Thou Shalt Not Kill - Except......?

Is the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" a moral absolute?It seems to me that those who most ardently advocate moral absolutism (i.e. the Christian right) are also the most vociferous supporters of capital punishment.Is this not a contradictory position?Surely a straightforward commandment directly from the "mouth" of God is not open to interpretation or dependant on context? Surely this commandment decrees that the taking of human life in any situation at any time is just morally wrong?
If this simple command is open to interpretation in any way how can any moral absolutism be justified?Can any moral absolutists defend this seemingly contradictory position?

The very fact that even this seemingly straight forward commandment is so open to interpretation suggests to me that moral absolutes just do not exist.If the commandment is "Thou shalt not murder" then this is totally dependant on what the person doing the killing considers murder. The scenarios you outline to differentiate the two would get consent amongst the vast majority but there are many less black and white examples.Is the public executioner committing murder?
Is a soldier fighting a war committing murder when he knowingly bombs targets that will contain civilians?
Is an Islamic terrorist who thinks he is fighting a war against the depraved west in the name of Allah committing murder when he blows up trains?None of the above consider themselves murderers whatever you or I may think. Each can undertake the task described and consider themselves morally righteaous. They may even be moral absolutists with very similar views to yourself!!!!!Yet each COULD be considered murder depending on your own personal interpretation of what murder is.Personally I would be inclined to suggest that each one of the above should be considered murder. But that is exactly the point. Its is my personal interpretation only.So where is the absolute in any of this?

Let me get this right. In summary you are saying -There are absolute morals as laid down by God
Laws are most obvious result of this absolute morality
We know when we do wrong because we can feel it is wrong
We know when we are acting unlawfully because unlawful = wrong
Gods actions cannot be immoral by definitionIs that a fair summary?But again - Except in the very black and white scenarios you put forward no two people FEEL the same way about a given situation. The law is also no guide in more complex situations.Take the fighter pilot bombing a target known to contain civilians (even if it is a "justifiable" military target).You say it is wrong. I would agree and personally would not do it.But if instructed to do it the soldier would be breaking no law.Soldiers who do this sort of thing do not believe themselves to be doing wrong.
The people commanding this sort of operation believe themselves to be justified in the wider context and therefore doing no wrong.How is it that something that so obviously feels wrong to me does not inspire the same feeling of wrongness in all others if morality is absolute and we all know when we are doing wrong?I appreciate why you do not like the idea of relative morality (though I disagree with your conclusions as to the consequences).
But just because you do not like the consequences as you see them does not mean that there MUST therefore be absolutes in existence.