"The Christian version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as super-patriarchal," . . . "where god (sic) is viewed as so powerful he can impregnate without befouling himself by touching a woman, and women are nothing but vessels."

If that wasn't enough, take a look at these nuggets of wisdom from sbh of Rational Rant:

". . . I'd prefer to believe that the majority of Roman Catholics aren't hate-filled antisemitic homophobic bigots of the Catholic League stripe."

"Church is once again mired to her hips in this moral filth."

"Apparently it is all right for them to say any evil or disgusting thing they like about people they oppose for whatever reason"

"I know for a fact that Custos Fidei is full of crap on this point."

"It is thus Custos Fidei who comes off in this as ignorant, misinformed--or a liar."

Then Mr. John Whiteside chimes in with this well-informed comment:

"Honestly, it didn't make much sense to me, and surrounded by an ad hominem attack as it was, it was pretty hard to take seriously."

My posting was an ad hominem attack. So quoting Mr. John Whiteside is considered an ad hominem attack. Let's take a closer look at what he had to say. But I need to remind my readers that Mr. Whiteside did not object to Mr. sbh's 'ad hominem' attacks on Catholicism nor on me.

Number one: “Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, who often can be found saying nasty things about gay people and warning that the Jews run Hollywood” Unsupported evidence. And if you were to find these ‘allegations’, I’m sure you would have to edit his comments about the Jews and explain that ‘Church teaching’ says nasty things. Again a double standard in the media, specifically you. Number two: “Criticizing the Catholic Church or its beliefs is not "anti-Catholic bigotry.”

Because you say so makes it so? So if I were to deny that the holocaust actually occurred I wouldn’t be called a bigot? Your logic is irrational and contradictory. It’s irrational because you are unable to step away from your comments and see it for what it is, bigotry and hate. It’s contradictory because you equate the difference between hate speeches that if it’s Catholicism its ok, but if it’s Judaism it’s not ok. Number three: “if a church is going to act like a political action committee, those activities are a valid target of criticism.”

The Church does not act like a political action committee. Just because you disagree with the teachings of the Church doesn’t give you the pretext to ‘assume’ it is acting like a political action committee and then run your diatribe of hate and bigotry. You create a straw man argument so as to excuse yourself from being called what you are, an anti-Catholic bigot. Number four: “bunch of scary lunatics,”

That pretty much explains itself. Though you were quoting your alleged Catholic friends you followed up by explicitly affirming it with the following statement… “The Catholic League is a political group that represents a pretty extreme fringe” Number five: