It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why is Freemasonry not being taught in American History classes?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist

The fact is, Masonry is a part of history, and it being left out of history books is just a sign that the Masons have had influence over what is taught to our youth.


If Masons did in fact have such an influence, then Masonry certainly would be taught in history books. After all, it would be great plug to the fraternity by pointing out that Washington, Franklin, Hancock, and many other great men in history all were very loyal and active Masons. Why do you think we wouldn't want that known?



However, I would also agree that the Masonic organization in general is a highly dishonest one.


Why?



Dishonesty is not just telling lies, but also not telling the truth. Suppressing secrets is a definite form of dishonesty, and Masons as a whole are guilty of this, as charged. They would argue that they have a right to do that. And I would agree...to some extent. But when their actions of secrecy involve omitting important aspects of history from educational text books, that's where they have definitely crossed the line. And if they are, in fact, doing this, then the word "hypocrite" comes to my mind. The Masons value knowledge and enlightenment, (not inferring they are affiliated with the Illuminati), yet they are allowing society to be ignorant to their own existence and influence in history.


Yet Masons publish hundreds if not thousands of books on the subject, which are generally ignored by non-members (except maybe for the anti-Masons). What else would you have us do? The books are out there, for anyone to read. A good start is "Freemasonry In American History" by the late Brother Allen E. Roberts.




posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
If Masons did in fact have such an influence, then Masonry certainly would be taught in history books. After all, it would be great plug to the fraternity by pointing out that Washington, Franklin, Hancock, and many other great men in history all were very loyal and active Masons. Why do you think we wouldn't want that known?


Except that Masonry, to my understanding, does not seek to "recruit" people or even to have people know about them unless people actually go looking for answers. And also, I think it is proven by the anti-Masonic culture of people that are out there that the knowledge of such influential people being Masons is actually damaging to the Freemason reputation. Not to mention the more people learn about the Masons, the more they want know. The Masonic organization has much to lose if too many people start asking questions. The Masons, as far as I can tell, have no desire to be in a spotlight, and want their organization to stay secluded and exclusive to people who respect it secrecy to some degree. Basically, I don't think it would be as good for Freemasons for these things to be common knowledge amongst the general public. But that's just a theory.



Yet Masons publish hundreds if not thousands of books on the subject, which are generally ignored by non-members (except maybe for the anti-Masons). What else would you have us do? The books are out there, for anyone to read. A good start is "Freemasonry In American History" by the late Brother Allen E. Roberts.


The subject at hand is not whether Freemasons keep completely secret their history, but why it is not in school curriculums when it is an extremely relevant subject in American history. Nobody is going to read a book about Masons unless they come upon information about them in some other form, usually by accident. Most of the people I know have never even heard of the Masons. Again, these are only theories that I am putting forward and not necessarily what I believe myself, but it does seem strange to me that something so relevant in our nation's history is almost entirely ignored in school curriculums.

I'm not accusing the Masons of anything, just pointing out possibilities. I prefer to look at things from multiple perspectives, and Masonic influence over school curriculums is only one of a number of possibilities.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   
I never even heard of freemasonry till the internet. Not saying that everything on the net is accurate. Most is garbage. I think that if a student is learning about Washington it should be mentioned that he was a mason. Most of the founding fathers were masons. Why not let the students know? I think as time goes by though more and more people are going to find out about masonry. But I do think that it could hurt masonry. Especially if you get some radical who believes everything he/she reads. Most people are against secrets. Many people feel that if it has to be kept in secret you are doing something your not supposed too. For instance the rituals and thier meanings and how the canidate sees and feels he has learned. People will go crazy.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Actually most people are only against OTHER PEOPLES secrets...they love their own. I mean to say if secrecy is so bad why not put cameras on every street corner and in every room of every home on the planet.

Let the world see you secret porn mags or your secret drug use or your secret bank accounts and your secret sex life. Everyone has secrets. Secrect and private are the same thing, it is secret when it applies to your neighbors, private when it applies to you.



