Why I Love my Army of readers and commenters

Yesterday I posted about bigots and their lack of logic in opposing marriage equality.

Of course straight away the catholic bigot brigade started up. Then along came a long time reader and commenter who uses the pseudonym “Agent Ballsack”.

He wrote:

We are all likely bigoted to some extent, we are programmed by our parents at a very young age to dislike this, that and the other. Whether it’s ‘currymunchers’, ‘mobsters’, god forbid ‘law enforcement’ and a slew of other programmed behaviours. What sets mostof us apart from animals is our ability to change our beliefs as we learn more about the world around us. Live and let live, turn the other cheek etc etc but the main one I think a lot of Christians find hardest to live with is ‘Do unto others’. Perhaps we should outlaw christianity again to remind a particular group of society what it’s like to be persecuted. 

No I am not gay and I hated gays with a vengeance when I was less forgiving and tolerant of others different beliefs but as I have grown, I have realised it was without cause. For instance Lucia Maria – I may think religion is a load of bollocks but I don’t think less of her for practising it, that is her right – yet I despise what the catholic church allows under it’s protection. Or Kosh – never cared he’s as queer as a 3c coin, just his slavish devotion and unbending belief in the current school system.

Now we do not see eye to eye on some issues, especially when it comes to organised religion, but I thought that comment warranted a bit more exposure and discussion.

This is what I love about blogging, the fact that people with opposing views on some issues can come together on others. Agent Ballsack thinks religion is a load of bollocks, but it doesn’t matter to him that I am a christian, nor does it stop him commenting and contributing in other areas.

For this I thank him and encourage others to likewise enjoy the blog.

I run a light moderation regime, it has tightened up somewhat, but I think the tone is improving. The last thing I want is an echo chamber.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • ABS at his (?) finest in the comments department and that one of his was a classic

    If I want echo chambers I will go read or listen to the MSM or heavens forbid the Auckland Council chamber from time to time. If I want something more original and unique that is what ABS and (well run) blogs for


    • Agent BallSack

      Male indeed ☺

      • I think I have asked you that question before ABS. Not enough coffee to kick start the memory circuits (oh and its Monday)

      • unsol

        Cant imagine too many women would use an alias containing ball sack :)

        • Agent BallSack

          It was meant as a play on Honore de Balzac’s name, also I was a bit of a troll when I first started commenting here, these days I think hmmm perhaps a name change function would be good.

          • Hazards001

            Clever…can’t say I’ll be rushing to read his work..but your nic is clever. I love a good word play :)

          • unsol

            I had to google to see who he was & I’m still none the wiser….a French playright doesnt mean a lot to me sorry. How on earth did you stumble across him? I assume it wasn’t in Social Studies at school!

          • Agent BallSack

            Damned Dominion Post “This day in History”…we share birthdays. And horrible French surnames. Mine is NOT Balzac lol.

  • Agent BallSack

    Feverishly anticipates dissemination and criticism lol… Thanks Cam maybe I should post sans coffee more often. I think we are all appreciative that this blog gives us a voice – sure there can be shouting down of opposing views but also we are offered the freedom to say what we think minus the fear of being banned for dissenting views. That’s what keeps me coming back again and again.

    • CommonSense404

      I read the comment on the w/e and immediately related to it. Spot on I thought.

  • GregM

    Yup, that was a good one ABS, summed it up well.

  • Ed Snack

    And the prize for stupid asshole and bigot of the moth goes to…..wait for it….Yes indeed, it is once again Cameron Slater !

    For calling people bigots over a difference in opinion that cannot be discussed because if you agree you are WRONG and A BIGOT, and probably RACIST (Oh, but Cam hasn’t quite got around to tossing that around yet).

    I like watching train wrecks Cam, keep it up boyo.

    • Bunswalla

      What kind of moth gets the prize? gypsy moth, brown evening moth, perhaps lawyer pug moth? You’re telling the story, do enlighten us.

    • Lion_ess

      People are not called bigots over a difference of opinion, they’re called bigots because of the irrational nonsense they use to justify their posts. “God’s will, selective bible passages, fear-mongering about natural disasters” and the like. Actually they don’t have opinions of their own, rather regurgitating illogical propopoganda they have been indoctrinated with, and should have grown out of, if they ever had the ability to think for themselves.

