Last week, Weblog asked readers to best chronicle everything offensive about Neil Steinberg's Chicago Sun-Times column, "What's with Sex and Religion?"

Though Weblog received many responses, most respondents found the contest itself more reprehensible than Steinberg's column. Faced with so many delightful entries (OK, I admit it: it's a shameless attempt to lure our offended readers back to the site), Weblog is awarding multiple accolades, both to those disagreeing with Steinberg and to those disagreeing with Weblog. Steinberg, by the way, published on Sunday a follow-up column, titled " Premarital Sex Myth Lures Clerics Off Beach."

And, for those of you offended that Weblog is devoting all this space to Steinberg's column, don't worry. We'll get back to linking to other sites' news stories and commentaries tomorrow.

Most nit-picky:

From The Persaud Family

If Steinberg is so smart, how come he misspelled "genealogy?"

Most in the spirit of the contest:

From Matthew Prins

Oh dear. It is unwise to take on a task this austere: tearing apart a column about sex and religion by a man who seems to have no experience with one and … well, perhaps I shouldn't hypothesize on the other. Still, I am in awe with how utterly wrong one person can be in fewer than 600 words--so wrong that it took me more than 900 words to respond. Oh bother.

1: Any possible reading of the disagreement between Ms. Stoffer and BYU cannot "[throw] a stark light" on why "fundamentalist Christians are so obsessed with sex," because of a teeny little problem: Mormons are not fundamentalist Christians. Some Christians believe Mormonism is a subset of Christianity; some disagree. None, I hope, would call Mormonism ...

Subscriber access only You have reached the end of this Article Preview

To continue reading, subscribe now. Subscribers have full digital access.