[edit on 18-12-2006 by RWPBR]



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
They are starting to put cameras on every street corner. Big Brother is getting really big really fast. I have read in almost everyday about some town putting up cameras. Every conspricay theorist seems to think that masons have had involvment in the descion making in our gover. for their own means. I'am not so sure this is the case. But if it is this is no longer the right of privacy. This kind of decision making affects millions of people in American. When it affects me and my neighbors or another city or state privacy is not the issue. When an offical I have voted for get elected and says he stand for something then behind closed doors does something in secret to the contrary I do have the right to know what is going on. As for our fore fathers being freemasons and not being taught in our history class...yes it should have at the very least a mention of the fact. The next presidental elections are coming up. I have the right to know if he was a member of masonry, skull and bones, or O.T.O. These people to an oath to protect our rights and the Constitution of the U.S. When the President goes and tries to restrict my rights behind closed doors I have a big problem with that. And have the right to know about it. Not sure if this post will get me in trouble with the moderators if it does I will be happy to remove it.

[edit on 19-12-2006 by Andy Warhol]



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist


Except that Masonry, to my understanding, does not seek to "recruit" people or even to have people know about them unless people actually go looking for answers.



It is true that Masonry does not seek to "recruit" in the traditional sense. But we do, of course, want members. It's just that it seems to most of us to be in bad taste if someone stands on the sidewalk begging passersby to apply for membership. We feel that if a man truly wants to become a Mason, it will not be burdensome to seek out the fraternity.

I would disagree, however, with your second statement that we do not care to have people know about us. All of the public ceremonies, such as the laying of cornerstones and Masonic funerals, to Shrine parades, circuses, and football games, are designed to give the public an idea of who we are and what we do.


And also, I think it is proven by the anti-Masonic culture of people that are out there that the knowledge of such influential people being Masons is actually damaging to the Freemason reputation.


Why would that be the case? It leaves the anti-Mason with the rather distasteful task of attempting to demonize men that are universally respected, admired, and beloved. One need only compare a list of famous Masons (Washington, Voltaire, Mozart, Goethe, Franklin, etc.) with a list of famous anti-Masons (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Pat Robertson, etc.) in order to get the big picture.



Not to mention the more people learn about the Masons, the more they want know.


I'm not sure if this is the case. It may be for the prospective member who has taken an interest, but most people seem not to care at all.


The Masonic organization has much to lose if too many people start asking questions.



How so? I mean, what does Freemasonry have that could be lost via answering questions about it?



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I would disagree, however, with your second statement that we do not care to have people know about us. All of the public ceremonies, such as the laying of cornerstones and Masonic funerals, to Shrine parades, circuses, and football games, are designed to give the public an idea of who we are and what we do.


Except that none of those public ceremonies involve explaining to the public the "secret" aspects of Freemasonry. Sure, it shows the public all the good things that the Masons do, but many people would view certain aspects of the Masonic order as not only ritualistic, but as occultic. And occultic is rarely seen as a good thing when it comes to our society. The public is only aware of the things that Masons allow them to be aware of, while the less publicly accepted things are effectively kept secret. It's almost as if these public ceremonies are a big sleight-of-hand act.


It leaves the anti-Mason with the rather distasteful task of attempting to demonize men that are universally respected, admired, and beloved. One need only compare a list of famous Masons (Washington, Voltaire, Mozart, Goethe, Franklin, etc.) with a list of famous anti-Masons (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Pat Robertson, etc.) in order to get the big picture.


Nobody needs to attempt to demonize the men themselves for it to hurt Freemasonry. It would seem that human nature does not appreciate having a single group of people with certain beliefs affecting the way we live. People wouldn't like the idea that an organization that has beliefs different from their own, and on top of that has secrets, had so much influence on our way of life and our government. No, they don't need to demonize the men themselves, they just need to demonize the organization, which has obviously not been very hard for anti-Masons to do for over a hundred years.



I'm not sure if this is the case. It may be for the prospective member who has taken an interest, but most people seem not to care at all.


Most people don't care because most people don't know about the Masons. Everyone I know who starts to learn about the Masons becomes extremely interested in what they're all about. It's human nature to be curious of the unknown, so it's human nature to ask questions about the Masons.


I mean, what does Freemasonry have that could be lost via answering questions about it?