      • LesleyNZ

        That being the case – the same could be said about you Lioness.

        • Lion_ess

          Fair enough Lesley, but my opinions are mine – not the result of being brainwashed with ghosts, gods, demons or taniwha tales.

    • unsol

      When has Cameron posted against the Catholic faith? All I have seen is his many posts advocating against their covering up of sexual abuse

      In terms of the word bigot, the loose definition states it is someone who “has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong”, but the most widely used definition is in reference to discrimination:

      “Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person’s race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status” (Wikipedia – good enough at short notice).

      So please provide an example of where Cameron has treated Catholics with contempt, hatred & intolerance because of their faith?

      I have seen many examples of him treating them & the non religious sorts with contempt for hating on the gay community. But not because they expressed their version of religion.

      It is very interesting that the bigots now claim those who favour marriage equality are bigots, yet whose personal rights are at stake? Whose lives are being personally affected by this debate? Whose rights are currently being denied? No one’s except that of the LGBT community.

      Ralph Jones so rightly observed “things have reached a slightly ludicrous situation when a gay rights group can be patronised for labelling as “bigots” those individuals who have gone most out of their way not only to prevent gay rights becoming a reality but also to viciously insult and ostracise the entire homosexual community”

      • Just look at his many posts against Pope Benedict XVI. He is our spiritual father, and any unjust attack on him is an attack against all Catholics and our religion.

        • Lion_ess

          Spiritual father? I think this is an issue for the non-catholic and/or non-religious readers of this blog (well me anyway) who are not indoctrinated with the “faith”. The catholic church has a serious PR problem with the “spirituality” of its leaders.
          Preaching one thing, while practising another – and engaging in the systemic covering up of their own criminal behaviour – across the globe.
          They are hypocrites Lucia, and I guess those who defend or justify their behaviour are seen and hypocrites also.

          • See, this is what happens. I explain a point, and then I get attacked for it. It’s extremely tedious.

          • Lion_ess

            I’m not attacking you Lucia, just pointing out my reaction to the “spirituality” of the leaders of the Catholic church.

          • As I said before, you attack Pope Benedict, you attack me.

            I’m just pointing this out as a follow up to my initial reply to unsol, I’m not expecting any change in behaviour or anything.

            Edited to add: Yes, there are some pretty bad leaders in the Catholic Church, however they are an exception – not the rule.

          • He isn’t the pope, he quit.

          • As I said before, you attack Pope Benedict, you attack me.

            I guess I, among many others, can’t get our head around how you show unwavering support for someone who it is said has been very active at trying to keep any kind of child abuse evidence within the church as opposed to handing the offenders over to the police, as we would all expect – even you, surely – if the offender wasn’t from the Church.

            We can not hold those two concepts in the brain at the same time and not find they are in conflict. As a result, we see your support as blind, perhaps ignorant (and yet we know you are far from dumb).

            Does that make sense?

          • It makes sense if that idea of Pope Benedict is true – but it’s not.

          • unsol

            yes I can see how you can take offence to that as the Pope is very much ingrained in your faith. But I assume you would put God above the Pope therefore, if the Pope’s integrity is being called into question I would expect you to be objective about that as after all, you wouldn’t knowingly trust a corrupt spiritual leader would you? Surely the integrity of God’s Word and what He stands for would be more important than protecting someone who may have wrongfully assumed the role of God’s 2IC?

        • Not anymore he’s not, he cut and run just as soon as the heat got a bit too much…leader? More like coward.

        • Rodger T

          Shhhhhh,hear that ,Lucia?………………………..it`s the worlds smallest violin.
          Maybe if your pope was not in charge of the worlds greatest cover up of paedophilia he would not have been criticised to the extent he has .

          • I think I deserve a bigger violin than the world’s smallest one!

            And the pope hasn’t been in charge of the world’s greatest cover up of paedophilia – he’s been the one who has been the most proactive in changing things in the the Church so that paedophiles and boy buggerers cannot find refuge in the Church.

          • Rodger T

            : ) …
            I guess we will just have to differ on that last point cos` the evidence suggests otherwise

          • It does, doesn’t it? However, evidence is not necessarily volume.

