What is the underlying principles that are wrong with Freemasonry?
This excludes religious beliefs and dogmatic response. I encourage you, before you respond to analyse Freemasons posts. They are quite revealling in and of themselves with regards to the nature of the question posed.

Freemasonry requires that you swear an oath of silence regarding its rituals, procedures etc. before you even know what you are swearing an oath on.
To look at it in the grand scheme, you are relinquishing your freedom of speech.
As implied by Freemason's posts, and lack of response with regards to the information provided by 'Satch' I believe, the trade off is receiving a 'get out of jail Free' card when it comes to parking violations, speeding tickets, and other 'perks'. I think Freemasons lack of response to those particular allegations are revealling enough, suffice it to say that it is a foregone conclusion that it may be a reality. In fact, that 'rumour', led me to the enquiry as to whether it was true, and I have it on very, very reliable sources, that it is to some extent. I've witnessed it. So, that being said, the trade for your freedom of speech is various societal 'perks'. Is this 'justice'? Is it fair? In short, no. It is called unmeritted favour, and is, akin to nepotism, without the actual familial connection. Does not the U.S. Constitution, that Freemason mentions as being so similar to the Masonic Constitution, state '...that all men, being made equal...' ? Is not the concept of a secret society, or a society of secrets, sinister when considering the fact that many public offices are held by those that 'have the secrets' which are withheld from the public they claim to serve? I think the public is obligated to find out those 'secrets', unless as one great unit we collectively are willing to say to those we put in power, Et tu Brute? What do you think?

Whuf.

The problem with Youth Today is that you never had any secret societies.

I'm sort of kidding, but not really. Secret Societies are a grand tradition and they were all over the place in the 1700's, 1800's, 1900's. There were occult Secret Societies, and fraternities (yes, frat boys like the Animal House gang were required to swear oaths of secrecy on pain of some horrible death). OTO and Golden Dawn and other such societies never amounted to much and their rituals, when uncovered, were full of the same occultic symbolism (mostly resulting from the writer's having a bit too much hasheesh for inspiration.)

Heck, at one time Delta Tau Delta had similar woo-woo oaths.

You guys get so wigged out at this that it's amusing.

When those 'frat boys' stick together and retain their 'fraternities' and acquire postions of power. As far as the connection between O.T.O and Golden Dawn with Freemasonry...well, I can provide that if you are interested.
PS: I'm not that young.

"wigged out" seems a not unreasonable response, mahaBone; but I think there is something in what Byrd says: Skull and Bones, Old School Tie, right bck to the Eleusinian Mysteries..and very much a male thing.
I wonder if this isn't in part a "Boys' thing": a desire to be away from the ladies and play playground games with a suitable cloak of ritual and historical validity to -at least in theory -legitimise it all.

that does not, of course, rule out the possibility that less nostalgic individuals might use such societies as a means to their own dubious ends.

There have always been ultra-elitist clubs (just look at the "gentlemens' clubs" of the 1700's and some of the literary salons. A great many influential people met there and formed associations and helped one another because they met through those clubs.

But the amount of power they wield is limited. Bill Gates and a host of others did just fine without any fraternal ties. And 99.9% of the people in those organizations are people who never succeeded beyond expectations and are people that the world never heard of.

that Billy boy doesn't have fraternal ties. Show me evidence to support that claim.
Secondly, you say that 'There have always been ultra-elitist clubs....' Does that mean it is ethical in a society that claims that all are equal under the Constitution?
Besides, it is the 0.1% that I'm talking about. Look at it this way, the 99% of the Germans carried out the will of the 1%. What it the goal and aims are less obvious, and the method far more subtle? Well, you can gather information on anyone in any community through the 'network' of the 'club', without revealing what you intend to do with that information. In this computer age, such an organization is less necessary with regards to that function, however, it still has to fill positions of political power, and believe me, I've done enough research on politicians in Ontario alone, to know the extent of their memberships in Lodges. In a great many cases, two Lodge members will comprise the entirety of choice for the voters, in the case of females, they belong to Eastern Star. If you would like Byrd, I can dig up the stats, names and public offices held for my province? (I don't want to though, too much useless typing) Suffice it to say, if what goes on behind the 'Lodge Door' is secret, and they hold all of the power positions, then there is enough reason to investigate on grounds of collusion.
PS: Never underestimate the people we've never heard of.

