Its true, Christianity’s views on sex are as divorced from reality as, well, all its other views.
Rob Asghar: Bristol Palin And The Trouble With Christian Sex

Forget the tired notion that Christians are “against” sex. They’re as wildly for it as anyone; that’s what got Bristol into trouble. Christians simply have an idealized notion of sex and relationships, one that’s increasingly divorced from the reality and the direction of the larger society.

Yes, its true.  She can carry a baby and think at the same time, so long as by ‘think’ you mean ‘not able to answer simple questions about politics’ or maybe ‘able to say anything that isn’t out-and-out self-serving ignorance’.
But yeah, I suppose that makes her a threat then.
What Do Sarah Palin and Jesus Christ Have In Common? – Erick’s blog – RedState

With Palin, a lot of people got it right — she’s a solid Christian, a real agent of change, a threat to the secular left and feminist movement because she can carry a baby and think at the same time, etc.

I hate posting from Huffington, but this illustrates that Robertson and his ilk (including some from Islam) have often said, during disasters, that people were getting what they deserved.  Let us not be surprised, let us not think this is isolated, let us wake up and call these monsters what they are and recognize that everything these people live for is exactly what people believed in the dark ages

Valerie Tarico: Televangelist Robertson is Likely Possessed by Satan

So, for those of you who missed this, a City Councilman in Asheville, NC may lose his seat because he is an athiest and, apparently, that makes him a second class citizen.  Not just socially, but legally.
Foes say atheism disqualifies pol – BostonHerald.com

That has riled conservative activists, who cite a little-noticed quirk in North Carolina’s Constitution that disqualifies officeholders “who shall deny the being of Almighty God.”

I really don’t understand this position at all.  While I do understand the idea that the atheist movement might need to deal more politely with those of faith (’understand’, not necessarily ‘agree with’), the idea that somehow saying that one can be good without god is too strong an attack on religion is ludicrous.  It seems to me that if that is too aggressive, even the statement that its OK to be an atheist is too much of an assault.  If that is true, then saying “I believe in Jesus” is anti-semitic, or saying that “I’m a moral person even though I am an atheist” is too derogatory towards theists (which is all the ad campaign is, in fact, saying).  It sounds to me like this gentleman wants atheists to ‘keep it to themselves’.  Which would be more than OK if theists would do the same.  But, as always, religion is the trump card and anyone who says anything about alternatives is just being a jerk.  Apparently, Humanism only worries about the tender feelings of the theist, and atheists can go fuck themselves.
Atheists’ ad campaign embarrasses humanism leader

Writing in the NY Times (Dec. 9/09), Mr. Doerr commented that “…I am embarrassed by the A.H.A.’s “good without God” campaign of signs on transit vehicles. Humanists are philosophical naturalists, but more important than advertising, one item of the humanist worldview is emphasizing the many positive positions we hold in common with a wide range of religious believers. I refer to such matters as peace, civil liberties, religious freedom, the environment, social justice, democracy, women’s rights and so on.”

I can’t begin to tell you how much this bit terrifies me:

“The judge also realizes that jail time will not reform us, because he has witnessed our faith runs very deep,” the statement reads.

Translation: we did nothing wrong.
Extrapolation: therefor, we’ll do it again if similar situations arise.
Further: Yes, we are OK with killing children in the name of god.

Honestly, I don’t know what to say about this.

6 months plus probation.

At what point do we simply say that child neglect is A-OK?

I mean, seriously, I’m not sure what the details are on this but they did remove the kids and none of them had died.

So, crazy nazi parents are NOT ok, but crazy religious parents with a body count are just fine.

“Brian Brown speaks to these people. He has a master’s degree from Oxford, and completed course work for a doctorate in history from UCLA. He shoulders the accusations of bigotry; it’s horrible when people say that your life’s mission is actually just prejudice. He tries to help people see that opposing gay marriage does not make them bigots, that the argument should have nothing to do with hate or fear, and everything to do with history and tradition.

The reason Brian Brown is so effective is that he is pleasantly, ruthlessly sane.”

…

“Brown is confident that if people hear his message, they will believe it. “People already believe it,” he says, “but the issue is so deep-seated that they’ve never had to create an argument for it. Now we have to give people the language to do that.” Create talking points. Help them see. “

Its that we hate women!  Thats much better (btw, the below was snagged from Sadly, No, but its a quote from another article).
the premise: the primary need for marriage is the control of sexual access to women (he actually says this).  So, he wants us to realize that anti-gay marriage people aren’t homophobes or jesus nutjobs.  Instead, they just think women need to be controlled like the pathetic children they are.  The subtext, that all men are rapists and the only thing stopping them is the ‘institution’ of marriage, isn’t particularly complimentary to men either. 

Sadly, No! » A novel objection to gay marriage

Can gay men and women be as generous as we straight men are? Will you consider us as men who love, just as you do, and not merely as homophobes or Baptists? Every day thousands of ordinary heterosexual men surrender the dream of gratifying our immediate erotic desires. Instead, heroically, resignedly, we march up the aisle with our new brides, starting out upon what that cad poet Shelley called the longest journey, attired in the chains of the kinship system–a system from which you have been spared.

Jury finds Wis. mother guilty in prayer death — chicagotribune.com

“We accept the situation as it is for now,” Gordon said. “We worship our God. It doesn’t mean God loves us any less. Matter of fact is, he just loves us that much more. We will continue to seek justice.”

Really? God loves you more for killing a child?

Linehan countered, saying Neumann didn’t realize her daughter was so ill and did all she could do to help, in line with the family’s belief in faith-healing.

hm. I suppose so. I’m reminded of a line from the Simpson’s. “Doc, we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas!”
Just because you attach ‘god’ or ‘faith’ to an idea doesn’t mean you are absolved of responsibility.

“Religious extremism is a Muslim terrorist,” Linehan said. “They are saying these parents were so far off the scale that they murdered their child. The woman did everything she could to help her. That is the injustice in this case.”

I thought that ending on a double-standard mixed with some cultural elitism and a hint of out-and-out racism was nice.