          • Lion_ess

            That’s right, he complained about the media coverage when it was made public in 2010 that deaf boys were abused by a priest in Wisconsin. The Pope had known about the matter since 1996 and did nothing. Father Murphy (the abuser in this matter) died a priest in 1998.

            Maybe it’s the Church’s response to sit on things until the Priests in question die.

            How was the Pope proactive in this regard?

      • Furthermore, when he calls me and others a bigot for articulating the teachings of the Catholic Faith, then he directly attacks the Catholic Faith.

        • Agent BallSack

          Though you do have no issue with setting him straight on the matter. Once again, that’s what make this blog great.

          • Only because he doesn’t scare me. Most people can’t do what I do.

        • Bunswalla

          Lucia, what pray (ha! see what I did there?) is wrong with attacking the catholic faith? Is the catholic church so special that it’s immune from criticism, despite clear evidence of plenty of ammunition with which to attack it?

          I don’t even think Cam has attacked the teachings of the catholic faith, but he’s certainly attacked its behaviour, especially with regard to the actions of priests buggering boys, and the systematic orchestrated moves by the catholic church to enable it, cover it up and ultimately deny it.

          • You might want to read the previous post from which this one is spawned. That is a direct attack on a botched understanding of the teachings of the Catholic faith as articulated by a pro-life Catholic woman on twitter, and then those same teachings are applied to me and Andrei and we are called bigots for using them.

            Edited to add:

            what pray .. is wrong with attacking the catholic faith

            It was a direct reply to unsol who said that Cameron never attacked the Catholic faith.

        • unsol

          Can you give examples? And perhaps it is the way you articulate these teachings…

          • I think the only way to be non-offensive with regards to the Catholic Faith is to stay very quiet.

          • unsol

            Probably. But tell me, if people were to tell you their specific views day in & day out on your faith in a pragmatic & calm manner, but still essentially denouncing your faith as something evil, a cult-like institution that has brainwashed millions for the sole purpose of money, power & hedonistic lifestyle at the expense of gullible good people & innocent children, would you take offence?

            If we all went & commented on your blog & expressed our views on your faith every time you wrote about it – starting of course with say the fact that a former Hitler youth was elected to the top of their religious organisation to the covering up of child abuse & recent allegations of corruption, blackmail & gay sex, would you be OK with that?

            As your faith is very much part of who you are then of course when anyone says anything against it – includingthe allegations surrounding the Pope then of course you would feel that it is an attack against your faith, but it does swing both ways.

            There is simply no way to attack the Pope without attacking Catholics in general, just the same there is no way to say that same sex attraction & relationships are wrong, unnatural, morally corrupt or indicative of the apocalypse without causing massive offence to the LGBT community who have felt marginalised & ostracised their entire lives.

            It’s all very well demanding & claiming the right to express opinions, but a decent person with a strong moral compass & empathy for their fellow man should at least be able to decipher whether their need to express that right is worth the hurt & potential harm it causes others.

            This is why I advocate so strongly for marriage equality on here. Not because I necessarily believe SSA is OK, natural, God’s will or whatever, but because I accept them for who they say they are. The rest I leave up to God.

          • I’ve had no one be able to consistently denounce my faith to me without either getting bored of it or really angry and losing it. The more abusive types, I just flat out ban. The types of things they say I cannot publish, they are just too vile.

            People who persist in the views you have listed in your first two paragraphs also generally give up, because I can actually dismantle every single argument that you have given and show how stupid it is – with proof – and it’s easier to do on a blog that is friendly. I can’t do that on this blog because I get jumped on by several banshees at once, and my rebuttals just get lost in the comments. Like the other day when I quoted an opinion on canon law in defence of the pope – I bet no one actually took the time to read that and absorb what that actually meant. And then yesterday, two serious errors in that post on the Catholic tweeting lady and it was as if they caused a temporary blip in reality before the noise started up again.

            I say what I say, because I believe the truth is always better than a lie and it’s kinder to point people to truth than to just let them destroy themselves. It causes pain in the meantime, but pain is not always bad.

          • unsol

            “I say what I say, because I believe the truth is always better than a lie and it’s kinder to point people to truth than to just let them destroy themselves. ”

            So how do you respond to people who believe the same in response to you?

