aka-
I agree about the "simplest social construction".
--- Thanks, its pretty obvious
It seems evident to me that the most important, perhaps the only, aspect of morality is designed, with increasing intelligence and thus forever at the risk of bestiality, for the rulers of society.
----Yes, but perhaps the consent of the governed means something.
To the extent that they are enjoined on the general populace is merely in the service of reinforcing their power on the former.
---Usually
The rules of incest and consanguinity in marriage customs are of little importance in the common life of the credulous masses but they are of great importance in the lives of Princes and Rulers in order to prevent the sort of instabilities which occured after the death of the Emperor Constantine from which posterity drew conclusions with an intelligent dynamic having no relation to the dynamic of biological evolution.
---The Princes also form a little, rather exclusive society amongst themselves. Athiests also know better than to marry their cousin-sister-mother-father.
Similarly, it is of little consequence to the fortunes of an Empire whether the subject classes murder each other, steal off each other or indulge in sexual and drug fuelled excesses. Organised crime has never suffered one whit of disadvantage in the ready acceptance of all of those things and, indeed, may have benefited from them.
But it is a different matter entirely when the Rulers of society, who can be assumed to be playing for far higher stakes and thus have such temptations forcing themselves into view, are not inhibited from succumbing to them.
--- If a ruler or a gang leader impoverishes his people he stands a good chance of losing his head, or an election.
Thus the general condemnation of such vices, inculcated by the very same Rulers, in their wisdom, acts as a restraint upon them and especially upon those Rulers who are concerned to be held in esteem by their subjects or, as is the case in democracies, to depend upon that esteem.
---Nothing new there. Kind of runs into your next sentence.
This is why the subject classes expect stricter adherance to morality in their leaders than they are generally prepared to accept for themselves. Even a conviction for petty theft will disqualify any person from seeking the highest offices. This expectation is catered for by the surveillance our investigative journalists bring to bear on those in high office and those seeking high office which they wouldn't bother to interest themselves in regarding the ordinary person unless cases come to their notice which involve lurid details preferably of a perverted sexual colouration and are thus, as such, an aspect of the entertainment industry. Even the investigative journalist himself would baulk at having his own behaviour subject to such scrutiny for the very good reason that it is of little importance to society as a whole precisely because he is not a Ruler.
----I agree with the truism "to those whom much is given, much is expected".
The growth of atheism in society, which by definition can have no morality and only have recourse to expediency will inevitably lead to a society having leaderships with the dispositions I have mentioned and which would be characterised, as we have seen on this thread, by intolerance, assertiveness, impatience and ignorance which, when allied to power and scientific methods of persuasion and enforcement, can only lead to the most dangerous attack on freedom it is possible to imagine.
--- I very seriously disagree with your assumption that Atheism has no morality.----I explained how morality came about in social animals. I seriously doubt the morality of anyone that claims morality issued forth from an imaginary Deity.
Anyone preaching atheism is perforce preaching amorality and is a harbinger of a full-blown police state which is, as we all know, that short-lived experience preceeding complete bankruptcy and anarchy where might comes into its own.
--- That is a seriously debateable assumption.
You are assuming Atheists have no morals and Diests do. Kosovo, Iraq, Somalia all put that paragraph down as simply wishful thinking that has absolutely no basis in observations. Indeed it runs counter to observations. This is a characteristic of most religion.
I'm inclined to think that the US and the UK will never elect an avowed atheist to the supreme office for these reasons.
--- I hope you are wrong

but time will tell.
And events such as Abu Graib, Blackwater gunfights, Guantanamo Bay, Enron and Extraordinary Rendition, the apologetics of sophists notwithstanding, are reminders of how close we are coming to weakening Christian morality and thus paving the way for our demise.
-Zero IMO. It would take too long to explain that dehumanizing persons is an accepted military tactic. Cowboys will be cowboys. I have no ready alternative to Guantanamo but I think something of this sort is regrettably necessary. Christian morality is often an oxymoron, and usually incomprehensible.
Power corrupts absolutely and I'm at a loss to understand how anyone can attack Christian morality, which is the agenda of the weak and powerless, and at the same time complain about the abuses mentioned, which could easily be multiplied, and which are the obvious consequences of such attacks being successful.