Just because morality involves values and priorities
I didn't say involves, I said "is". As in, consists of. Having values without acting on them is pointless, so you need priorities for the whole morality package. You do know that "values" without qualifier is short for "moral values", right? Right...
Also, just because you bring up your in-laws doesn't mean it suddenly has anything to do with them, other than you trying to make it about them. I just followed you into this dead-end because I'm fucking tired of people using themselves or their loved ones as hostages for abuse of power on a massive scale. Just because you or they fall for something doesn't make it right, and if yourself and your in-laws are all you have, then you have nothing.
Since you asked: I don't think they're being that bright, but to make really sure I'd need you to ask them what they know about WTC7, Al Quaeda in the 80s, and just exactly how much Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda were in love with each other. Just for starters, you know? Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity, after all. Anyone who is "afraid of Al Quaeda", in 2013, needs at least to turn off the TV.
Were people who genuinely believed Hitler was great and wouldn't harm a fly "morally bankrupt"? No, but the result of their simple-mindedness sure as fuck had evil consequences for others, and to just dismiss it as having different values and priorities, well, as I said that's just sophistry, anything can be talked into being really nothing if you just keep at it. Explain it to your in-laws maybe, how Al Quaeda just has different values and priorities than them.
> "These people are not all "morally bankrupt." They just don't share your values and priorities."
Morals is basically "values + priorites". This is like saying "these people don't do X, instead we see physical laws acting on matter and energy".
In summary: It might be possible to disagree without employing sophistry, but so far I didn't see anyone do it.