            In terms of people’s efforts to denounce your faith, I would imagine that wanes as blogging is more a game of patience and/or ‘chicken’ than a serious attempt to change one’s views.

            2 people of different religious standings – including atheist & agnostic debating never ends well….as evident by the many wars this world has seen.

            You might be able to justify your views according to your interpretation of the Bible, but the first battle would really be getting people to believe that your God exists & secondly that he said a pope must lead the church.

            Given many Christians claim the Pope falls under ‘false prophets’ I would say you’d sooner get dizzy from spinning on the head of a pin than change their minds….let alone the rest of mankind that does not believe in God or your God at all.

          • I love talking to people who believe in truth. Bring it on, I say. But this is not the place for it. Too many banshees. If you are that person, let’s talk.

          • Gayguy

            No you do not. You get all defensive when the truth about your faith is discussed.

          • unsol

            Yep, can see how your comments get lost……lots to decipher above ^. I find your views fascinating, but I’m not interested in delving any further other than to ask the odd question or have the odd nose at your blog – I am well established in what I believe, much the same as you are I suspect. I worked out what the Truth was for me a long time ago.

            I guess the thing to remember is that when it comes to blogging, any time you are on the opposing side you have to expect a swarm of bees. You may get it on here because you’re Catholic, I get it because I am pro ME, but we would both get it if we commented on the Standard!

            So regardless this is by far the best cybersphere playground in terms of a wide range of views, freedom to say what one thinks without moderation & freedom from generally INSANE people.

          • Bunswalla

            That’s a big admission Lucia, perhaps a Freudian slip? You’re suggesting that it’s impossible to say anything about the catholic faith without being offensive? Or do you just mean on this blog?

            The problem I have with your dogma (not your teachings, not the catholic faith, not the Pope, but your personal viewpoint) is that you seem very quick to defend, deflect and minimise the worst excesses of the leaders of the catholic faith.

            By leaders I include people in a position of power over often vulnerable members of their flock, including small children and other priests. I also include those in the management team that have hidden – and worse, enabled further acts of – this unspeakable behaviour. I’m not going to relitigate all the examples, I don’t think you will deny that they’ve occurred, and that the hierarchy has in the past quietly moved on these pedophile priests. There’s also a lot of evidence that the recently abdicated pope was implicated in these and other scandals possibly yet to break. If he wasn’t implicated directly, it’s impossible to imagine he was completely unaware, so in fact he’s implicated.

            But here’s the thing: you consistently defend and deflect genuine comments about these acts, in a number of ways:
            1. It happened a long time ago
            2. Other people have abused children, not just priests
            3. The pope is the spiritual father of the church – attack him and you attack every catholic. Since we agree not all catholics are bad, your attack is misguided.
            4. Attacks on the pope are “unjust”
            5. Nobody reads everything I say
            6. Nobody has been able to convince me of their viewpoint, therefore they are wrong.

            And lots of other attempts. Notwithstanding your faith, your deep desire to protect the church and your unstinting loyalty to its leaders, how can you possibly continue to defend the types of behaviour listed?

            These are not made up by catholic-haters. They happened and continue to happen. It’s ironic that while the church has consistently down-played, denied and avoided blame for unspeakable assaults against small children, as soon as a priest is found to have (possibly) sexually harassed another male adult priest some 20 years ago, he’s instantly expelled from his position. Or perhaps his political views happened to fall out of favour.

            If you continue to deny that there’s something rotten in the catholic church, it’s clear you’re blinded by ideology and there’s no point having any debate – which is a shame as you’re clearly an intelligent and well-meaning person.

          • I don’t defend against abhorrent behaviour where it is warranted. I do defend against unjust accusations, though, and you are conflating the two. I know you don’t believe that to be true, or would prefer it not to be true, however it is.

          • Ahh so silence, no dissent…yeah, that’s how abusers treat their victims

          • Gayguy

            Yet you have the right to slam others for their beliefs and values?

            Ahhhh no sunshine that is not how it works. If you do not want the many many flaws of the followers of your faith pointed out, then I suggest you speak not a word on any subject that requires you to call on your faith to support your position.

        • Gayguy

          Ever stopped to think that some of the teachings of the Catholic Faith are wrong?

