Thank you. I needed the laugh. One thing I'd like to address is the belief of some people who think Barack Obama should have left that church the very moment he heard this kind of talk coming from his former pastor. I think the answer to that is about as complex as the reason that Hillary Clinton and her husband did not split up after the public embarrassment of the Lewinsky matter. Relationships over a long time are not things that are easily abandoned whether it's a marriage, or a friendship or a business relationship or a relationship to a church family. These things usually require a bit of soul searching and it's not an easy process. Anyone who has experienced any sort of break up knows how this feels. Barack had come to feel that this was a spiritual sanctuary for him and his family. Not perfect to be sure, but a safe place. An anchor. There have to be many equally complex relationships that have been formed in this environment that would end up being re-evaluated if the Obamas were to leave. Anyone who thinks this is easily done is either stupid, heartless, or has no experience whatsoever with relationships of any kind. On the other hand, the Clintons were very good at ending whole relationships when political expediency dictated. I would like to think that Barack Obama is above that kind of cynical, calculating sort of ambition. Nothing about the man suggests that to me, and I've had as long as anyone else to give him a good look. Not leaving a church you disagreed with does not rise to the level of a reason not to vote for someone, but I'm quite sure there are people who have left the Obama camp for that very reason, just as there are people who won't vote for Hillary because she didn't leave Bill. Anyone who cites this as a reason was looking for an excuse and this is as convenient a one as you could ask for. Now...can we PLEASE MOVE ON FROM THIS?? How many more STUPID, DUMB-ASS QUESTIONS is the MSM going to ask about this?

You're making some assumptions about the religious orientation of those you mention.

But, beyond that. There is no "scripture" coming from secularists or atheists. There is no secular "scriptural" guidance that legitimizes mass slaughter. There is no secular "scripture" calling for mass slaughter.

The three monotheistic religions of the Levant DO have such scripture. Their god enacts genocide several times in the bible. Their god orders it several times. Their god holds massive slaughter over their heads throughout time. The very concept of the End of Days is the ultimate in genocidal madness. The very idea of hell is a sadist's dream come true. The very idea that one must accept Jesus as the savior to avoid hell IMPLICITLY and EXPLICITLY tells us that all others are damned to hell and eternal torment.

Think about it. Inherent in the religious tenets and concepts of those three monotheistic religion are massive discrimination, justification for slaughter, eternal torture, mayhem, exclusion from heaven, the bizarre idea of hell, oppression and repression. It's in the texts themselves. If someone takes the stories of the bible as factual, rather than symbolic or metaphoric, they accept a worldview that justifies torture, genocide, slavery, discrimination and sadism. They accept a world where billions of people will be damned to hell and eternal torment, while the chosen few will escape to heaven.

That OBVIOUSLY informs earthly behavior. The examples of that are legion. You can actually attribute genocidal actions through history to religious belief. You can NOT conclude that a secularist viewpoint leads to the same.

It's a monstrous worldview, and we need to grow out of it.

Since you just posted, I'll drag out this response from halfway back through the thread.

I tutored at Cook County Jail twice a week for years.

I coach Little League.

Congratulations (honest, no sarcasm). I'm glad to hear that you're giving back to your community. I used to tutor in college, and I also make it a point to spend more money on my friends than myself.

That said, I would still wager that Jeremiah Wright has spent more of his time and effort helping others than you have. I consider it an act of cognitive dissonance for someone who helps others to call another person who gives even more help a hatemonger.

Jeremiah Wright says black people's brains and white people's brains are different. He made fun of the way white people clap and sing. He said we deserved 9/11 -- among other things.

That is a racist hatemonger. Period.

Someone else mentioned this, but I'm going to bet that by "brains" he probably meant culture, though I've no definitive proof. It seems a little convoluted, but the context seems to suggest that cultural traditions are the difference he meant.

Regarding 9/11, if you do some research you can discover why bin Laden says 9/11 happened. I'll give you a hint: US Foreign Policy. How is it racist to consider 9/11 to be blowback? If you piss in someone's wheaties, will you be surprised when they piss in your wheaties in retaliation?

For instance, consider a suicide bomber. Who in their right mind would blow themselves up? The media likes to say those people want their virgins in heaven, but I think the more likely story is that we killed someone's innocent husband/wife/child/sibling by accident, and that person then rationalizes suicide as a way of lashing out at the person who robbed them of their loved one.

What internal tenet of atheism and secularism can be pointed to to judge the actions of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot wrong?

What you demonstrate in response to Cuchulain2007 is a logical fallacy called a straw man. Cuchulain said that Rev. Wright's god is outraged by murder and oppression, and that Hagee/Falwall's god is outraged by gay pride parades and the ACLU, and that this is representative of the type of people who follow these religious leaders.

Your straw man was, then, an attempt to view Cuchulain's argument as "religious people are bad", and proceed to attack this straw man argument with examples of atheists who were responsible for the murder of millions, concluding that at least religion has moral tenets to decry those evils. Do you understand how your characterization of his argument is flawed?