I'm confused

There's been all this comparison between the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's, and the current necessity of reinvigorating issues of unfinished civil rights business in the form of gay rights, women's rights, etc. I don't think the comparison is completely unfounded, and in many ways it is incredibly useful to ground current activism in a historical moment that tends to bring along with it a sense of hope, a feeling of if we did it then, why can't we do it now? But, because I'm a stickler, and because I work on this stuff, I am a little disturbed by I don't know what to call it maybe the rhetoric of activism that seems rather inclined to point out that fundamentalist christians are ignorant and wrong, and immoral, and don't know what they're talking about. And while I wholly agree with this statement, I don't know that it's very useful to tell a bunch of people who don't care about equal rights that they're wrong, and ignorant, and immoral. In other words, a moral claim falls deaf upon the ears of a society that is amoral. Not immoral, but without morals whatsoever. So if one can "morally" justify the death of a "handful" of civilians in the service of a greater and more moral goal, and at the same time condemn the "immoral" killing of innocent unborn cells, then I think very clearly we have evidence that morality is and never was the real issue. Rather it is merely a convenient name for what otherwise is known as contradiction or cognitive error. Making moral claims via religion merely provides the guise of some sort of historical and textual support for what would otherwise be called a decision based upon confused self-interest. But the funny thing is, logical claims do about as little as the so-called moral claim.

So if we cannot make progress via the moral claim ("equal rights for all"=true democracy, a claim which I take great issue with, especially when it is made via the Constitution, whose so called perfection is rarely called into question enough), and we cannot seem to get through with a logical claim ("when someone lies to you, they are actually NOT telling you the truth"), what remains? If we look to the Civil Rights Movement, which many are inclined to do, which is why I posted in the first place, then we discover that a combination of factors contributed to its relative (relative to the social climate existing from the 40's through the 70's) successes:

1) Legislative activism: Hundreds of test cases brought to all levels of the legal system in order to provide sufficient precedent for changing the Constitution. Sue those motherfuckers!
2) Economic activism: Boycotts, and supporting only those businesses that support the needs and rights of your community. Easier said than done. People hate inconvenience.
3) Moral activism: Again, I'm skeptical of this strategy, and I would argue that it tends to "preach to the choir" but more importantly I suppose it increases the number of voices in the choir.
4) Violent activism: taking up arms and scaring the shit out of happy white folks. Although I'm pretty sure that this strategy no longer can work in the present climate.
5) Nonviolent activism: This is connected to the moral activism, but comes specifically in the form of marches, parades, picket lines, etc. As we've witnessed, big nonviolent protests usually end with your face on the wrong end of a police stick. While it is useful to make the moral claim that the police/state are evil for beating up peaceful protesters, the fact of the matter is that the majority (about 51%) believe that it's your own damn fault for going to a crowded place and ruining a perfectly good day in an otherwise perfect democracy.

I have to go now. The point is, there is much to be done.