          • No. I’m a revert.

          • Gayguy

            So you truly believe that Christ would refuse communion to non Catholics?

          • Yes. It’s death to receive communion if you are not in a state of grace. If you are not willing to confess your sins, and you don’t believe that communion is the soul, body and divinity of Our Lord, then it’s a really bad idea to receive Him.

          • Gayguy

            So in your mind all Anglicans are basically dead.

          • And Adventists, and Presbyterians and Methodists….

          • LesleyNZ

            And to name a few more – Baptist, Brethren (Open Brethren, incl. Plymouth), Pentecostal, Reformed/Presbyterian/Congregational/United, Lutheran, Apostolic/New Apostolic, Mennonite, Friends (Quakers)……….

          • No, they don’t have a valid Eucharist.

          • LesleyNZ

            And to name a few more – Baptist, Brethren (Open Brethren, incl. Plymouth), Pentecostal, Reformed/Presbyterian/Congregational/United, Lutheran, Apostolic/New Apostolic, Mennonite, Friends (Quakers)……….

          • LesleyNZ, all the signs performed in the OT were but a prefiguring of the NT. The mana in the desert prefigured the Eucharist, so how could it just be a symbol? It must of course be greater and more amazing that the mana that fell from Heaven and fed the Israelites. Jesus Himself said, “This is my body” and He also said that “You must eat my flesh and drink my blood to have eternal life.” Would you rather I not believe Our Lord?

          • LesleyNZ

            The manna from heaven was food for the Children of Israel to survive in the desert because they were starving – nothing more. Communion “breaking of bread and drinking of wine” or Eucharist as you call it is symbolic. If you take it to mean a literal eating of the body (bread) and drinking of the blood (wine) then each time you do this you are crucifying Jesus Christ afresh. The scriptures teach that Christ died once and for all mankind (sins) – no matter what denomination you are. 1 Peter 3v18 “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.” Communion is symbolic to remember the Lord Jesus Christ’s death on the cross for our sins and his resurrection. Lucia Maria, I think you believe more what Catholicism has taught you, rather than what God says in the scriptures/Bible. This is one of the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. Lucia Maria – I would rather you believe our Lord – but with no man-made strings attached.
            Freedom in Christ – Galatians 5v1 ‘It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.”

          • unsol

            “Lucia Maria – I would rather you believe our Lord – but with no man-made strings attached”.

            Fair call in theory, but very problematic in practice given that the Bible has been translated by many different men over many years. Even in your own preferred version – from memory this is NIV which was not translated from original documents …unlike the the KJV which was commissioned by a gay King.

            And then of course there is the debate re number of books from the OT. Decided differently by different men with different religious standings/

            So you are relying on man – who is inherently flawed – to interpret God’s Word. Which means much of what you state is set in stone is in fact not. According to others who believe differently anyway.

            That is why it is called faith.

          • LesleyNZ

            King James must have really hated his commissioned Bible then! I had better start using the ESV (English Standard version) then – the version my husband prefers.

          • LesleyNZ

            I agree with you here Gayguy. There is a big difference between Catholics and Protestants. The Roman Catholic belief is
            salvation by works plus a little bit of grace and the Protestant belief is
            totally of grace and the works that follow confirm the grace. Ephesians 2:8-9 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.” The Bible teaches that there is one mediator between God and mankind and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. Protestant Churches believe this – Catholics do not. 1Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the
            man Christ Jesus..” I would like to know what you think about this Lucia Maria. According to Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621), the greatest of all Protestant “Heresies” was “assurance” (of salvation). The Catholic Church does not teach assurance of salvation – why? Because “If justification is not by faith alone, in Christ alone, by grace alone — if faith needs to be completed by works; if Christ’s work is somehow repeated; if grace is not free and sovereign, then something
            always needs to be done, to be “added” for final justification to be ours. That is exactly the problem. If final justification is dependent on something we have to complete it is not possible to enjoy assurance of salvation. For then, theologically, final justification is contingent and uncertain, and it is impossible for anyone (apart from special revelation, Rome conceded) to be sure of salvation. But if Christ has done everything, if justification is by grace, without contributory works; it is received by faith’s empty hands — then assurance, even “full assurance” is possible for every believer.”
            If the Catholic Church taught assurance of salvation, the Catholic Church structure would change dramatically. Martin Luther realised this. Read more at this link: What is the Greatest of All Protestant “Heresies”? http://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-greatest-all-protestant-heresies/

          • LesleyNZ

            Lucia Maria – Despite the Roman Catholic Church and it problems with sexual matters within the church, the RCC teaching on homosexuality is Biblical.

