Canon Law dictates that priests are to look good, be able-bodied men, and be cleared of any accusations. I studied Canon Law and Church Mission for two years at the Jesuits' Pontifical Gregorian University (Vatican, Rome) to understand the Vatican's role in femminicide and illegal human trafficking. Thus everything is done to cover-up scandal in these religious cults, and is why Marx was against religious personality cults. Hitler, instead, took the opposite strategy, after reading Nietzsche, and made himself the supreme leader of his own personality cult/religion, imitating the pope, and had the all black or grey and collared uniforms of the Schutz-Shtaffel (SS) based on the uniform ranks of the Jesuits, with grey being the highest ranking. Thus, as with Canon Law, all nazi laws were constructed to protect the 'moral' image of their 'priests''. Thus if you wish to undo the cover-ups, a kind of soviet style military approach to patriotism is needed, which advanced war wounded amputees and women, otherwise society is trained for cults of personality/religious cover-ups and able-bodied men on a crucifix or at a mosque as 'morality'.

Most certainly these are important factors. i am as much interested in the concept of morality, why contrary to the evidence for example religious people believe their religions preach or even discovered morality, which, for me, is absurd. Why do people believe that to me is an interesting paradox and what Foucault called the archaeology of knowledge for morality. It seems simply a particular way of constructing the world.

I think when we say "Beyond good and evil" we are attempting to go beyond nihilism to existentialism. Nihilism is to believe in meaninglessness, existentialism is to create value by choice. Why value? Because of meaning.

Value and meaning are pragmatic because it brings order out of chaos. It should be noted that we are navigating "creatures." The biblical knowledge that humans have a "logos" nature, that they can speak forth being forward, speaks to the need for value and the need of morality and evidence of universal Truth.

Part of Nietzsche’s criticism of Western Christianity was that there was not enough stress on the acting out of Christ’s example (the manifestation of the Logos or the Holy Spirit) and too much justification on salvation by spoken accent. Faith by words only did not constitute a meta-narrative by which population was unified in, as did faith which had the manifested scared (the acting out of religious experience).

I think of Stalin (he was of atheistic communism), he was killing people because as a rational man he came to the conclusion that life was so unbearable that it should be wiped out. Those of us who are into rational thinking, rational thinking can go into a variety of different directions, it depends on one's initial presuppositions. If we believe that life is worth living (which, by the way, is highly debatable) we can come up with a pretty optimistic conclusion. But if we looked at life, and see that life for most people is pretty unbearable and life is evil (which is what Stalin thought) a person has no problem with mobilizing everything they can to kill as many people as they can. If we do not have faith in an ultimate authority (an ultimate authority that says "life is sacred"), what is there to stop us from doing just that, killing as many people as we can? Does it come from morality? Where do we get morality from? ...

Alexander Solzhenitsyn details in The Gulag Archipelago that the reason for the atrocities under communism was that he and many others had forfeited their relationship with the truth and allowed their society to degenerate into deceit and tyrannical catastrophe without mounting sufficient opposition. He decided while in the concentration camps to straighten himself out bit by bit which columnated the production of The Gulag Archipelago, the book which, in many respects, demolished any moral credibility that the communist totalitarian systems had left. One man who was determined by good example, at least in part, to stop lying, produce a book which demolished the very system that had imprisoned him.

It is lack of discrimination between the existence of the adversary as process with the existence of the anomaly as constituent element of experience that has led to some of the worst excesses of humanity and religion. 
Some peoples throughout history have confused the existence of threats to their security and moral integrity with evil or personalized wrath from God.

There is something of great metaphysical potential. Generally speaking, we expect a lot from people and are not happy if they betray us. In fact, our entire culture is predicated on the idea that each person has an indefinite and intrinsic worth. The implicit proposition in our legal structure is that even no matter who you are that there is something about you that is of transcendent value that has to be respected by the law and other people. You can ask if you believe this, and you can answer that based on your behavior in your level of following the law. It is the belief that all have intrinsic transcendent worth, and this is not easily pulled out from the law without it falling apart. The understanding that you have inherent transcendent worth is predicated on the biblical knowledge that humans have a "logos" nature, that they can speak forth being forward.

