Professed Christians, Sometimes Don't Always Make Good Neighbors.
by Albert 1

49368184
# 1. 7/14/09 1:20 AM by Jay - OR
What got the bee under your saddle blanket, Albert? I'm AWARE of exponentially more about the LDS than are you, and what you have written is just one big bucket of misinformation.

Editor's Note: The bee is there Jay and as you know if more correct information is available I Am open to it. If you made a careful rather than cursory read you would have picked up the fact that I have not singled LDS for expressing MY attitude that partly comes from columns like "Miss K" another Mormon presented claiming what she did about the ACLU. But it also is a general attitude I have about "Christian Practice" of any nature that intrudes on the freedom of other citizens not a part of a specific church's congregation/Incessant attacks upon the ACLU for its defense activities might not seem to you as they do to me but as an attorney especially a defense one I think you might realize more about my "bee"

I finally see hope for what began and so suddenly was stopped with Kennedy's assassination begin again, a true spirit of change despite it being perhaps what those on the other side might as Michael has concluded, demonic.

I have observed experienced demons of a living breathing sort for close to fifty years that I hope to see vanquished before I leave this plane.

If you care to enlighten me on what I perceive about LDS that is erroneous I'll be watching for it.

If you dont see it as worth the effort I'll understand that too.

Ball's in your court.



49368184
# 2. 7/14/09 8:55 PM by Jay - OR
The ball is NOT in my court.

Using a litigation format (which is a usual debate or discussion approach formalized; get BF to help you with this), this is the way I see it:

You made some allegations, unsupported except by your "aware" statements.

I have made a general denial of the most of those allegations.

You have made your (the plaintiff's) opening statement. I am reserving my opening statement until the beginning of the defendant's case.

Now it is incumbent upon you to present the evidence to back up your allegations. The burden of proof is still yours.

If you don't desire to do that, I will understand.

Editor's Note: If I was trying to prove a point or win a case as it might seem in your parlance I realize I would have to do exactly what you suggest; reinforce my sense of awareness with more solid "fact".

The only thing I was attempting to do was communicate a personal feeling or sense which I consider having done.

I do not see any need of proving in a more factual manner how I feel.

Could the allegations be ? Of course, as this is the case many times with people.

The one specific that I did mention needs no further proof on WOTL, another one of the incessant attacks against the ACLU. That evidence is available. Whether these attacks are justifies or not would be a case by case matter I do not desire to expend energy on. I did use the similarity to to those who attack a defense lawyer for doing his or her job.

Since you consider my allegations unwarranted by facts I asked for corrections to replace my misimpressions and instead get an excellent example of how a skilled person could react if they desired and I congratulate you. What I consider important has been accomplished and I left the column open for your reaction which I posted.

I feel no need to carry this specific column further but will of course continue to post specifics about what I admire and otherwise about the LDS and Christianity in general. I will continue to leave it up to you to respond at such a time.

If you are comfortable for me to continue in my ignorance so be it..

I furthermore will probably let a few future attacks accumulate on the ACLU before exploding again to let some pressure off.

If I see the attacks originating from an LDS person I will react accordingly. If they originate from another denomination Christian or political philosophy my response will be tailored to indicate so and my feeling towards that group be it religious or political will again be stated..



61573048
# 3. 7/14/09 11:05 PM by mk
what did I do about the aclu... this I've got to see!

Editor's Note: Claim it wants to see God removed from America perhaps?



61825690
# 4. 7/15/09 8:43 AM by mk
Are you upset?

Editor's Note: I had an initial negative reaction but after venting with this followed by Jay's comment it was over. I will never hold it against you for your being honest and telling it like you see it. I regret that conditions cause this to be however. I hope some day you can see how I view the ACLU as I might with your LDS.

Please continue with the comments as I especially value yours.



21972807
# 5. 7/20/09 9:28 AM by Utah's Lonely Democrat - aka Stupid Horse
Yawn ... ok,I'll bite.
Albert, It seems that you see the ACLU as an organization dedicated to protecting the civil liberties of all people who are wrongly denied their rights guaranteed by the founding documents of our country.

Others clearly see the ACLU as a group of individuals with a common agenda to defend violations of rights only when those violations are particularly offensive to their preconceived viewpoint.

I suspect that those two views will never reconcile themselves, and if they do, it will not be on WOTL.

At the root of this particular issue is not civil rights (although the offended parties would like to claim it to be so). It is purely grammarian semantics. What is "marriage"? Traditionally (for several thousand years) it was a union between a man and a woman which was recognized to legitimize sexual behavior that would produce children. The reason for the "marriage" was to commit the two adults to the responsibility that would be entailed in raising a pod of rug-rats: keeping them off of the public dole, out of jail, and teaching them to be responsible citizens. In exchange for this commitment, society would grant tax benefits and some social recognition of respectability to the union.