          • Thanks for that, Lesley.

            Just to let you know, though. Because you replied to Gayguy and not me, I wouldn’t have seen this comment if I hadn’t come back into this post to see the context of another comment made to me; as I was using the DISQUS dashboard to reply to comments, and it doesn’t show me the whole thread, only my comments and replies directly to me.

        • Gayguy

          There are a few teachings that should be attacked and denounced as they are based in hate.

      • Agent BallSack

        It’s impossible to have a strong opinion without being called bigoted Unsol. I used to think people were entitled to their own opinions, these days it seems that if you do – you risk being labelled ‘bigot’ and many other words that we all know that are frequently bandied about on the blogosphere. It may surprise Lucia I read the majority of her posts – that is until the Canon laws come out then she loses me, however I believe she makes a very strong contribution to this blog and ALL her responses are very well thought out and on subject matter.

        • Wow, thank you for your kind words, Agent BallSack. I’m touched.

        • unsol

          Yes one should always be able to express an opinion except but if that opinion means insulting, belittling or degrading a group of people who feel that they have no choice in being who they are then I think you should keep your opinions to yourself. Unless they awful people doing unlawful things to other people no one has any business telling anyone that who they are & what they do is wrong. It is just not on.

          I have plenty of personal opinions in terms of what I think of some people who call themselves Christians, Atheists or Catholics & I have plenty of views on same sex attraction too.

          But unless they are child molesters or abusers, or theives, murderers or rapists. I don’t believe I have the right to dictate what others should be doing in their lives – whether gay, cheaters, polygamists or just plain assholes. I believe that is between them & their own moral compass

          I read LM’s posts too. I find them intriguing in terms of why she thinks the way she does. She is far more intellectual about her faith than my Catholic friends so as someone who is interested in religion I find it interesting.

    • Lion_ess

      That’s a cunt of a comment Ed, but at least you have the freedom to express it. I suspect someone who says they like watching train wrecks, is a train wreck – check out the mirror. No points are gained here by typing in caps either, boyo.

    • Not a fan of moths

      • Hazards001

        Aww..I quite like some of your moth posts.

    • Dave

      PLease keep coming back Ed Snack, its good to see there is still a few bling fools left in life, reinforces how open and frank this blog is when you drop in.

  • Andrei

    Of course straight away the catholic bigot brigade started up.

    Are you sure? You posted that when all the Catholics were at mass and it missed its full potential for maximising its “diversity of opinion”

    • if ever the word mass needed the word suicide following it…

    • unsol

      Not all, only some. Lucia found time to comment….

      • Yeah, that was unusual. Normally I would be at Mass, but we went later because of martial arts. (long story)

        I pointed out some major flaws in the original post and was basically ignored, except for people asking questions stemming from what I said.

  • Agent BallSack

    I would like to just point out that I respect any ones right to follow religion, I have tried it in the past it is just not my cup of tea. A lot of religions do have community services and look after people that too often fall through the cracks of society, for which I would commend them.
    I grew up in a household with a religious parent and an athiest parent so was always given the impression that it’s a choice that is the individuals to make. My choice is to act fairly to others and treat them as I would expect them to treat me, I don’t need to pray every Sunday and be forgiven my sins to do that, I just rely on my conscience.

    That said there are aspects to some religions I do not want to try to understand.

    • mick le prick

      If you want to do your bit for the community join a Rotary or Lions club.

    • CoNZervative

      Agent-S. I have been a Christian over 30 years, a pastor in Angi church, and active in several other denom.s. I too have been hurt by institutionaised church, and see some sillyness and ugliness there (they are just people after all). But there is a huge chasm for me between Jesus as a person (who I believe is alive) and “the church.” Don’t throw the baby out with your bad experince bath water. There is a wealth of gold there to be had.