Apparently quite a bit. Freemasons on the internet tend to be very open about giving information about the order, but only to some extent. There are some things that are still not answered to the satisfaction of our, (non-Masons), curiousities. And Masons who I talk to face to face are much more reluctant to speak of it at all. Some of my very best friends who I was in the Army with, people I went to war with, people who knew almost everything about me, were hesitant to even admit that they were Masons. And even after they did finally admit it to me, I could get very little information out of them, unless I told them I was interested in joining. If the Freemasons have nothing to lose from people asking questions, then why do they take oaths to keep anything secret? (A rhetorical question as I know where that argument would lead to and it's off topic.)

[edit on 19/12/06 by an3rkist]



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I have asked the same questions about the oaths and even copied and pasted them. I was told that it was more symbolic then anything. They talked about having their throats cut for revealing secrets. But when they do reveal secrets no ones tongue get cut out. But I do believe that their are some secrets that are not being told even on this forum. But I still do not understand when all these great people who are masons are not mentioned in the history class.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist


Except that none of those public ceremonies involve explaining to the public the "secret" aspects of Freemasonry. Sure, it shows the public all the good things that the Masons do, but many people would view certain aspects of the Masonic order as not only ritualistic, but as occultic. And occultic is rarely seen as a good thing when it comes to our society. The public is only aware of the things that Masons allow them to be aware of, while the less publicly accepted things are effectively kept secret. It's almost as if these public ceremonies are a big sleight-of-hand act.


Yet the public ceremonies contain the fundamentals of Freemasonry in every major aspect as the private ceremonies. Freemasonry is certainly ritualistic; however, whether or not is "occultic" would depend upon one's definition of the word. As a student of occultism of many years, I have no problem with calling Freemasonry "occultic" as long as the classic definition is used. Also, we must bear in mind that if we truly seek religious and philosophical truth, we must be willing to disregard what our society thinks about it, if society be wrong and/or misinformed. Truth is not subject to popular opinion.



Nobody needs to attempt to demonize the men themselves for it to hurt Freemasonry. It would seem that human nature does not appreciate having a single group of people with certain beliefs affecting the way we live.


Society itself is a single group with certain beliefs that affect the way we live. However, I'm not certain that Freemasonry could be so defined. Many American leaders, especially in the past, have been Freemasons, but they became leaders not because they were Freemasons, but because their constituents agreed with their ideas, and elected them to office.


People wouldn't like the idea that an organization that has beliefs different from their own, and on top of that has secrets, had so much influence on our way of life and our government. No, they don't need to demonize the men themselves, they just need to demonize the organization, which has obviously not been very hard for anti-Masons to do for over a hundred years.


Yet no anti-Masonic movement has ever been able to sustain influence in free nations. It is only in the corruption of Fascism and Stalinism that anti-Masonry has flourished. In free nations, the fraternity is supported by the general public.





Most people don't care because most people don't know about the Masons. Everyone I know who starts to learn about the Masons becomes extremely interested in what they're all about. It's human nature to be curious of the unknown, so it's human nature to ask questions about the Masons.


I would agree.




Apparently quite a bit. Freemasons on the internet tend to be very open about giving information about the order, but only to some extent. There are some things that are still not answered to the satisfaction of our, (non-Masons), curiousities. And Masons who I talk to face to face are much more reluctant to speak of it at all. Some of my very best friends who I was in the Army with, people I went to war with, people who knew almost everything about me, were hesitant to even admit that they were Masons. And even after they did finally admit it to me, I could get very little information out of them, unless I told them I was interested in joining. If the Freemasons have nothing to lose from people asking questions, then why do they take oaths to keep anything secret? (A rhetorical question as I know where that argument would lead to and it's off topic.)


Understood, but several points may still be made. From my experience, I would say it is safe to assume that most of the Masons who don't answer questions about Freemasonry do so not because they are trying to keep anything secret, but simply because they do not know the answers. Therefore, many would hide such ignorance behind a mask of ambiguity and supposed secrecy.

It must be kept in mind that most Masons are those who receive their degrees, and then only attend sporadically. Very few ever open a Masonic book, or seek to the study the subject. As is the case with most organizations, most Masons know little or nothing about their history, or even basic rules and regulations.

