Quoted for emphasis!
But really, it seems to be all the rage with those attacking religions for any reason. They tend to take the text totally literally and point out how contradictory, crazy, or evil the text is.
Which may well be true, but it is not a good attack on the religion - most of which have evolved quite sophisticated systems of commentary, interpretation and analysis that make the religion actually practiced far more, and quite different, from that contained in the original text.
There are of course exceptions - literalists of various stripes do exist, and they tend to be noisy. Thus you get the odd phenomenon of modern-day anti-religious types insisting, along with the fundamentalists, that the (often deeply unpleasant) fundamentalists represent the “true” interpreters of the religion, rather that the (often far more humane and admirable) mainstream, because their vision is a simple-minded application of the text - often, cherry-picking the very nastiest bits for emphasis.