Basically I'd question both sides here a little. For example, starsofeight, your not a christian. Your a human being. So am I. Those genocides are our shared history. There is no getting out of that with labels, even for people who don't practice the rituals called christianity.
With D.L. Hooper, it's uncanny that someone calls you immoral, and then a second latter your calling that immoral? Aren't you just calling them immoral as well? Similarly with Dr. Arthur Ide, calling something evil and corrupting sounds like the very words of a bible? Perhaps there's a reaction that when we encounter an activity called religion, we start getting religious ourselves. It's very hard not to, I totally pay - the other person is yelling and what, your supposed to just quietly treat it as a yelled hypothesis, about as plausible as a hypothesis that fairies are at the bottom of the garden? I know, the urge to condemn fairly jumps up ones throat - except that's what they do.
Personally I'd measure religion, ironically, a sort of evolutionary stage of morality. Kind of like an amphibian, crawling it's way out of a primordial sea.
Finally, starsofeight, if you don't confine yourself to the empirical, then there is no physically existing way of proving you wrong in whatever act you might choose to take. Imagine someone who is willing to perform acts that cannot be proven to be wrong? What acts might they eventually set out to do, without any self correction method that actually exists?