I'm not the one who throws the term around as though it means something.

If I can guess what it means based on the context you fundies use with it... it mostly seems to be a belief that morality can be based on reason, whereas whatever the alternative is is a static morality based on something written and ignoring where it came from originally, I suppose in the thought that no morality can exist unless we trace it straight to God.

If that is the case, I'm definitely a relativist. I believe morality is created through reason and aside from a few universals, the ones based on empathy (not stealing or killing, that kind of thing), tends to adjust to times and is carried through religion. I fail to see how that is bad.
I can respect the idea that morality needs an anchor, but I don't agree with it.

The other guess I have is that "moral equivalency" is just some blanket phrase that means "stuff Democrats do" because they're so evil.

Either way it sounds like a term you just throw out because it has some negative baggage given to it by the far right and no one really knows what it means.
Sort of like how your definition of Democrat seems to be a bit off and just a term used for irrational negativity.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

There were other would-be prophets during Christ's time- John the Baptist, for example. Even Judas was likely involved in some movement to overthrow the Romans. Imagine what Judaism would be like if Judas was crowned Messiah after he defeated the Romans in battle.

__________________
LET ME SEE YOUR WAR FACE!!!

Moral Equivalency wasn't invented to describe Democrats, its just happens to be something Democrats have been doing allot of lately.

We still don't know what it means. Care to clue us in?

If Jesus had never lived its questionable whether many of the great works of art might ever have had their inspiration - ok, the neo-platonic philosophical roots of Christianity could equally have inspired many of the works (there are questions as to whether Boethius was a Christian at all!) - but the philosophy, in its outline, was lent a powerful public accessibility through being attached to the 'story'.

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

Moral Equivalency (Aka Lazy thinking) goes something like this:

-American soldiers kill enemies of the state, convicts kill for money. The words "KILL" are used equally, so therefore the motivations are also equal, soldiers and convicts are equal.

-A long time ago a Christain wrongly accused somebody of being a witch. Since magic is for Charlatans for all time, Christains are wrong for all time.

-A frenchman once built a city, so therefore all frenchmen are civilized.

see.

Okay... So "moral equivelency" to you is overgeneralization then?
Then why do you apply it to more realistic relativism, for instance when there actually is a connected reason or logic to connect things as there is in most cases that... people actually bring up?
The examples you give are not relativism but spurious correlation and logical fallacy.

Saying that all killing is the same would actually not be relativism. It's rather constant. Relativism would take into account the reasoning for a soldier killing versus a convict. As a relativist I would look at the reasons and motivations behind both. I'd have to reject relativism in order to consider the two the same since it would require me to ignore the differences. "Killing is wrong" is a black-and-white concept. In order to make the exception for a soldier, you are embracing a form of relativism. Although I can see where the term "equivalency" might make sense here.

All this blabber about Christians being so hated... Never see it in reality. Only those few atheists that are simply bigoted toward Christianity are like this and they hypocritically mimic those Christians that are bigoted against them. Their thinking is not relative, but based on a hate toward Christianity just as Christians who despise people of other religions are thinking black-and-white rather than based on relativism.
A relativist will bring up the witch-hunt thing as a mentality that transcends religions and cultures and is used for political gain in most cases or based in pagan superstition. Yes, similar behaviors occur today, but I would not blame it on Christianity since most Christians don't exhibit those behaviors. Equivalency doesn't really work for this kind of reasoning either. The mentality described in this example would be simply lousy rationale and bad logic.

Again. That is not relativism or equivalency. It is actually a very bad logical jump without enough evidence. To say "ALL" you need to survey the entire population and find no exceptions. It might be accurate to say overall the French as a civilization (redundant) are civilized, but it cannot be said that all Frenchmen are civilized. This is more like the mentality of those that would say all Muslims are terrorists. One example to the contrary is proof that a "ALL" statement is wrong.

Any time you've accused me of equivalency, it is really relativism. It sounds as though you have those terms completely mixed up as the same exact thing. Plus you also seem to believe that the definition of equivalency is bad logic, overgeneralization, and spurious correlation.

It's way different to say that "Buddhism is a moralistic religion" and "That guy is civilized because he is French."
The only way you can see the former as "equivalency" by your definition is if you have a definition of morality that makes it wrong. If that is the case, then you and I have no agreed upon definiton of morality. Because of that it is impossible for you to deduce "lazy thinking". For that to be the case, I'd have to automatically agree with your definiton (which you've never given) which sounds like lazy thinking to me.
So it appears you overgeneralize your "equivalency" definition to all things that are in disagreement with you over basic fundamentals. Therefore it sounds to me like your accusations of "Equivalency" are examples of "equivalency."

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

You completely ignored the meaning of both the words "MORAL" and "EQUIVALENT" I am trying to make a simplified definition of 'Moral Equivalency' without opening up another topic. Can you do it? I dare you.

Nope. I know the meanings of the words. But your use of them does not make sense in a lot of the cases you use them for.
And your examples are examples of bad logic rather than moral equivalency if taken literally.
Furthermore you've accused things I've said which are moral relativism as equalence... though the two are opposites. But because I'm used to far-right speech containing these phrases as overgeneralizing negative buzzwords, I'm not shocked.

Not seeing any connection between the words included, your application, or your examples, I've had to infer that you both have your own definition of the phrase and overgeneralize it.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

He lives in the fight for New Christendom. Even now, as Israel destroys its neighbors, it LOSES its war, and brings down America, one notch at a time. Soon, MOST OF THE WORLD, will stage open rebellion against Israel and America, the double-headed monster of YPZ.

Zionists and Christian Evangelicals of America and Israel:

YOU ARE THE WRECKING CREW OF PLANET EARTH, AND THE ORDINARY MASSES OF HUMANITY OPPOSE YOU. YOU CAN HAVE VICTORY, BUT ONLY AT THE COST OF BLOWING UP THE WORLD. EVEN IN VICTORY, YOU WILL LOSE.

__________________
Kick'm in the frig'n nuts.