From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message

> Yes, and our government has defined marriage, so all non-felons should be
> allowed to participate in it. <snip>

In what State are felons not permitted to marry?


From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message

> At least you have a home, since many of your political brothers are also
> atheists, and tolerant of same. But I am truly a, "Man without a country".
> My conservative heroes, like Rush, are intolerant of atheists, and insult
> us on a regular basis.

That says it all: Rush, the entertainer, by his onw admission - hero -
great oxymoron. <\begin sarcastic tag> You have really proven your ability
to think and analyze. <\end sarcastic tag>

>To me this is the one place where their normal ability to think logically
>breaks down. I can listen to, and agree with, their point of view for
>hours, and then, seemingly out of nowhere, they will reach out and insult
>my intelligence by calling me a, "bad citizen", because I don't accept
>their stupid Christian myth, and believe the whole universe, (with more
>galaxies in it than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on earth),
>was created by some mean looking old bearded man in the sky that created
>man "in his own image". This is sure a crazy world.........

Can you think allegory

drill baby drill - are the tags really needed here?

From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
> "Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
> news:4bdf65ad$0$27713$8f2e0ebb(a)
>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)> wrote in message
>> news:l0jst5d49c4iv5u2movb6d44mnfpjrhc3q(a)
>>> On Sun, 2 May 2010 21:03:49 -0700, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote:
>>>>> You do know that "bigotry" is the obstinate or intolerant devotion to
>>>>> one's own opinions and prejudices? Atheists who are intolerant of the
>>>>> religious can be bigots.
>>>>I believe those of faith are free to worship as they please.
>>> The gist of your rant was that the "betrayed" should abandon their
>>> religion. If they want to continue to be a member of that religion,
>>> even though that religion holds them to be wrong on this issue,
>>> shouldn't they be free to worship as they please? Where is your
>>> tolerance?
>>>>>> I find myself comfortable as an atheist, not having to favor one
>>>>>> religion over another.
>>>>> So am I. However, I would never suggest to someone else that they
>>>>> should leave their religion or question why they don't. That seems
>>>>> exceedingly presumptious to me.
>>>>I would only suggest that move if the person in question is being
>>>>tormented by that religion and leaving the religion is the only action
>>>>which makes sense.
>>> Makes sense to who? It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if it
>>> makes sense or not to you. It's what makes sense to *them* that
>>> counts.
>>> The hypocrisy of the whole thing is that we have the devoutly
>>> religious who want the rest of us to do as they want, and then we have
>>> the unreligious who want the religious people to change.
>>> I don't really see a difference between a bible-thumper who says "I
>>> suggest you become religious" and a nonreligious person saying "I
>>> suggest you leave your religion". They are both proselytizing.
>> Agreed. In this small group we have a professed atheist who worships. In
>> the vast majority of his posts he refers to his money.
>> --
>> Peter
> Worshiping money and wanting your government to take it away from you and
> give it to someone else are two different things. I don't worship money. I
> simply worked and saved and invested a percentage of it in American
> business for most of my life, and I resent it when my government steals it
> to give to those who didn't. If you call that, "worshiping" money, then I
> am guilty as charged.

The vast majority of your postings point to selfish worship of your wallet.
You have abdicated your social responsibility as a human being.


From: Neil Harrington on

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)> wrote in message
> On Mon, 03 May 2010 19:29:24 -0400, tony cooper
> <tony_cooper213(a)> wrote:
>>On Sun, 2 May 2010 22:48:31 -0700, Savageduck
>><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote:
>>>On 2010-05-02 22:31:53 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)>
>>>> On Sun, 2 May 2010 21:03:49 -0700, Savageduck
>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote:
>>>>>> You do? Who are these "upper echelon" people?
>>>>> Where do you want to start? The Papacy, The College of Cardinals,
>>>> Get serious, Duck. Who has any idea of what the College of Cardinals
>>>> do except when its puff-of-smoke-time?
>>>They play upper management to the diocese.
>>A Cardinal, in the Catholic church, is a level of the hierarchy of the
>>church. A Cardinal may be in charge of a diocese or an archdiocese.
>>All Cardinals are members of the College of Cardinals, but the College
>>is only convened on the death of a Pope or when the Pope summons them
>>for a consistory (a special meeting). That's a rare event.
> Hoist on my own petard. I should not of capitalized the word

You mean you "should not HAVE capitalized the word [ . . . ]" :-)

> "cardinal" above. The word is capitalized when it is used as part of
> a title (Cardinal Jones or College of Cardinals) but not when it
> refers to a job description.

Just so. The same principle applies to titles generally.

From: Peter on
"Chris H" <chris(a)> wrote in message
> In message <4be01b06$0$790$8f2e0ebb(a)>, Peter
> <peternew(a)> writes

>>Your tolerance for the belief of others is almost as underwhelming as
>>your ignorance and/or lack of veracity.
> Anyone is free to believe what they like as a faith. I tolerate all
> faiths etc. (even though most faiths do not tolerate others who do not
> believe as they do as demonstrated above)
> However: Re-writing history is not something I tolerate in anyone.
> I have not argued with anyone's faith. However I will argue with the
> ludicrous statement that the bible has not changed in over 5000 years...
> Some parts are only just 1500 years old.

What parts of Tanakh have changed?
Feel free to Google the term.