Well, there have certainly been many Presidents with fraternal associations, though not directly related to Freemasons in the last 2 decades.

Skull and Bones, DeMolay Youth... Rhodes Scholarship. Bohemian Grove.

Reagan was at Bohemia before he became Prezzie.

Bush was Skull And Bones, as well as Bush Jr.

Clinton was a DeMolay Youth, and this is undoubtedly what won him his Rhodes Scholarship (where they teach you to become an elitist Politician advocating Globalization because everyone wins, supposedly). He was definitely just being groomed, prepared, and who can disagree with that, considering how quickly he became Governor.

Thats 5 Presidents, who were all about their connections. They did not get there alone, although none of these were outright publicized as Masons. But to say they did not have relations withFraternal Secret Organizations, well, that would just be false.

For example, Bill Clinton was hanging out with George Bush Sr. for about a YEAR before he was elected President to sort of ease himself into the role.

And look who globetrots around now together, the former Presidents!

Yeah, they were always close.

Originally posted by akilles
... Rhodes Scholarship (where they teach you to become an elitist Politician advocating Globalization because everyone wins, supposedly).

Do you even know what a Rhodes Scolarship is?

Originally posted by twitchy
I have seent he grand hailing sign of distress given in open court and the case dismissed only moments later. I have scratched the back of my head and smiled as cops went around em waving as though they knew me. 90% of judges in the country of Wales are freemasons, that's just Wales. I'm not lying about anything, and you know it. Part of your oath is to grant favoritism to other masons. Give that loan, pass that bill, dismiss that case, ignore that invoice, let that guy go, etc. etc. You're not going to fool anyone, thank the internet, and a dedicated group of people who know more than you think they do.

That is almost the silliest thing I have ever seen you post.

Scratching your head...

I think your numbers are a little off about Wales, too. Care to pony up some credible information on that? If it's true there has to be public record of it somewhere.

Part of the opath I can ASSURE you is true is that Freemasons are charged to uphold the law of the land, which kind of excludes all the nonsense you posted about court case dismissals and speeding tickets.

Scratching your head... Classic.

Originally posted by The Axeman
I can ASSURE you is true is that Freemasons are charged to uphold the law of the land

I heard that "uphold the law of the land" routine many times from masons. Does that mean every single man made law?

Originally posted by yanchek
I heard that "uphold the law of the land" routine many times from masons. Does that mean every single man made law?

I'll give you an example. A good friend of mine expressed very much interest in becoming a Freemason, but he likes smokinng pot every once in a while. I told him that as long as he would be smoking pot, even if it was every once in a while, I could not sponsor his petition and that he could not be a mason. So YES, it means every law that is practiced today.

Of course everyone breaks petty, unimportant laws every day. But that is not the point. The fact of the matter is that a mason should not knowingly violate the word of the law of the community in which he lives. We have an obligation to do this. This is why a felon cannot be a mason, and why someone who is convicted of a crime will be expelled from the fraternity.


[edit on 24-5-2005 by sebatwerk]

Hm, not so big on second chances.

So, a mason would follow even an unjust law?

Originally posted by yanchek
Hm, not so big on second chances.

So, a mason would follow even an unjust law?

Masons take an OATH to follow all laws in their country of residence, so in theory it is not up to a mason to decide which laws to follow and which to ignore. Though, I understand that in actuality, this is probably not the case. I suppose it depends on the law, on the mason and on the lodge. What one lodge might expel you for may not be the same as another. IDEALLY, masons should follow ALL laws, but there are those arcane laws, still in existence, that don't really mean much anymore.


[edit on 24-5-2005 by sebatwerk]

Originally posted by yanchek
Hm, not so big on second chances.

So, a mason would follow even an unjust law?

Let's look at it this way: They probably won't kick you out for a speeding ticket, or some minor infraction...

A felony? History. A misdemeanor that is a result of morally reprehensible behavior? Don't let the door hit you. Get it?

Really when it comes down to it, it's a matter for each lodge to take up amongst themselves. While Seb told his buddy that he could not in good concience vouch for him because of the pot smoking, I believe I remember him posting that the Master of his lodge said something to the effect of "Well, if it doesn't interfere with his responsibility to his family, his civic duties, or his duties to Freemasonry, then what he does on his own time is his business."

So you see, there is a promise to uphold the law, and technically that means every law. But we're all human, we all make mistakes, and I can't see someone being brought up on Masonic charges for something so trivial as a parking ticket or somesuch. Make sense?

Originally posted by The Axeman
While Seb told his buddy that he could not in good concience vouch for him because of the pot smoking, I believe I remember him posting that the Master of his lodge said something to the effect of "Well, if it doesn't interfere with his responsibility to his family, his civic duties, or his duties to Freemasonry, then what he does on his own time is his business."

It's true, the Master of my lodge DID say that it was OK to admit someone who smokes pot every once in a while. But every mason is charged with guarding the door to the fraternity and to recommend only candidates who will ultimately bring honor to the fraternity. I do not feel that, by being a casual pot smoker, my friend would do any such thing. He has been in a car accident due to his drug use, and I don't see that as something that will bring any kind of honor to Freemasonry.