Okay... I admit it. I'm having a "senior moment".

Ma-ha, you said: "...that Billy boy doesn't have fraternal ties. Show me evidence to support that claim. "

Billy whom, please? Mah lil-pea brain keeps trying to associate it with Our President Shrub and he's not Willy/etc.

Secondly...

Secondly, you say that 'There have always been ultra-elitist clubs....' Does that mean it is ethical in a society that claims that all are equal under the Constitution?

Now that IS a good question... and in fact, we've been sueing one another for access to these clubs for a long time.

Is it ethical to hold a secret? Yes.

Can a private club dictate who joins? Well... yes, just as you can refuse access to your home.

That's part of freedom. Is it fair? I'd ask, "fair to whom?"

Thirdly, about power -- just because you're in a group that has a member who's in the U.S. Cabinet (to give an extreme example) does NOT mean that the Cabinet member is going to listen to you or agree to go along with the group. You're a member of ATS, and so am I -- but this doesn't mean we follow blindly any direction pointed to us.

Clubs (because they are small) are too prone to being vulnerable to power struggles, and the longer they last the more vulnerable they are. I don't know how many groups you've joined, but I've been involved in all sorts of things and there's a political angle to associations.

And that's why I say that none of the fraternities and none of the clubs has any real ability to influence government policy.

Heck, just look at the Masons -- their history is rife with inter-lodge brawls and schisms. They're awfully cloistered and they're very territorial about their home lodges.

No, politics (as it always has) will deep-six any attempts at a unified goal.

whom you mentioned doesn't have fraternal ties. Prove it.
Companies are also vulnerable to power struggles. Does that imply that the structure of the company just falls apart because of those struggles, or that the company ceases to function?
Freemasonry is a hierarchical structure. Where is there power struggle? Power is determined by degrees, and appointments.
An assumption that you have made is that power equals politics, and that I suggest that these 'clubs' purely control politics. That is an incorrect assumption, which I may partly be to blame for.
What I would suggest is that power is really the power to control politics. In other words, the power to manipulate opinion so that political agendas are promoted seamlessly.
I would say that the heads of N.G.O's at the U.N. level would have far more power than any political group on the planet. No country argues with the mandates of the N.G.O's. Our leaders just sign whatever they want at whatever summit they go to. We don't get to vote those people in. So, how do they get there. Well, they agree to follow the mandate of whoever sponsors them. N.G.O's are funded by various 'charitable' foundations, like Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, and the multitude of Rothschilde foundations. At the head of these foundations are the very same people that you find at the head of World banking Cartells. In short, you have a Cerberus running the show. They control the good guys (N.G.O's) the bad guys (cursed greedy capitalists) and the grey men (politicians who take money from both).
I would consider the U.N. a private club. They restrict access, they mandate for the world, and according to you that's freedom.
An interesting thing here is that the Knights of Malta have a permanent seat at the U.N. Council. Byrd, I'm sure you've done enough research into the various orders of knighthood to see the problem with that. If not, then I can always mention some things that maybe you've missed (like the Templar undergarment of lambskin/wool) to help illustrate the point.

Do you have some proof that Gates has fraternal ties? I've never seen anything about that. He's certainly not a "Skull and Bones"man... he didn't qualify and was too geeky.

I said he has no ties, which is consistant with the bios I've read of him and the fraternal info on the Harvard U website. If you've got a reliable source on a Harvard website, etc, please do post the link.

I'll look into the NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations, for those of you who were wondering) but I haven't seen much tail-wagging-of-the-dog there.

I think we have two different understandings of "politics" here. When I was talking about interactions in groups, I meant "social politics"; the power struggles that go on in groups. This tends to limit their effectiveness on a larger political scale.

