Famous Vs. Infamous Masons: A matter of prospective?

Just for the sake of argument.

How would George Wahsington have been listed by King George?

How would LaFayette classify General Cornwallis?

How would Nepolian have considered Wellington?

For that matter how did Marshal Nea (sp ???) feel after being sentanced to death by Nepolian?

Or how would General Sheman be judged by the Grand Master of South Carolina?

The list could be longer but it should be enough to get the idea started.

So how DOES the prospective of the viewer affect the view?

Originally posted by Masonic Student
Just for the sake of argument.

How would George Wahsington have been listed by King George?

How would LaFayette classify General Cornwallis?

How would Nepolian have considered Wellington?

For that matter how did Marshal Nea (sp ???) feel after being sentanced to death by Nepolian?

Or how would General Sheman be judged by the Grand Master of South Carolina?

The list could be longer but it should be enough to get the idea started.

So how DOES the prospective of the viewer affect the view?

This just goes to show you that men are not Freemasons before all else, they have their priorities set, whether they be good or bad.

No institution composed of humans can overcome the fact that humanity, for all its achievement and glory, is fundementally flawed. No institution, no church, no society, can be perfect while it contains imperfect people.

It should be cause for charity between us and some basis for understanding that our differences may arise from this simple fact. Instead, however, it seems we're inclined to beat the "Other" over the head with "Their" flaws while excusing our own on the groups that we are only human.

Tsk tsk.