Obama, in prepared remarks, said, "There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being."I can think of a couple . . . dozen. The holy books of the Christians and Jews are full of instances of God commanding the the slaughter of innocents. He even does it himself on occasion. Then again, he also spares whole cities of the guilty on pain of one righteous man. His attitude in these regards is a bit schizo, as befits the power-mad Angry Dad in the Sky.
Likewise, apologists for Islam call it a "religion of peace" and critics find within the Koran all sorts of bloody nonsense, when of course, it contains both, because like all religions it is an insane, primitive set of superstitions that is neither coherent nor consistent. Pagans were generally better on this point, as their gods of limited attributes behaved rather like the dark superheroes of the seventies and eighties, one moment saviors, the next villains in thrall to Acton's iron law--but always and thoroughly human.
Americans being generally fond of encomiums to bland, deracinated, ecumenical, content-free "faith," Obama also stressed that faith should not be used "as a tool to divide us from one another"--this, of course, being precisely the purpose of so many religions, especially the religions of the book, which strive above all else to distinguish believers from infidels, faithful from apostate. The Jews call themselves the Chosen People, for Buddha's sake. Islam erected vast edifices of law and commentary on the question of cohabiting with various forms and types of non-believer.
It would be one thing for the President to encourage us to learn civil coexistence in the face of difference. Hey, worked for the Romans, more or less, or for the Andalusian caliphates. It is another entirely to claim that existence of specific doctrinal traditions obliterates distinction and division.