    • manuka416

      Can you grant the same tolerance to Mormons? “People who follow the teachings of Joseph Smith / Brigham Young honestly
      scare the bejesus out of me. Southpark mocks it suitably. DUM DUM DUM

      • Agent BallSack

        I suggest you go read about where the Book of Mormon was found, how it was translated by Joseph Smith from the golden tablets Jehovah supposedly left in Utah. Then when proof was required, Lo & Behold the tablets mysteriously disappeared. My opinion is it’s a bunch of lies with as much tying it to true religion as L Rons meanderings of thetans. That however is ‘my opinion’. Would I be tolerant of those who follow it as people? Yes, I know some Mormons. Do I believe it’s the true word of God? Not on your life.

        • Bunswalla

          Didn’t he translate the “tablets” from behind a sheet he hung in his kitchen, to his wife on the other side? When she got tired of the sham, she declared the whole thing to be a bunch of bollocks and pulled back the sheet to find him sitting alone, with no tablets in sight. I can’t recall what his supposed explanation was, but she got the sack and he found some gullible rube to continue the translation for him. The “tablets” were never seen, but I think they have had a kind of raffia-work base….

        • manuka416

          Cheers ABS

          • Agent BallSack

            Or watch the SouthPark ep, its classic! And unfortunately so close to the truth as to be WTF? material ☺

  • steve and monique

    Well said,and one of the reasons we love this place.Cheers Agent Ballsack,and Cam for providing a great place to visit.

  • CoNZervative

    Good post Cam. I guess the issue for many of us on the ‘other side ‘ (who disagree with redefining marriage, gay or straight, we are both) is that simply by disagreeing we get called “illogical,” “bigots” “unprogressive” or whatever. There is a need for some on the pro-bil side to appreciate that simply because we disagree with that political issue (put on the table by the Rainbow community, and therefore we are ALLOWED to debate i, and should, this is not Stalinist Russia) does not mean we hate people who are gay, anymore than I hate my sons if they do stuff I disagree with (often). It seems to me that would be an inherent insecurity – “I need you to agree with me to be validated, if you don’t, I am hated.” Victim mentality. The world is simply not that black and white. ~ coNZv.

  • Who are the catholic bigot brigade, Cameron?

    • unsol

      I agree. And Andrei has said he isn’t Catholic…..I think

      • Yep, that’s right.

      • Kacanga

        From his postings one could suspect Orthodox

        • unsol

          Yep, I think he said he was Greek Orthodox….potato potartoe if you ask me……

          • Russian. Him and I make an unlikely pair, given my Polish heritage. We should be deadly enemies, but we are not.

          • unsol

            Polish vs Benedict XVI the ex Hitler Youth. That is very forgiving!

          • Yep. That’s why knowing the truth is important.

  • cruiseyman

    Reading the discussions on here re gay marriage to me is like watching a tennis match between the Williams sisters. It’s endlessly entertaining and I don’t care much either way who wins but I do start to find myself supporting one more than the other if one starts grunting too loud, throwing their racket around and swearing at the umpire.

  • unsol

    Cameron, I find it very interesting that much seems to made of your so-called censorship on this blog where the Catholics et al feel aggrieved if they get attacked for attacking others.

    Yet interestingly, when I went over to Conservative (& felt the hot fumes of Lucifer breathing down my neck) I checked out one of the blogs & found it full of rants & very light on well-thought out opinions, but more importantly found this in their comment etiquette section:

    “Comments are welcome

    Robust debate is interesting, flame wars are not. Play the ball not the man.

    Blasphemy, slander and libel will see your comment deleted. Apart from that just about anything goes.

    Let’s enjoy free speech while we still have it.”

    In in other words, some people seem to stipulate rules they do not adhere to on here – especially given the ad hominem attacks I have seen. And no I don’t mean Lucia

    Very interesting. Or not.

    • What censorship?

      • unsol

        No, I dont mean you have, I meant that seems to be what is implied re complaints they dont get a fair hearing on here.

        • People can spill their guts and full life story here every day as long as it is relevant to the post and they don’t attack other commenters.

  • Hazards001

    Well to be fair, the comment thread started off interesting..but as usual we got off the subject of the post..which was tolerance and the ability to change your mind as a point of growth as a person….and we went back to the gay marriage debacle which is as boring as batshit.