With regards to 'fraternal' ties, I didn't mean University frats in the purest sense. I meant it in the broad sense, like Freemasonic etc.
With regards to 'social politics', any in fighting in a large enough group doesn't seem to limit its effectiveness. If you have 10 people in a group and 5 of them disagree with the other 5, resolution is stymied. However, when you have that same situation except that group of 10 is part of 5000 groups of 10 then the effects are unnoticeable to the overall organization. As far as Territorial disputes, I'll mention and explain why that appears to be so. Freemasonry was outlawed in Italy in 1922, whence the Grand Master Domizio Torregiani was arrested and condemned to 5 years banishment to the Lipari Islands. Daily Telegraph May 26 1931, Italy's Exiled Freemasons sub. Settlement in London sub.sub Not Welcomed by Grand Lodge, reads:
The Italian Freemasons, suppressed by Mussolini, have sought refuge in England, but Grand Lodge declines to receive them.
Officials of hte Grand Orient of Italy in March wrote to the Grand Master of English Freemasons stating that as they had been compelled to reconstitute themselves outside their own country, the had settled temporarily in London.
They added that they had no intention of disregarding the tradition of nationality by which Freemasonry was governed or the territorial rights which belonged to the Grand Lodge of England. The also asserted that they had no desire to make use of the sovereignty of the Grand Orient on the territory of the United Kingdom.
VIEWED WITH SURPRISE
The Board of General Purposes, in its report to Grand Lodge for the meeting on June 3 says that it has 'viewed with surprise' the receipt of this letter, and has sent the following answer : "The statement in your letter that the Grand Orient of Italy has settled temporarily in London has occasioned considerable surprise. I am instructed to protest against the action of the Grand Orient..."
As you can see, yes, it appears as though there is a territorial dispute, on the surface. However, 'I am instructed to protest...' and as well, there is a reason a public protest had to be made. National politics. It was Mussolini who kicked out the Italian Freemasons on grounds that they were linked with the Mafia, which is true, through Adriano Lemmi the 'student' of Guiseppe Mussini. This made it into the London papers previous to this article. Thus, not wanting to admit to supporting any type of criminal organization, The Grand Lodge of England was forced to protest.
I often think about the brothers who always beat the crap out of each other, but ganged up together on one of their victims. Because they beat each other up didn't make them less effective at beating up their victim.

[Edited on 3-12-2002 by Ma-Ha-Bone]

Ma-Ha, what proof do you have of Gates belonging to any fraternities or any associations in his youth (during his rise to power)? I've seen no evidence at all. What are your sources?

any more than you have proof that he doesn't. Simple non disclosure isn't proof of or for something. Has he ever been asked? Why does it have to be during his youth? What about his parents, grand parents etc.? I don't know for sure, and I'm not saying that he is or isn't. He doesn't interest me. Perhaps you could ask him, then we'd at least have some sort of information to go on as opposed to an assumption, which is what I addressed.

If you assert a link, it's up to you to prove your assertions. I just simply asked for proof.

If you have no proof, then there's no link. You say you have no proof that Gates has any fraternal ties, and that matches my statement that there's no indication he has fraternal ties. We move to another discussion, eh?

While I agree that in the past some clubs (primarily in England) and salons and gatherings had political power, I also maintain that this is no longer as true. What's changed it is the increasing literacy rate.

And to tie it back to your original question, if the only thing that you can find wrong about the Masons is that they're a "secret society" (not very secret, really) then they don't represent much of a threat. Particularly when you can very easily find out their membership lists.

[Edited on 4-12-2002 by Byrd]

I was trying to expose an assumption.
Another discussion, indeed, but for me, the discussion wasn't about Bill Gates, it was about the fundamental principles of secret societies and the questions raised with regards to how affiliations under a blanket of secrecy can endander 'democracy'.
Anyways, can't argue that the literacy rate has changed. I can argue that the quality of information has changed though, and words in print can be used to mislead as well.
Sure, you may be able to find out membership lists, just as you can do so for the Mafia by following a suspected member around. This doesn't lead to a conviction though, because you have to be on the inside to know what goes on, and be able to bear proof of your witness. The same goes for Freemasonry, the problem being that they aren't taken seriousely these days, as much as they were in the past. The fact that they have survived, and the fact that 'they don't represent much of a threat', attests to the power that they do have.

"What is the underlying principles that are wrong with Freemasonry?"

None.

Unless you cannot comprehend reality.

.:.