Being involved in the speaking forth of our being is something about us that needs to be respected. There is a sanctity of life, a recognition of transcendent value, in the practice of law which can only be related to morals. For even the vicious criminal has a touch of transcendence which we respect. If not, you have a very barbaric legal system because no one would become protected. As soon as you make a mistake in your life, you become the damned and have no rights whatsoever, and this is not what is happening in the west. Morals, then, have a very crucial role in law. It allows one to hold out their hand to invoke one's best if that is going to be given. It is the transcendent part of you making a gesture to allow the transcendent part of me to step forth. It happens all the time.

Unlike postmodernist thought, man's universal experience has shown man to have an essential nature. There is a sanctity of life, a recognition of transcendent value, in the practice of law which can only be related to morals. Man's existence in his essential nature is shown, in part, through his transcendence and moral capacity in which he is shown to create and construct law, however somewhat differential from other societies/communities. The existence of Law, which most all humankind recognizes and conforms to, shows that there is truth, absolute Truth.

It should be noted that "Just war," notion that the resort to armed force (jus ad bellum) is justified under certain conditions, is rooted in Classical Roman and biblical Hebraic culture and containing both religious and secular elements, just war first coalesced as a coherent body of thought and practice during the Middle Ages as a by-product of Canon Law and theology.

I've always considered Stalin pragmatic with a gangster's approach to killing, that means to an end predominated not necessarily atheism. As he said himself: One man, one problem/No man, no problem. Did he believe life was evil? No. He was able to see that many actions referenced as good were not, and thereby would have been in alliance with Nietzsche.

Where Nietzsche is concerned, he attempted to understand the two apparent opposites through looking at ideas before logos, believing this had provided a particular view of these two matters. Socrates, for example, introduced moral dimensions-right and wrong-into perceptions through logos or words. For Nietzsche he introduced artificial dimensions that were by and large subjective (see Kant and Hegel). Nietzsche believed that they were right, and traditional morality came out of subjective positioning.

He wanted to leave behind this morality, rarely, for him properly analysed. We tend to have ideas of good as well as evil that are muddled-often knee jerk approaches that confuse rather than elucidate matters. To break away from the prison of traditional, often religious, concepts of morals. To Nietzsche the Christian position was also subjective and artificial, not something to be aspired to. The religious elements of your arguments would not have sat well with Nietzsche I suspect.

Stalin would have argued (not at all from an atheistic viewpoint) that what he did was good for the state, and for him. He identified himself with the state, and the state with him. Such positions are not remotely religious. Most people would argue that killing is evil and wrong. Nietzsche wanted to look at these matters afresh. Christians have a particular view of good, that is passivity allied with universal benevolence, and of evil as active and visceral. To that, Nietzsche was in revolt.

I think good and evil can be determined in one way, but only one way, by this example.

if i am attacked by an angry, not rabid, dog and I protect myself by killing it my actions can be seen as good for me (thereby perhaps moral), but a bad act because excessive. Now there are many extrapolations on this example. is good thereby to do with what is good for me, or should I have considered what is good for the angry dog. Christians would have one version of good, other religious groups, for example, an alternative version.

"Morals camouflage 'badness'" is self-refuting.

Why John?

badness requires a moral definition

Still, no further on as badness is a moral definition. Nevertheless I think I know what you are saying.

Nietzsche was alluding to the morality of religions (the Abrahamic ones really) whereby morality is community based (in the Old Testament often around generation) and often concerning sexual behaviour. So a priest may say it is wrong for a woman to have sex outside marriage (why as there were and are prohibitions against men) and say a priest might demand severe physical punishment even death. A greater sin surely. But this is an extreme case, where narrow mindedness is confused with morality-that is doing good or doing bad-if you then say that badness needs to be clarified, Nietzsche would have agreed. He would have suggested that all apparent truths need clarification.

Is it bad to kill an insect. Janism says it is. But if that insect is sucking your blood or poisoning you with malaria, then perhaps not. The insect is little more than an organic robot on a specifically low cognitive level. Does cognition gives greater rights to life-therefore not killing the insect is a bad thing. Badness here becomes not only an issue of preference but of practicability. It involves choice.