Most of those on the Internet that you mentioned generally are those who have been members of the fraternity for a long time, have served in many leadership roles, have studied the subject intensely, and are therefore more qualified to answer questions than the average Mason walking down the street who may have not attended a meeting in 5 years. In fact, the reason that I started posting here was because I noticed that a couple of other members, both supposedly Masons, were giving erroneous information. (BTW, neither no longer post here. Most of the Masons on here now have done an excellent job explaining the fraternity, and giving correct answers to questions).



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Freemasonry is certainly ritualistic; however, whether or not is "occultic" would depend upon one's definition of the word. As a student of occultism of many years, I have no problem with calling Freemasonry "occultic" as long as the classic definition is used. Also, we must bear in mind that if we truly seek religious and philosophical truth, we must be willing to disregard what our society thinks about it, if society be wrong and/or misinformed. Truth is not subject to popular opinion.


My previous post was not an attack on any level of Masonic practices or beliefs. I think Masons have as much right to do almost whatever they want as anyone else does. The Masons could worship Satan himself, (I'm not implying anything, though), and I, personally, wouldn't care. Trust me, I rarely ever go with "society's" popular opinion. The argument, however, was that the Masons do not wish to have a bad reputation, amongst society. I think the general public, if they were fully aware of Masonic practices, would, in fact, demonize the organization. And that is why I think the Masons have the motive to try and keep their organization out of the spotlight. Not to mention, if we're talking history books, we're probably talking teenaged kids, who may may be too immature to understand the Masonic organization. I think the Masons certainly do have a potential motive to keep their organization out of history books, and that's why I brought up "what society would think". I respect anybody whose beliefs go against society's, though I may not respect their beliefs themselves.


Many American leaders, especially in the past, have been Freemasons, but they became leaders not because they were Freemasons, but because their constituents agreed with their ideas, and elected them to office.


The only problem with that is that it is arguable. Although I would like to believe that's true, there's no way to prove that their membership in the Freemasons had nothing to do with their status. Freemasonry itself claims that they help their members to succeed, and I've seen for myself with my own eyes, in the United States Army, that people who are Masons are promoted to Senior NCO positions faster if they are Masons. This has been admitted to me on more than one occasion from more than one Mason who held a Senior NCO position in my unit.

This may be just because those doing the promoting "know" that brother Masons hold "good morals", but I can promise you it didn't always look like that, and many of my non-Mason friends in the Army have been screwed over for promotions simply because they were not Masons. It's obvious when someone who is an incompetent soldier and is an admitted Mason gets the promotion that a decent soldier who was not a Mason was supposed to get, that the whole "helping brother Masons out" thing is taken way too far sometimes. So there's no way to prove that the high ranking officials who were Masons didn't get to that place with a lot of help from fellow Masons.

All I'm trying to prove here is that it would not be hard for non-Masons to demonize the organization, and so it stands that the Masons do, indeed, have something to lose if too many people who are not open-minded enough start to become more aware of the Masons.


Yet no anti-Masonic movement has ever been able to sustain influence in free nations. It is only in the corruption of Fascism and Stalinism that anti-Masonry has flourished. In free nations, the fraternity is supported by the general public.


Yet look at the plethora of anti-Masonic websites on the internet. Hell, look at the plethora of anti-Masons in this forum! There doesn't need to be an organized anti-Masonic movement for damage to be done.


...it is safe to assume that most of the Masons who don't answer questions about Freemasonry do so not because they are trying to keep anything secret, but simply because they do not know the answers. Therefore, many would hide such ignorance behind a mask of ambiguity and supposed secrecy.

It must be kept in mind that most Masons are those who receive their degrees, and then only attend sporadically. Very few ever open a Masonic book, or seek to the study the subject. As is the case with most organizations, most Masons know little or nothing about their history, or even basic rules and regulations.


That makes sense to me. However, I still have yet to be convinced that the Freemasonic organization has nothing to lose from being in the spotlight. Their reputation, their secrecy, their ability to meet without fear of persecution; these are all things that may motivate the organization to doctor the history books just enough to keep themselves out of them. (I mentioned persecution because if people even thought that Masons might be doing so-called occultic rituals in their lodges, you would have many fundamentalist Christians and other groups of people who would do things like...I dunno...picket outside the lodges calling you devil-worshippers or some nonsense like that. Atleast that's the kind of thing that happens to a lot of organizations that the general public discovers to be "occultic".)

[edit on 20/12/06 by an3rkist]



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist


My previous post was not an attack on any level of Masonic practices or beliefs.


