While my time is short (heading out the door), I will say that for the most part, the conclusion is not without it’s shortcomings. For instance, the assumption of the ten commandments and the line “thou shalt not kill”.

For a expanded generalization from the point that they should not commit any acts that would lead to any death, one could assume that even sacrificing animals was included in this.

But a realistic view of this is that these are the laws between Hebrews for a code of conduct to keep the laws of God. Can you really imply that God would prevent “his people” from killing when others sought their desimation?

While it is not my intention to simply challange line by line, I will add only one more oddity of perspective by the writer. There is a drawn conclusion that religion should keep it’s hands off of the schools. This result still does not leave out the possibility for corruption of ideals, for it required much control of ideologies, and cencorship of concepts that challenge those ideals. In essence, you find that those children will ultimately be “programmed” to repel and oppose ideas of religion, and the people that harbor them. While this may be celebrated by many stout and self-proclaimed “atheist”, I propose that for the idea of “free thought”, that this too would be just as dangerous as if religion dictated and censored all provisions of education.

Free thought (as implied) allows for exposure to the information, and even practice of that information with responsible approaches. To eliminate any of one side or other that does not specifically compel chaos and corruption, is not supportive of the premise that the Atheist and free-thought proposes to sustain. In other words, neither should the outright atheism perspective control education.

I conclude with this. In America, we are free to choose, and there are few “christians” that have been forced to accept “religion”. In most cases, and by many intellects, religion has been chosen because of “free thought”. To assume that the religious are only those “redneck dummy” types in itself a lack of expanded thought equivelant to those rednecks.

Here’s the challenge for both sides, and that is that you may choose your thoughts, but to never assume that the other side is lacking thought. That is an exercise that is both difficult and very revealing, for it exposes the truth that most people of any belief, organization or group are not using their full capacity to reason … and calling yourself an “atheist” is only an escape clause for many to avoid really looking and doing what is preached by simply asking “why” and genuinely considering what they find.

For those atheists that have looked, some become “believers”, because they find that what they were told by and as atheists, is not entirely true, and because they have found that they have a choice. That is the goal and result of free thinking - choice.

By the way Hitler had a well known belief in the occult and favored a clairevoyant who “predicted” his rise - a one Erik Jan Hanussen. So hitler was not an atheist. He might not have believed in god for all I know but he did believe in the supernatural and therefore did not base his world view on evidence based knowledge.

But it’s all besides the point, and merely illustrative: Hitler AND Stalin also had a moustache (I think we can all agree on that one!), but having a moustache did not make them, or anybody else with a moustache, genocidal. They were vile creatures for their own vile reasons.

They were most certainly not doing all of that purely because they were atheist (It’s also arguable if Hitler was even atheist himself): Which is a lot more than can be said for some people of a religious persuasion who have killed in the name of religion over the years.