Ive heard the "you don't know what you are talking about/you are misled/you are ignorant" line from you and Russ and a few others many times over now. I think some others here would disagree with that. You have some firmly-held opinions and when people oppose those you take the stance that you have much knowledge and they don't. If you think that is the case then back your own statements up with more facts, tell me specifically where you think my facts are wrong or lacking (and I will find more), and please stop generalising.

You asked me what I thought of the article and I responded based on what most people would consider to be relevant experience. If you don't like what I said then fair enough I guess, though I regret the time I wasted writing that post now.

The people you are defining as secular humanists seem to have drawn your bile about as much as homosexuals. I find myself not really wanting to discuss this any further as I am tired of all the prejudice here against these groups of people, but I thought I would point out that there seems to be a conflict between our respective definitions of "humanist."

BTW I read a news story today about a Republican senator who had been known as being anti-gay. He was caught by a policeman in a very compromising situation in the toilets and his career is now in ruins. I believe the Bible says, let the one who is without sin cast the first stone? As you know I don't believe there is anything wrong with homosexual behaviour, but he was hoisted by his own petard as they say. I wonder how many other self-righteous people hide a few hypocritical little secrets?