I didn't take it as such, and have been enjoying this conversation and your comments.


The argument, however, was that the Masons do not wish to have a bad reputation, amongst society. I think the general public, if they were fully aware of Masonic practices, would, in fact, demonize the organization.


Why? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but honestly would like to know why you feel that would be the case. In recent years, cable TV and even the cinema have been deluged with shows and movies about the Masons. You mention the "Masonic practices", which have been shown on The Learning Channel, History Channel, and National Geographic Channel, and these have had many millions of viewers who were not Masons. However, interestingly, since such shows were aired, I've met quite a few new Masons who've told me that their interest in joining the fraternity was spurred by such publicity.



And that is why I think the Masons have the motive to try and keep their organization out of the spotlight.


But is that really the case? Masonry has always been very public in its existence. Parades on horseback were common in colonial times, replaced by our fez-brethren in gocarts today. Organized Masonic charities are household words.



Not to mention, if we're talking history books, we're probably talking teenaged kids, who may may be too immature to understand the Masonic organization. I think the Masons certainly do have a potential motive to keep their organization out of history books, and that's why I brought up "what society would think". I respect anybody whose beliefs go against society's, though I may not respect their beliefs themselves.


I became a Mason while in college. Once, in a history class, I turned in a paper on Voltaire's influence in the Enlightenment (mentioning that he was a Mason, as well as other Enlightenment figures). My professor, who possessed a Ph.D in history, returned the paper with a comment saying something like "Interesting! I think George Washington was a Mason too!"

This shows, at least to me, that the primary reason that Masonry is not mentioned in the history books is because the writers are completely oblivious as to the subject (Ph.D's and all).



The only problem with that is that it is arguable. Although I would like to believe that's true, there's no way to prove that their membership in the Freemasons had nothing to do with their status. Freemasonry itself claims that they help their members to succeed, and I've seen for myself with my own eyes, in the United States Army, that people who are Masons are promoted to Senior NCO positions faster if they are Masons. This has been admitted to me on more than one occasion from more than one Mason who held a Senior NCO position in my unit.


Never having served in the military, I cannot comment. I really know nothing about how the military hierarchy operates, and what it looks for in promotions, etc.



All I'm trying to prove here is that it would not be hard for non-Masons to demonize the organization, and so it stands that the Masons do, indeed, have something to lose if too many people who are not open-minded enough start to become more aware of the Masons.


Perhaps, but even if your suspicions were true in that case, it would boil down to a fraternity brother favoring another fraternity brother. This certainly would not be limited to Masonry, but many other things. For example, there is usually an unspoken "fraternity" of sorts between people who graduated from the same college. A graduate of so-and-so university may be more favorable to a fellow grad, or a Lutheran to another Lutheran, etc.



Yet look at the plethora of anti-Masonic websites on the internet. Hell, look at the plethora of anti-Masons in this forum! There doesn't need to be an organized anti-Masonic movement for damage to be done.


The Anti-Masonic Party of the United States, the largest such movement in American history, was absolutely convinced it could destroy the fraternity. Yet it completely fizzled out, and its presidential candidate lost to the Past Grand Master of Masons of Tennessee.

Indeed there are many anti-Masonic websites, but you have to admit, most of them are pretty entertaining and fun to read. It is doubtful that many rational people would ever take such stuff seriously.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Why? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but honestly would like to know why you feel that would be the case. In recent years, cable TV and even the cinema have been deluged with shows and movies about the Masons. You mention the "Masonic practices", which have been shown on The Learning Channel, History Channel, and National Geographic Channel, and these have had many millions of viewers who were not Masons.


I suppose I could be wrong. I'm just basing that theory on my own personal experience with non-Masons who first start learning about the Masons. My own experience is probably tainted by the non-Masons in the Army, though, many of whom have bitter feelings towards the Masons because of the fraternization and favoritism involved, which is not only unethical, but also against Army regulations. The only reason the Masons don't get in trouble for it is because most of the higher-ups in the Army are Masons themselves. One of my friends even wrote his Congressman asking that the Masonic fraternization going on in the Army be investigated. (I don't know of anything ever coming of that request. Perhaps the Congressman was a Mason?
)

I don't know many people outside the Army who even know who the Masons are, so perhaps it's just a military thing. My only other experiences with non-Masons and their opinions of Masons are on the internet, which is obviously chock-full of conspiracy theorists and anti-Masons and the like.

