Well, I see where this one is heading, so I'll go ahead and push it along. Both of the major faiths of the world are REAL big on proselytization. And, it's been my experience, being around both of those faiths quite a lot that giving 'no' for an answer just makes them more fanatical. There might be examples here of the 'hey, no problem', but in the rest of the world it boils down to convert - or die and has been going on for centuries. I don't need to give examples. The learned among us know plenty already.
It rare to see or hear an atheist banging the gong of anti-theism. Sure, once in a while some goober gets upset over an xmas display on school grounds, but that's where the law steps in and makes a decision, and the atheists' go back to drawing pentagrams on sidewalks. We can more or less ignore them as a minority who need to make a stink now and then.
I see that it's currently still de rigueur to express the notion of subjective morality. I think, and I like being the outlier that morality is very objective. A 5YO whacks his 3YO sister and that is morally wrong. It's morally wrong to the atheist(presumed), it's wrong to the muslim, it's wrong to the christians, and sikhs and jews, and so on and so forth. This moral relativism as the humanity advances beyond absolutes is part of what the OP complains about, with good reason.
Being an engineer(and philsopher), I probably see more black and white than shades of gray, but anyone not seeing and doing something about a 5YO kid bashing on a 3YO has a serious problem, to the point of being a psychopath, or one with zero moral compass. This from the disassociative branch of moral relativism. It might be popular now, but the basic rules of civilization apply. I tend to argue the morality of efficiency in a cultural society. Beating up someone younger than you is not going to advance the society if it's allowed to continue into the fabric of that society. It is destructive, not constructive, and breeding a culture that relies on the strong arm for advancement is doomed to be killing off or restricting the boldest, and brightest who might advance the culture but are kept down by a system of oligarchy, that is usually not benevolent.
An efficient society advances through community effort as much as through individualism. However, it's a balance where the individual cannot fully succumb to the will and pressure of the community, due particularly to the application of immoral behavior. Here - I will provide an example. The power of the Catholic hegemony recently has crashed from a relatively high status. It has lost legions of followers, billions of dollars, and seen it's trust erode to horrible levels. And, I can point to the immorality of those in the church and those within their community who failed to root out the immorality, and thus sacrificed efficiency of operation, leading to the decline.
Moral relativism is fun to consider, and a subject for advance knowledge to bandy about in the quad, or on talk shows, or around the water cooler. Living it, for any length of time will begin to cause problems. Ask the Romans, they did all the wrong things when christianity began to spread in the population, and attempted to use the faith as a power base, rather than let it console and support the state. It went badly after several hundred years. Lastly, I have some more blame to pile on with the concept of forgiveness, and how it's been expanded in current theological practice. Sin on Saturday, forgive on Sunday and go back to work on Monday with a clear conscience. I'm not down with that, sorry but I think it requires more than a few hail Mary's and a donation to the plate to absolve someone of immoral actions. Which is why I don't belong to any sect that believes in spirits, ghosts, and/or higher beings. I guess I"m headed the wrong way when I go.
