Judges should be required to declare outside links, says consumer watchdog

"Judges should be required to declare outside
links, says consumer watchdog
For immediate release
Contact: Bryan Christie, media adviser to the Scottish Consumer Council on
0131 653 2750/ 07788 583037 (mobile)
Judges, sheriffs and justices of the peace should be subject to the same rules as other
public office holders and required to declare any “significant non-financial interests”
which may impact on their impartiality, says the Scottish Consumer Council.
The SCC says it has no evidence that membership of organisations such as the
freemasons has resulted in unfair treatment in Scottish courts but it believes that
openness about any such links is important to preserve public confidence in the system."

www.scotconsumer.org.uk...



And I agree. All public servants should disclose thier "Links". If your so proud of the fact that your a secret society member, why not tell the world!!!

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye

*snippity do da*

And I agree. All public servants should disclose thier "Links". If your so proud of the fact that your a secret society member, why not tell the world!!!

Ok...and where does it stop? Fraternities? Politcal Parties? Religious/Church Groups? oh wait...Little League Baseball....'cause Tommy who used to play centerfield on the team I was on might get a speeding ticket....

Fear and paranoia of the unknown is a powerful thing......makes people act irrationally....

Public servant.

Thats where IT stops.

You cannot serve two masters, and if you can, we don't want you as a Public servant. If you think you can handle it, then disclose your close friends, and those you consider brothers, especially if you consider people you have never met to be your brother (I take offense to this, actually having Brotherly love)

Originally posted by akilles
Public servant.

Thats where IT stops.

You cannot serve two masters, and if you can, we don't want you as a Public servant. If you think you can handle it, then disclose your close friends, and those you consider brothers, especially if you consider people you have never met to be your brother (I take offense to this, actually having Brotherly love)

Would that include religious affiliations as well?

Originally posted by akilles
Public servant.

Thats where IT stops.

You cannot serve two masters, and if you can, we don't want you as a Public servant. If you think you can handle it, then disclose your close friends, and those you consider brothers, especially if you consider people you have never met to be your brother (I take offense to this, actually having Brotherly love)

Umm first off.....if a public servant were of a religious back ground...wouldn't that make them serving two masters? (by your logic anyway).

I must be in sad shape....'cause I "serve" alot of people....but ironically I only serve one "Master" that's the God of my chosen religion....

And I guess (again by your logic) that all Christians (myself included) would be unable to be public servants....wasn't it Jesus who said love thy neighbor? And since we (christians) call our Lord "Father" doesn't that imply that we're all brothers and sisters? Even the ones we haven't met?

Ever heard a religious figure called "Brother"?

So again I ask Where does it stop?

Originally posted by akilles
Public servant.

Thats where IT stops.

You cannot serve two masters, and if you can, we don't want you as a Public servant. If you think you can handle it, then disclose your close friends, and those you consider brothers, especially if you consider people you have never met to be your brother (I take offense to this, actually having Brotherly love)

Judges do not serve the public they serve justice. Judges are not elected for office so they can remain impartial. Of course all judges are biased one way or another, every body is, but we trust that their education and training will cause them to overcome it. Is there any evidence of freemasonry affecting the decisions of judges whilst passing sentence?

Anyway the guilt of innocence of an individual is up to the jury so whether the judge is a freemason is irrelevant to the verdict.

Originally posted by akilles
You cannot serve two masters, and if you can, we don't want you as a Public servant.

What the hell makes you think that Freemasons "serve a master"?!?!?!?

Originally posted by akilles
You cannot serve two masters, and if you can, we don't want you as a Public servant.

Originally posted by sebatwerk
What the hell makes you think that Freemasons "serve a master"?!?!?!?

Originally posted by Golfie

I must be in sad shape....'cause I "serve" alot of people....but ironically I only serve one "Master" that's the God of my chosen religion....

[edit on 29-4-2005 by ThePunisher]

[edit on 29-4-2005 by ThePunisher]

[edit on 29-4-2005 by ThePunisher]

But Akilles meant to say that Freemasons serve a master within the fraternity, which is absurd.

Originally posted by ThePunisher

Originally posted by akilles
You cannot serve two masters, and if you can, we don't want you as a Public servant.

Originally posted by sebatwerk
What the hell makes you think that Freemasons "serve a master"?!?!?!?

Originally posted by Golfie

I must be in sad shape....'cause I "serve" alot of people....but ironically I only serve one "Master" that's the God of my chosen religion....

[edit on 29-4-2005 by ThePunisher]

[edit on 29-4-2005 by ThePunisher]

[edit on 29-4-2005 by ThePunisher]

Ok...I think I see where the misunderstanding comes from......it's from the definition of "Master"..... dictionary.com shows:

dictionary.reference.com...

8. a. One whose teachings or doctrines are accepted by followers.
b. Master Christianity. Jesus.

Which would be true in the biblical sense....and hence why you "serve" only one Master.

Now when referring to the Master of the Lodge (or any other organization) we would use:

dictionary.reference.com...

14. b. Used as a title for a man who serves as the head or presiding officer of certain societies, clubs, orders, or institutions.

So I think trying to substitute the wrong meaning of the word is causing issue here....

