on moral issues. Moral relativism never enters into the equation or in the mind of the Christian who gives his first allegiance to God and His Divine laws.

On the other hand,  the philosophical point of view of Moral Relativism, though quite erroneous, exists as Orion's comments clearly show. MR central tenet is simple: the denial of the existence of absolute truth. To the moral relativist, the only truth is relative truth to the individual, so that what is true of one person need not be true for another person. Many people in the world are seduced by Moral Relativism.They are under sway of their emotions which have gained dominant control over their reason. 

No, it really doesn't exist.  They just believe it exists, but when put to any sort of test it immediately gets put aside in favor of moral absolutes.   For example, why do we have laws against killing people if some people feel it's okay to kill people?  "Well, that hurts other people."  "... so why is it wrong to hurt other people?"  And we end up in a circular argument that contradicts itself... it comes down to, "I can do whatever I want, but you can't."  Every time.  There is an unspoken of moral absolute behind the moral relativism, which is just placed on top of it to try and get away with something without consequences.  That isn't going to happen, so society, you, and I all have to end up, in the end, admitting that there is a moral absolute.  And this moral absolute can't have come from people, but from one above people, or else we really would be in a world of relative morals and there wouldn't be any grounds for not hurting others.

‘This is the end of America’: Bestselling author takes on the HHS mandate

OBAMACARE RULING AND CATHOLIC RIGHTS

Michael Voris views the Supreme Court decision and natural law. 

http://www.churchmilitant.tv/scripts/vort-2012-07-02.pdf

 

First Amendment ; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” How do you get from this to … here … and here ... and here???

Lula you are a gas: You are complaining about people who are trying to protect and divorce themselves from your (and others) dogmatic beliefs ... which is just what you are trying to do under the guise of YOUR freedom of religion??? The constitution provides no protection whatsoever for your religious practices because there is a higher power in effect (see first paragraph). You guys wouldn’t have these kinds of problems if you kept your religion in your Homes, schools and churches … and out of politics. Your conscience or lack of one has no legal standing at all. If you want to claim ‘nonprofit’ status, then there are rules to adhere to above your particular virtues. I don’t see anyone trying to force anyone else into doing whatever against their ‘will’ … besides you folk??? You are the only ones that allow for no other options or compromises, only steadfast RCC style dogmatism.

We're no longer legally allowed to keep our religion in our homes, schools... just churches.  Remember?  New law?

What new law would that be (???) that denies you this freedom … or is this just more wailing about your self-perceived religious persecutions? If there were some law to this effect as if, I would call you a fool to pay it any mind in your homes or private schools. Life is too short for self-flagellation like this. I don’t think you can back up even this simple statement of yours … at least not with facts.

GFTESS, 

First, I get the unalienable (can't be given away, taken away or abridged) right to practice my religion from God. According to the Declaration of Independence this truth is self-evident. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness."

 

I get the First Amendment freedom to practice my religion according to the dictates of my conscience from the clause (in blue). 

First Amendment ; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” 

America allows the free exercise of other religions too. 

What in the world does “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness” have to do with YOUR perceived idea of 'freedom of religion' anyway??? Does everyone have the same option, but of course not? What does this have to do with inflicting your peculiar ‘beliefs’ on society … just because? When you are done with your pity party, try facing reality for a change instead of excusing your way through it on a pipe dream. What rights are you even complaining about, the right to be fair surely not?

With today being the 236th anniversary of the nation's Declaration of Independence, in which America declared its freedom, one legal expert warns that Americans' first freedom is "under attack like we have never seen."

 

 

Kelly Shackelford of Liberty Institute  says the Founding Fathers listed religious freedom first in the Constitution because without it, all the other freedoms would fall away.

"The fact that our religious freedoms are under attack like we have never seen in this country is really a wake-up call as we enter Fourth of July for Americans who really want to focus on the future of this country in making sure that this country remains free," Shackelford comments.


He asserts that some attacks currently afoot were most likely unforeseen by the founders.

"We're living in a time right now where the federal government, through the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] mandates, for instance, is literally ordering hundreds and thousands of religious institutions across the country to violate their faith," the constitutional scholar notes. "We've never had the federal government order religious institutions to violate their religious consciences and their faith. And that's just one of many examples -- whether it's the VA [Veterans Affairs) banning the mention of God at the military funerals; whether it's valedictorians being threatened with jail if they mention God," or churches forced to go to court to expand their sanctuaries or set up a church at a new location.

Shackelford says, "It's like the red light that comes on that tells you there's something wrong in the engine." So the fight to restore religious freedom is in full force.

 

 

Here's something from the Heritage foundation...

Does the Declaration of Independence Still Matter?

But in fact the Declaration is more than a litany of complaints. Its greater meaning is as a statement of the conditions of legitimate political authority and the proper ends of government. It proclaimed that political rule would, from then on, reside in the sovereignty of the people. "If the American Revolution had produced nothing but the Declaration of Independence," wrote the great historian Samuel Eliot Morrison, "it would have been worthwhile."

Because all are endowed with these rights, the rights are unalienable, which means that they cannot be given up or taken away. And because individuals equally possess these rights, governments derive their just powers from the consent of those governed. Government's purpose is to secure these fundamental rights and, although prudence tells us that governments should not be changed for trivial reasons, the people retain the right to alter or abolish government when it becomes destructive of these ends.

The Declaration also insists we have the right to "the pursuit of happiness." A higher component of that pursuit, of course, is being able to worship as we please. What right is more fundamental than religious liberty? Yet as Heritage's Sarah Torre  wrote recently, that right seems to be under attack.

Obamacare's anti-conscience mandate has a narrow religious exemption that applies only to formal houses of worship. Countless other religious employers, like Catholic schools, hospitals, and crisis pregnancy centers, are forced to provide coverage for the mandated services despite moral or religious objections—simply because they step outside the four walls of a church to serve others.

Insinuating that faith should remain behind closed doors, not influencing or inspiring care for others, the government's narrow view of religion has created what some have called a "religious caste system." Only those considered "religious enough" by government bureaucrats are awarded religious freedom under the mandate.