"ut there are certain MORAL TRUTHS that are absolute principles of right and wrong that no person in their right mind could disagree with."
It depends on circumstances. I would expect that a true UNIVERSAL MORAL TRUTH would apply in all circumstances regarding it, not just some. But in some cases, almost any action is justifiable. If I or my family was directly threatened by an intruder, I would kill him in self defense and I wouldn't feel as if I had done an immoral thing. Therefore, "thou shalt not kill" is not absolute. (I guess there was an asterisk on the ten commandments at that point, it's just no-one ever noticed it before!) And it IS murder. You ARE ending a life. The act does not depend on the context.
I must also point out that widespread moral beliefs does not need a religious basis. You would consider me an extremely moral person and I haven't been in a church (willingly) in seven years.
"Do we REALLY have to think that hard on THIS one? [bin Laden] Maybe someone BETTER keep an eye on you."
Sorry, I was going to explain that one more but forgot about it. I'm not what you would call a big terrorism fan, TRUST me. My point was that bin Laden is moral in his own eyes, (he is fighting against the forces of Satan and permissiveness) just as you are moral in your eyes, just as I am moral in my eyes.
I agree that standards for morality must be set, but on a legal basis, not a claim to sole right and wrong. If right and wrong are internal concepts then you cannot claim that your concept is absolutely true, EVEN if the the majority share that opinion. That is like everyone agreeing that shrimp is delicious. It says nothing about the external world (the said shrimp) therefore it cannot be held as "truth." Even if everyone agrees.