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

How not to win or keep friends

At one time here on WOTL there were quite a few Mormons, Fundamentalist  Christians  and other conservative religious  actively writing and commenting.

I  have found most Mormons including Utah Democratic Senator Harry Reid and some Evangelicals like  President Jimmy Carter   to be very sincere and honest human beings even though there seems to be a large gulf of differences between the two faiths.


In the past I also wrote  how various religious communicants  made "good neighbors" personally liking  any of the ones I met.  

 Unfortunately,  I have also experienced a dark side to some professed Christians philosophy  just as I have with some other major organized religions including some traditional Catholics and many Southern protestant evangelical faiths.

 My often singling out of Christians here, Mormons in particular,  is only in recognition of their efforts to shape society somewhat contrary to my personal agenda in one area that has had prominence in the news..

  This is a personal opinion however as  I Am aware that there are others that hold agendas  similar to mine who  also are unhappy with certain effects any religious communicants may have  on society at large.

 To a politically or religious conservative  person it is not difficult to claim or imply that the ACLU is contrary to their best interests (just ask Bill O'Rielly) as it would be easy to convince that person that a defense lawyer is evil for defending the legal rights of an obvious wrongdoer.

 I and many others who support the ACLU don't like KKKs or Nazis but if those groups are denied civil rights the ACLU is bound by charter to defend them. 

 Many idealists  wont support the ACLU for this reason.

I have read  on line right here on WOTL that the ACLU wants to see America "without God" 

 I have no doubt that is what that  writer believed. 

 An examination of all pertinent facts of a specific case one  writer based her claim on showed me something very different.

 I Am also aware that a Mormon in the Southwest probably has seen the ACLU oppose  the LDS church and probably win most of the time when it was determined that the LDS was attempting or succeeding in abrogating civil rights as defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 I Am also aware that in my opinion the concept of an LDS Zion community like the former Deseret  would be incompatible with the Bill of Rights.  There lies a major sticking point.

 If LDS people decide that their vision of God decrees that certain civil rights are wrong (immoral) then,  is that trying to preserve  God or is it trying to force a non LDS to live in a country that conforms  to the LDS version of obedience to God rather than another version?

American gays seek to marry  .Some traditional Bible religions decree marriage as a holy sacrament. 

If a specific church's gay member  wants to marry and the church's hierarchy  approves the  two of them why can another church say that civil law must deny those gays from worshipping  their version of God? 

I'snt the LDS (and many other Christian denominations) trying to take the right to unrestricted worship away from gays?. 

And yet the LDS people claim the ACLU is doing the same thing.  They are just using different standards of interpretation? 

I recall visiting Salt Lake City and encountering much more strict laws on the serving of alcohol courtesy of LDS influence.

At one time Joseph Smith found the social climate for his faith in Western NY to be hostile so he pulled up stakes and moved his people West to build that Zion he saw in a vision.

 I think that was wonderful. A closed society where people could live as they believed they should as they served God.

Unfortunately as the Mormon community grew in numbers non Mormons were attracted to that Southwestern economy.  The LDS closed version of Zion was now an open one for American citizens and neighbors to many other citizens of different faiths. The preponderance of LDS voters in the area  affects civil law and still does.

As a result when issues of rights between LDS principles and practice and non members of that church become an issue in public society the ACLU is often seen as stepping in to the consternation of some  Mormons as they are often proven to have acted contrary to defined civil rights.

  The latest action some LDS members have initiated  of successfully opposing gay marriage is probably the most egregious example.

The Church was careful not to directly contribute to this effort but the evidence of it's member's actions is hard to deny. 

This and other issues of contention will continue between the civil and religious in open society and hopefully will never tip too far one way or the other. We will move on with neither a Godless society or a Zion of any church's definition.

 I have no doubt the ACLU will remain a major player in this just as major religious groups including the LDS will.

An added note of significance: In one or President Obama's recent speeches in his mention of the rights of various faiths to practice he concluded by recognizing the rights of atheists not to be marginalized into  having less rights.

 I consider this to be a social break through of the type that has caused fear in those who considered their lifestyle to have certain priviliges that others were expected to be denied forever.

© 2009 Matt 7:6 - 3/18/15

add as favorite