I know Hoover Vacuum in Ohio only promoted Masons into executive and management roles according to my Grandmother who worked there for something like 10 years. I think Hoover was a Mason and favored other Masons.

Any organization you belong too will favor it's members in most situations. It's not an elitist or evil thing, it's just a connection thing.

My uncle works at a steel mill in Ohio. He told me once, "All I know about Masons is that we have a few guys at work who are Masons and they are always geting into trouble but never get into trouble if you know what I mean".

As for the head scratching thing...news to me. However, I would assume that if you have a Masonic plate on your car and a cop tailing you is a Mason he would probably keep on driving.

Anywhere you look there are groups of people who use eachothers connections or abilities to help eachother get ahead. It's a tough world. If you have friends or the bond of a frat or society, use them. Just make sure you aren't holding on on those who need you...

Originally posted by The Axeman
A felony? History. A misdemeanor that is a result of morally reprehensible behavior? Don't let the door hit you. Get it?

So morality is the highest standard in masonry. So how come G. Washington was a slave owner even when the masonry preaches equality of all people under God. That doesn't sound moral to me.

Originally posted by yanchek

Originally posted by The Axeman
A felony? History. A misdemeanor that is a result of morally reprehensible behavior? Don't let the door hit you. Get it?

So morality is the highest standard in masonry. So how come G. Washington was a slave owner even when the masonry preaches equality of all people under God. That doesn't sound moral to me.

At the time, slavery was no big deal, you know that.

I think we can agree that the definition of "moral behavior" has changed somewhat over the years... just a bit.

Originally posted by yanchek
So morality is the highest standard in masonry. So how come G. Washington was a slave owner even when the masonry preaches equality of all people under God. That doesn't sound moral to me.

At the time, it was not considered immoral to own slaves. It was a practice used in many parts of the world. Thoughts of equality have nothing to do with slavery. We do not know Washington's reasons for owning slaves, but we do know that it was considered moral at the time.

Originally posted by The Axeman

Originally posted by twitchy
I have seent he grand hailing sign of distress given in open court and the case dismissed only moments later. I have scratched the back of my head and smiled as cops went around em waving as though they knew me. 90% of judges in the country of Wales are freemasons, that's just Wales. I'm not lying about anything, and you know it. Part of your oath is to grant favoritism to other masons. Give that loan, pass that bill, dismiss that case, ignore that invoice, let that guy go, etc. etc. You're not going to fool anyone, thank the internet, and a dedicated group of people who know more than you think they do.

That is almost the silliest thing I have ever seen you post.

Scratching your head...

I think your numbers are a little off about Wales, too. Care to pony up some credible information on that? If it's true there has to be public record of it somewhere.

Is this good enough for you?

amie Wilson
Guardian
Saturday July 29, 2000
Police officers may be required to reveal whether they are freemasons
after almost two-thirds refused to cooperate with an official study of membership of the secretive society, the government announced yesterday.
Ministers had hoped that a request for voluntary declaration of membership would allay public anxiety about the existence of masonic networks in the criminal justice system. But the proportion of officers in England and
Wales responding to the survey amounted to only 36%, compared with 96% of judges and 87% of magistrates.

Originally posted by twitchy
Is this good enough for you?

What does tat have to do with scratchinng your head to get out of a ticket? That IS the silliest thing I've ever heard, and I'm sure as can be that it doesn't work. NO mason has ever heard of that, much less been officially told that by their lodge.

So you think that, during an initiation, a mason learns to scratch his head to avoid a ticket in the same way that he learns a masonic handshake? I think whoever told you that is seriously messing with you.

[edit on 25-5-2005 by sebatwerk]

Originally posted by twitchy
Is this good enough for you?

I don't even think I need to bother, seeing as how the Savvy Simian pretty much just tore your post to shreds.

That's old news anyways, and if I remember correctly, there was such a stink raised over the idea of being forced to declare membership that the whole thing was called off. It just wasn't kosher.

Nice try though...

[edit on 5/25/05 by The Axeman]

Weeeeeelllllll, not to be confused with a Mason, not that that's a bad thing, just not true, I've gotten out of a ticket just having a Ministry of Corrections badge on my coat. Wooooooo, scary thing there.

Am I right in assuming if I become a Mason, I can add the 2 together and become INVINCIBLE?

Originally posted by twitchy
It was called off?

I'm not sure if the measure that was called off was the one requiring police and judiciary appointees to disclose their membership, or if it was one requiring members in the parliament and house of commons to disclose the same... or were they both the same thing? I'm not very familiar with the measures, but I DO KNOW that a measure, requiring members of SOME gov't department to disclose membership, was cancelled because of the backlash it generated.

Either way, it is such a gross violation of privacy and abuse of basic human rights that any potential measure of that sort shouldn't even be considered.


[edit on 25-5-2005 by sebatwerk]