The documentaries that I've seen on TV about the Masons, though I haven't seen more than one or two, were not quite as informative as I would have liked though. Again, like the public ceremonies, they seemed to focus on the history and the fraternal aspects of the organization, leaving much of the lesser known, seemingly "occultic", and definitely secret aspects of the organization to be discovered on one's own. As for the cinema, I don't think "National Treasure" really conveyed the true nature of Masonry, and I think most Masons would agree. (If not, maybe I'll join so I can find some buried treasure! Oh I'm atheist.)

If documentaries like those didn't spark the curiousities of it's watchers to the point where they investigated the organization, then eventually came to a negative conclusion regarding the Masons, then perhaps having the history books mention Masonry would not be potentially damaging to the reputation of Freemasonry.

Just for argument's sake though, I will pose this question: Is it possible that the Masons had/have control of what was written about them in the history books, but they had no control over the History Channel or whatever? It's reaching, but just because people learned about the Masons and it didn't ruin their reputation doesn't necessarily mean that the Masons didn't fear that possibility in the past and thus doctored the history books. (Could I layer this "conspiracy" any deeper?)



Masonry has always been very public in its existence. Parades on horseback were common in colonial times, replaced by our fez-brethren in gocarts today. Organized Masonic charities are household words.


I was not aware of Masonry being very public, and I think I speak for the majority of non-Masons. Masonry may be "public", but they are rarely, if ever, in any kind of public spotlight.


I became a Mason while in college. Once, in a history class, I turned in a paper on Voltaire's influence in the Enlightenment (mentioning that he was a Mason, as well as other Enlightenment figures). My professor, who possessed a Ph.D in history, returned the paper with a comment saying something like "Interesting! I think George Washington was a Mason too!"

This shows, at least to me, that the primary reason that Masonry is not mentioned in the history books is because the writers are completely oblivious as to the subject (Ph.D's and all).


Wouldn't most knowledgeable Masons agree that the history of Masonry is as important to the history of the United States as, say, the Magna Carta? I'm sure this professor had heard of the Magna Carta, and how it influenced our Constitution, yet it's fairly safe to assume, from my point of view, that he knew nothing of how the Masonic beliefs of some of our forefathers also influenced the Constitution? (It may not be proven, but I'm pretty sure Masonic beliefs were indeed an influence on the Constitution...please correct me if I'm wrong.) I find it somewhat mind-boggling that someone who had studied history and the lives of historical figures for long enough to get a Ph.D would not know the history of Freemsonry to some extent, atleast how it played into the forming of the United States government.


Indeed there are many anti-Masonic websites, but you have to admit, most of them are pretty entertaining and fun to read. It is doubtful that many rational people would ever take such stuff seriously.


I guess that would depend on your idea of what "rational" means. If "rational" means reading the material, then verifying it with "credible" sources, such as Masons, then yes, no "rational" person would take that stuff seriously. But if by "rational" you mean listening to both sides of the story, verifying the facts, filtering out the disinformation, and weighing out the evidence that support and debunk both sides of the argument, then it is quite possible that a "rational" person could, indeed, take those things seriously. Once you get past the exaggerations, there are pieces of evidence which can neither be proven nor disproven.

Therein lies the problem for Masons. There are accusations which have verifiable evidence, (albeit with fairly unstable foundations), which can only be dismissed, not disproven. Masons cannot prove they are not trying to take over the world, they cannot prove that they do not control the government, they cannot prove that they don't have some ancient secret or that they possess paranormal powers. Any organization who has any secrets to hide, no matter what they are, stands to be demonized, and will go to great lengths to avoid it. It doesn't matter if those things can't be proven true, either, because people will always believe. And from my experience, most non-Masons believe that the Masonic organization is no simple, harmless fraternity. I guess that's the problem with beliefs, though.


