makes sense to me
In and of itself, that sentence makes perfect sense to me -- that ethics should be considered in a universal, logically valid form, reasoned from minimal initial principles, separate from unprovable and unarguable metaphysical morality (such as that derived from religious belief), relying only on empirical and epistemological premises. Such an approach would unavoidably lead to the necessary ethical mandate for defense of the individual right of self-determination, which serendipitously fits well with the majority of positive religious philosophies without relying on any of them.
At least, that's my take on the matter. Maybe it's not Rich LeSesne's take, but it's what that sentence (containing the word "absolutism") suggests to me.
Some of the rest of the commentary seems odd in relation to that, however.
