The religious stood together today outside of Chick-Fil-A’s nationwide.

More, in fact, at one time than we’ve ever seen waiting for a chance to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or stand up for social outcasts whom society has marginalized… like the entire homosexual community.

You know, things Jesus actually told his followers to do.

Irony is a bitch.

Today, Christians stood up for what they call “traditional marriage”, even though most forms of traditional marriage in the Christian Bible are illegal in the US (and for good reason). And all this despite the fact that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock and grew up with (arguably) two fathers. Where does any of that fit into the Religious Right’s image of traditional family values?

Isn’t it weird to live in a so-called Christian nation that would have cut funding to programs Jesus’ own family would have greatly benefitted from? But I digress…

The larger question looming over this entire debate is: Where would that first century bastard-son-of-a-carpenter-turned-social-revolutionary even fit in our modern American society when it comes to the whole marriage debacle?

Does anyone out there really think he’d have been seen waiting in line for a (relatively adequate) chicken sandwich while simultaneously opposing equality? Probably not. In fact, that sounds like something that might hinder people from hearing the Christian message of love and acceptance. And he probably wouldn’t have been protesting on the other side of the parking lot, either.

Ironically, the misogyny Rush Limbaugh spewed for three days over Sandra Fluke was not much worse than his regular broadcast of sexist, racist and homophobic hate speech:

-- Female Cabinet members are "Sex-retaries."

-- "The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."

-- The National Organization for Women is "a bunch of whores to liberalism."

-- [Said to an African-American female caller]: "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."

These are just a few samples from the arsenal of degrading language Limbaugh deploys on women, people of color, lesbians and gays, immigrants, the disabled, the elderly, Muslims, Jews, veterans, environmentalists and so forth.

Limbaugh doesn't just call people names. He promotes language that deliberately dehumanizes his targets. Like the sophisticated propagandist Josef Goebbels, he creates rhetorical frames -- and the bigger the lie, the more effective -- inciting listeners to view people they disagree with as sub-humans. His longtime favorite term for women, "femi-Nazi," doesn't even raise eyebrows anymore, an example of how rhetoric spreads when unchallenged by coarsened cultural norms.

At least this most recent incident has turned a spotlight back on the vile, damaging statements Limbaugh has been promulgating for years. His sponsors are dropping him; his stations have begun to follow suit. VoteVets, a coalition of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, released a statement by female vets, including Katherine Scheirman, former chief of medical operations in the U.S. Air Forces, demanding that the American Forces Network drop Limbaugh from its programming.

They state, "Our entire military depends on troops respecting each other -- women and men. There simply can be no place on military airwaves for sentiments that would undermine that respect."

That makes this a fitting time to inquire of his syndicator, Clear Channel Communications, whether it intends to continue supporting someone who addicts his audience to regular doses of hate speech. Clear Channel's Premiere Radio Networks Inc., which hosts Limbaugh's program, has defended his recent comments.

If Clear Channel won't clean up its airways, then surely it's time for the public to ask the FCC a basic question: Are the stations carrying Limbaugh's show in fact using their licenses "in the public interest?"

Spectrum is a scarce government resource. Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh's radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.

The FCC takes such complaints into consideration when stations file for license renewal. For local listeners near a station that carries Limbaugh's show, there is plenty of evidence to bring to the FCC that their station isn't carrying out its public interest obligation. Complaints can be registered under the broadcast category of the FCC website: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints

This isn't political. While we disagree with Limbaugh's politics, what's at stake is the fallout of a society tolerating toxic, hate-inciting speech. For 20 years, Limbaugh has hidden behind the First Amendment, or else claimed he's really "doing humor" or "entertainment." He is indeed constitutionally entitled to his opinions, but he is not constitutionally entitled to the people's airways.

It's time for the public to take back our broadcast resources. Limbaugh has had decades to fix his show. Now it's up to us.

Rhode Island: Teen atheist Jessica Ahlquist has faced a blizzard of taunts, abuse, and threats of physical violence after a federal court ruled a controversial Christian prayer banner hanging in her high school auditorium must come down.

On Friday, Rhode Island police began investigating the threats.

Jessica Ahlquist has been the public face behind a much publicized battle to remove the unconstitutional prayer banner displayed at Cranston High School West. Jessica, a student at Cranston High, has faced prejudice, adversity, and religious intolerance from Christian extremists in her fight to remove  the unconstitutional prayer banner.