Originally posted by Golfie
So I think trying to substitute the wrong meaning of the word is causing issue here....

Akilles has made it very clear, several times, that he believes that a Freemasons purpose is to do the bidding of the "high-ranking super-secret no-existant 33rd degree" masons. He truly believes that Freemasons TAKE ORDERS from higher-ranking masons. THAT'S what he meant by not being able to serve two master.

Originally posted by sebatwerk

Originally posted by Golfie
So I think trying to substitute the wrong meaning of the word is causing issue here....

Akilles has made it very clear, several times, that he believes that a Freemasons purpose is to do the bidding of the "high-ranking super-secret no-existant 33rd degree" masons. He truly believes that Freemasons TAKE ORDERS from higher-ranking masons. THAT'S what he meant by not being able to serve two master.

Agreed....hence why I was showing the two definitions of the word Master...showing that there is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word.

Originally posted by sebatwerk

Originally posted by akilles
You cannot serve two masters, and if you can, we don't want you as a Public servant.

What the hell makes you think that Freemasons "serve a master"?!?!?!?

What master would make you take an oath like this?

"Most do not realize the terrible oaths that Masons are required to take for each advancing degree in this cult. Each Entering Apprentice, for example, is required to repeat:

"... most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, that I will always hail, ever conceal, and never reveal, any of the arts, parts or points of the hidden mysteries of ancient Freemasonry. ... All this I most solemnly, sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steadfast resolution to perform the same, without any mental reservation or secret evasion of mine whatever binding myself under no less a penalty than that of having my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by its roots, and buried in the rough sand of the sea at low water mark where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours, should I ever knowingly or willingly violate my solemn oath and obligation as an Entered Apprentice Mason. So help me, God."

www.rapidnet.com...

gee i guess they arent allowed a personal life now? its not anyones business what group they are members of.

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
What master would make you take an oath like this?

"... most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, that I will always hail, ever conceal, and never reveal, any of the arts, parts or points of the hidden mysteries of ancient Freemasonry. ... All this I most solemnly, sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steadfast resolution to perform the same, without any mental reservation or secret evasion of mine whatever binding myself under no less a penalty than that of having my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by its roots, and buried in the rough sand of the sea at low water mark where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours, should I ever knowingly or willingly violate my solemn oath and obligation as an Entered Apprentice Mason. So help me, God."

Oh please dude. FOR THE LAST TIME: the oath is ONLY SYMBOLIC!!! It is designed to impress upon the mind of the candidate the seriousness of the journey he is about to undertake!! They are not real penalties. Are you really SO IGNORANT that you cannot understand that?

And besides, who is the master that is making me take that oath!?? Nobody, I am doing of my own free will and accord because i want to be a Freemason. So get over it, masons do not have "masters" and do not "take orders". There are no "ranks" in Freemasonry.

Originally posted by akilles
Public servant.

Thats where IT stops.

You cannot serve two masters, and if you can, we don't want you as a Public servant. If you think you can handle it, then disclose your close friends, and those you consider brothers, especially if you consider people you have never met to be your brother (I take offense to this, actually having Brotherly love)

its no ones business, judges have a right to privacy too, you dont elect judges, they dont serve anyone but the state, demanding such info would only serve to persecute them for their beliefs.

Judges took God Out of the court room. Maybe they should be persicuted. or Prosicuted!

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Judges took God Out of the court room. Maybe they should be persicuted. or Prosicuted!

Quit being such a fundamentalist.

ASE

You have, very ambiguously, snipped portions of that quote from an American ritual so that it is not clear why the obligation is being taken.

This is extremely misleading for readers, as Akilles has just been posting about two masters.

I may have mentioned it before, but the only promise that freemasons make in the obligation is not to reveal the methods of masonic 'recognition' - signs, token and words. At NO POINT WHATSOEVER in any regular ritual that I know of does a freemason swear allegience to anyone. In fact the ritual makes it perfectly clear that God, his country, the law of the land, the 'moral' law, his family and even his work ALL come before any masonic duty to a brother.

Furthermore, freemasonry makes it crystal clear that there is only one Master, and for Christians that is Jesus Christ.

No conflict, except the ones that remain in the minds of those people who are so prejudiced against freemasonry that they have lost all sense of proportion.

Originally posted by namehere
its no ones business, judges have a right to privacy too, you dont elect judges, they dont serve anyone but the state, demanding such info would only serve to persecute them for their beliefs.

Actually judges may be elected or appointed depending on which bench they are going to serve (city, municipal, state, judges are usually elected, appellate, federal and supreme court justices are appointed). More importantly, the Judicial Branch of a democracy serves the people, don't believe me, look at a court docket, it will read the people of ______ v. ________ . And most importantly judges need to be persecuted for their poor decisions, such as releasing child molesters upon an unsuspecting public (as the news has so painfully revealed in the last couple of months). Judges should be liable when a poor decision results in great harm (a doctor would be, why should they be held to a lesser standard); not for their personal beliefs, affiliations and lifestyles.

Jurisprudence Monkeys, not just for breaking the law anymore...




[edit on 29/4/2005 by Mirthful Me]