"Carolina Guitarman," right?
It's a good thing that back in 1763 a chemist named Heinrich von Sturzebraffen, while performing an experiment in a laboratory at Ingolstadt University, discovered "thou shalt not kill." Otherwise, we would not know this and it would have no foundation.
I must remark, however, that the love affair between atheists and non-fundamentalist religionists irks me a bit. So you despise people who actually believe their sacred texts and the the words of their rituals, but you respect hypocrites who but on ancient robes and intone ancient words which they don't believe in? I suppose you consider such hypocrisy simply the acting out of the intractable religious impulse and therefore a form of dishonesty more acceptable than the honesty of fundamentalists, however mistaken they may be? Hmmm.
There are atheists who actually respect religionists who really believe over those who don't bet get paid a nice cushy salary for pretending they do, but then, that requires a certain amount of integrity.
I despise no one - I have compassion for all people who struggle with these topics. Alan Watts describes fundamentalism best:
***********
"Religions are divisive and quarrelsome. They are a form of one-upmanship because they depend upon separating the "saved" from the "Damned", the true believers from the heretics, the in-group from the out-group. Even religious liberals play the game of "we're-more-tolerant-than-you." Furthermore, as systems of doctrine, symbolism, and behavior, religions harden into institutions that must command loyalty, be defended, and kept "pure", and - because all belief is fervent hope, and thus a cover-up for doubt and uncertainty - religions must make converts. The more people who agree with us, the less nagging insecurity about our position. In the end one is committed to being a Christian or a Buddhist come what may in the form of new knowledge. New and indigestible ideas have to be wangled into the religious tradition, however inconsistent with its original doctrines, so that the believer can still take his stand and assert, "I am first and foremost a follower of Christ/Mohammed/Buddha, or whomever." Irrevocable commitment to any religion is not only intellectual suicide; it is positive unfaith because it closes the mind to any new vision of the world. Faith is, above all, openness - an act of trust in the unknown.
"An ardent Jehovah's Witness once tried to convince me that if there were a God of love, he would certainly provide mankind with a reliable and infallible textbook for the guidance of conduct. I replied that no considerate God would destroy the human mind by making it so rigid and unadaptable as to depend on one book, the Bible, for all the answers. For the use of words, and thus of a book, is to point beyond themselves to a world of life and experience that is not mere words or even ideas. Just as money is not real, consumable wealth, books are not life. To idolize scriptures is like eating paper currency." -- Alan Watts, "The Book", 1966
***********
Genuine spiritual growth doesn't come from a book - at best the book is merely a pointer. Fundamentalists worship words - the most extreme among them use those words to justify flying airliners into buildings. It's all about fear of the unknown, and trying to control future outcomes through following rituals.
PS: I remember "Carolina Guitarman" - he was someone else. ;)