  The abuse and threats have only intensified since a federal judge ordered the “immediate removal” of the controversial Christian prayer banner located in the auditorium of Cranston High School West.

William Hamby, Atlanta Atheism Examiner, offers examples of the abuse and threats being directed against Jessica via social media. The following is but a small sample:

How does it feel to be the most hated person in RI right now? Your a puke and a disgrace to the human race.

shes not human shes garbage

I think everyone should just fight this girl

F**k Jessica alquist I'll drop anchor on her face

Let's all jump that girl who did the banner

But for real somebody should jump this girl

I want to punch the girl in the face

I hope there's lots of banners in hell when your rotting in there you atheist f**k

jessica alquist is gonna get punched in the face

Pope Benedict said Monday that gay marriage was one of several threats to the traditional family that undermined "the future of humanity itself."

The pope made some of his strongest comments against gay marriage in a new year address to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Vatican in which he touched on some economic and social issues facing the world today.

He told diplomats from nearly 180 countries that the education of children needed proper "settings" and that "pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman."

"This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself," he said.

The Vatican and Catholic officials around the world have protested against moves to legalize gay marriage in Europe and other developed parts of the world.

One leading opponent of gay marriage in the United States is New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, whom the pope will elevate to cardinal next month.

Dolan fought against gay marriage before it became legal in New York state last June, and in September he sent a letter to President Barack Obama criticizing his administration's decision not to support a federal ban on gay marriage.

In that letter Dolan, who holds the powerful post of president of the U.S. Bishops Conference, said such a policy could "precipitate a national conflict between church and state of enormous proportions."

The Roman Catholic Church, which has some 1.3 billion members worldwide, teaches that while homosexual tendencies are not sinful, homosexual acts are, and that children should grow up in a traditional family with a mother and a father.

"The family unit is fundamental for the educational process and for the development both of individuals and states; hence there is a need for policies which promote the family and aid social cohesion and dialogue," Benedict told the diplomats.

Gay marriage is legal in a number of European countries, including Spain and the Netherlands.

Some Churches that have allowed gay marriage, women priests, gay clergy and gay bishops have been losing members to Catholicism, and the Vatican has taken steps to facilitate their conversion.

In 2009, Benedict decreed that Anglicans who leave their Church, many because they feel it has become too liberal, can find a home in Catholicism in a parallel hierarchy that allows them to keep some of their traditions.

The Vatican has since set up "ordinariates," structures similar to dioceses, in Britain and the United States to oversee ex-Anglicans who have converted and be a point of contact for those wishing to do so.

GOP primary debate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich blasted what he said was anti-Christian bigotry in the media, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry promised to end what he sees as the Obama administration’s “war on religion.”

“The bigotry question goes both ways,” Gingrich said, inserting himself into the discussion after a series of questions related to contraception, gay marriage and gay adoption. The former speaker charged that the focus on social issues indicated media bias.

“And there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side. And none of it gets covered by the news media.”

Gingrich specifically knocked a question about whether the assembled candidates would allow gay couples to adopt.

“You don’t hear the opposite question asked,” he explained.

“Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done? Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration?”

Shortly after Gingrich’s attack on the media, Texas Gov. Rick Perry pivoted from a question about whether he would consider a third-party run to promise that if elected president he would end what he called “this administration’s war on religion.”

“When we see an administration that will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act, that gives their Justice Department clear instructions to go take the ministerial exception away from our churches where that’s never happened before, when we see this administration not giving money to Catholic charities for sexually trafficked individuals because they don’t agree with the Catholic church on abortion, that is a war against religion. And it’s going to stop under a Perry administration.”

It's important to remember that we are talking about people opposing core civil rights for American citizens.

Maggie Gallagher, who has devoted much of her professional life to maintaining separate but decidedly unequal accomodations for gays and lesbians, is very concerned about Americans' individual rights. Mostly, she's worried about the “right” of religious conservatives dwelling on the wrong side of history to express their bigotry openly, without having to face the scorn of more enlightened citizens.

Gallagher, a syndicated columnist, is the former president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and current head of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (a group that lobbies against marriage equality). She is best known for writing favorably of the Bush administration's “Healthy Marriage Initiative” without disclosing that she was receiving tens of thousands of dollarsfrom the Department of Health and Human Services to promote the policy at the time.