[edit on 20/12/06 by an3rkist]



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist


Just for argument's sake though, I will pose this question: Is it possible that the Masons had/have control of what was written about them in the history books, but they had no control over the History Channel or whatever? It's reaching, but just because people learned about the Masons and it didn't ruin their reputation doesn't necessarily mean that the Masons didn't fear that possibility in the past and thus doctored the history books. (Could I layer this "conspiracy" any deeper?)


lol, probably not. History books, for the most part, are not written by Freemasons. Edward Gibbon was a Mason and a historian, and his colossal seven volume "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" was placed on the banned book list by the Vatican.



Wouldn't most knowledgeable Masons agree that the history of Masonry is as important to the history of the United States as, say, the Magna Carta? I'm sure this professor had heard of the Magna Carta, and how it influenced our Constitution, yet it's fairly safe to assume, from my point of view, that he knew nothing of how the Masonic beliefs of some of our forefathers also influenced the Constitution? (It may not be proven, but I'm pretty sure Masonic beliefs were indeed an influence on the Constitution...please correct me if I'm wrong.) I find it somewhat mind-boggling that someone who had studied history and the lives of historical figures for long enough to get a Ph.D would not know the history of Freemsonry to some extent, atleast how it played into the forming of the United States government.


I agree; I think the problem is that the entire subject has been ignored to the extent that no one really knows anymore.

Case in point: you mention the influence on the US Constitution, which is true. The US Constitution was heavily influenced by the book "Constitutions of the Freemasons" published by Benjamin Franklin years earlier.

After the Revolution, George Washington was offered a crown. He refused it, believing that the secular government should be modeled after Masonic government, which is democratic.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Case in point: you mention the influence on the US Constitution, which is true. The US Constitution was heavily influenced by the book "Constitutions of the Freemasons" published by Benjamin Franklin years earlier.

After the Revolution, George Washington was offered a crown. He refused it, believing that the secular government should be modeled after Masonic government, which is democratic.


See, those are the kinds of things that, to me, seem extremely relevant in history. Yet I doubt that that's in many high school history books in America. It definitely begs the question: Why?

Uh oh, we just took this conversation full circle and we're back to the original question. Haha, atleast we didn't stray too far off topic, I guess.


[edit on 21/12/06 by an3rkist]



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist


See, those are the kinds of things that, to me, seem extremely relevant in history. Yet I doubt that that's in many high school history books in America. It definitely begs the question: Why?


I agree with you that it is extremely relevant, and deserves a place in the regular (non-Masonic) history books.

The only thing I think we disagree is the answer to your question "Why?" You might theorize that Masons don't want it in the books, while I would argue it's not in the books because the writers are either prejudiced against Masonry, or simply don't know themselves.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
The only thing I think we disagree is the answer to your question "Why?" You might theorize that Masons don't want it in the books, while I would argue it's not in the books because the writers are either prejudiced against Masonry, or simply don't know themselves.


Well after all my non-stop ramblings arguing a somewhat foggy point that I was trying to make, I think I've come to the conclusion that I am actually in total agreeance with you on this one. I like to have arguments in my head that make points for both sides of the argument, to give me perspective. I usually lean towards one side and that's the side that I vocalize, even though I'm rarely, if ever, in total agreeance with what I'm saying or in total disagreeance with what I'm arguing against. At first I strongly believed that most evidence supported, (in my mind), the idea that the Masons had some influence over the history books. It would just fuel the fire of my case against organizations whose beliefs go against my own. (Not that I'm trying to bring down the Masons or any other organization, aside from the Mormons who I have a personal vendetta against.) Anyway, it was fun and interesting and intellectually stimulating while it lasted, but I think I'm joining your side for this particular situation ML.

You may have won this battle, but you have yet to win the war!


[edit on 21/12/06 by an3rkist]



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Since it is a secret society many facts about it are debated over. They can teach something that may not be correct. And many parents would not want their children learning about that.

Danica


mi5

posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I would say its not taught in schools because otherwise you may as well also teach kids the history of the Rotary Club, or some other capitalist venture.

Whats the point of teaching that as opposed to the history of The Dadaist movement in the history of painting. that way some may become artists
why, because to be a artist you migh want to know about dadaism
and in order for these kids in state schools to live happily under capitalism its only necessary to teach em how to read and write enough to get a job done and to count money and pretend you got an interest in their creative output

The fact is to be a happy capitalist you dont need to know how they keep you where you are !

[edit on 24-12-2006 by mi5]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join