Now another group wants "marriage" to be a completely new definition. Most critical to the new definition is "respectability of the union" although the "union" is most unquestionably disrespectable to the majority of the population. So, we have now endured a long, unrelenting attack on our standards of respectability. We have been told that "bad is good, and good is bad" ... and that what consenting adults do between themselves is none of our business, so butt out!! However, it comes back to bite us again. Once legalized, it MUST be taught and presented to all youth everywhere of whatever parental persuasion as an acceptable -- even respectable -- lifestyle. Thus it becomes a governmentally imposed definition of morality, which incidentally happens to run contrary to the beliefs of the current -- albeit dwindling -- majority of the population.

What is postulated as a civil right for two individuals to act as they please is in fact a wolf in sheep's clothing that up-ends public education and religious practice as we have known it for thousands of years.

Editor's Note: You have not and can not in my opinion justify defining the correctness of another churches dogma.

If there is a clear violation of civil law to he point where the Constitution is clearly abrogated then there are procedures established in law to address it.

Just because yiur church might be bigger and have more voters or possibly had established a presence prior to the rights violations doesnt justify anything.

I suggest a little more readinf of Thomas jefferson to begin with.



2171508
# 6. 7/20/09 5:32 PM by lonely democrat
"Ypu have not and can not justify defining the correctness of another churches dogma"

Precisely. Therefore they cannot pronounce mine as wrong by redefining words.

Editor's Note: I Am as I have stated quite willing to accept a contemporary dictionary. If you see deviation from this please state the specific and we will deal with it.



21972807
# 7. 7/21/09 9:13 AM by lonely democrat
"contemporary dictionary" circumvents the issue as many "contemporary" dictionaries are re-written to accomodate same-sex marriages. Nice try, but you are grasping at straws. Look up "marriage" at www.onelook.com to browse through a list of definitions in multiple dictionaries. The major ones list as the "1-a" definition (ie: the most commonly recognized & used definition): the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. I would attach a summary, but Microsoft Work formatting gets trashed in a cut-and-paste and I see no reason to waste my time trying to reformat it in arkane HTML notations.

Secondary definitions are often given to accomodate less common uses of the word and include accomodation of same-sex marriage. This serves to reinforce my point: The effort is to re-define the word.

You are also over-simplifying the unintended consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage. Specifically, legalization without specific limitations would
1. Require schools to teach it as normal and acceptable behavior.
2. Require ALL institutions (eg:Churches) which consumate legally recognized marriages to include same-sex marriage in their litany of practice.
3. Withdraw Federal and State tax-exempt status from any Church not operating within Federal Law.
4. And potentially -- as with the Edmonds Act (1882) forbidding Polygamous marriages, open the door to disenfranchise the voting privileges of any individual not recognizing the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. Or, as with the Edmonds-Tucker Act (1887) confiscate all properties of religious institutions which do not conform to recognition of Federal Marriage Statutes.

Clearly, legalization of same-sex marriage has not only the possibility but an historical precident of imposing other people's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) upon me and upon Catholics and upon a great many Christian churches which oppose same-sex marriage.

Editor's Note: I Am paying 30$ per month to access the Oxford Dictionary on line. To settle for anything less and expect it to represent good communication would be insanity.

You can have all the private or church sponsored definitions you desire just dont expect me accept such as any more than what it is an attempt to proselytize.

I have my own spiritual path and am not seeking another.

I don't care what you do within your own religious orbit but I see marriage as a sacrament defined differently by many churches. I can not see justification of one church or its followers attempting to impose their concept on another concerning internal behavior between congregants unless serious laws like child abuse are being violated..

This is not a theocracy nor is my reality your Zion..



25577755
# 8. 3/18/15 8:00 AM by Jim - Rochester
While I support the goals of the ACLU I figure I help them more by not contributing.

Maybe 10 years ago I sent them $20 (Yeah big spender). Ever since I get several letters and calls a year begging for more. I'm sure they have spent more than my $20 on soliciting me. The last few times they have called me I have tried to explain this to the caller, but to no avail. Requests to be put on the do not call list have been ignored.

(Wonder if they would institute an action against themselves for the do not call violation?)

Editor's Note: Stand by for my column on 'Who Wins' and meanwhile buy a telephone with a built in answering machine.



4918766
# 9. 3/18/15 11:07 AM by little john - Mount Morris, NY
thumbsup.gif I enjoyed the column and the comments. I need to reread and ruminate a while for a comprehensive response in the future...

But for myself, I believe RICO applies here...

Like many other idealistic institutions, with enough money, power, and influence, the ACLU can be made into a psychological weapon for whomever "owns" it...

Aka GOP DNC and so many other once idealistic groups perverted from the original mission...

My old friend Gandhi possibly would have, maybe, retitled your column,

"HYPOCRITES OFTEN DO NOT MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS,

EVEN IF THEY PRETEND TO LIKE YOU?"

Editor's Note: RICO would be a little harsh for people just trying to do the right thing.

In my opinion religious freedom is a private thing as is the restrictions certain religions demand of their flock.

I just want the freedom from their religious concerns .



4918766
# 10. 3/18/15 11:11 AM by little john - Mount Morris, NY
thumbsup.gif Kook Brothers extreme chiselers' christians of

Unamerican Uncivil Nonliberty Nonunions...

The other side of that dark mirror they never see???

Editor's Note: Labor better get it's act together concerning the Republican's rising star.




include comments