Freemasons and Power

reply to post by Masonic Light


I actually know a Judge and a Public Defense attorney who both stepped aside when during a case of a Freemason who killed 4 people while drinking and driving was tried. And if I remember the case correctly the guy got 25 years. I don't know if he was expelled, but I imagine he was.

You are never going to change this fact. It is what it is. The first 3rd Party in American politics was the Anti-mason Party. It may very well have been started by Masons. The house must be cleaned from time to time. Men of conscience who know up from down, regardless of their fraternal or sacerdotal bonds, are watching. Sometimes upwards, through a glass ceiling.

reply to post by liamoohay


Yes, which is why there are laws against it.
I'm going to guess here, but it seems that there is, or should be paperwork judges and others have to fill out in cases where there may be a uh... conflict of interests? I dunno the term. But basically, if there could be a point of conflict based on whatever, or the judge's service is under question towards certain defendants, then they woulld have a different person chosen.

Originally posted by liamoohay
My opinion is that any public official be it by popular vote or as an appointed position should not have ties with any entity that has the capacity of potential abuse or conflict of interest.

Could that not apply to any organization though? I mean, the defendant could be in the same congregation at church as the judge. Or their kids could go to the same school. Or they themselves graduated from the same college. Where does one draw the line, or should we only appoint judges who have lead insular lives?

reply to post by applebiter


That is a half truth. There was the Anti-masonic party; however real, wasn't the nations first, third or even 10th party. It was a party that started in upper new york state and and only held any sort of public interest from 1872 - 1888. Their start was more so over a "blame the mason's first" mindset up hyper religious people who had their own internal power grabs and were angry they couldn't expand them.

Also know that the Morgan affair which spawned the Anti-masonic party.. was totally debunked in regards to the way it happened. Even current anti-masonic text claim it to be as nothing more than a story to promote ( yet again) FEAR for power and money.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by ThirtySecond]

[edit on 13-6-2008 by ThirtySecond]

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by liamoohay
My opinion is that any public official be it by popular vote or as an appointed position should not have ties with any entity that has the capacity of potential abuse or conflict of interest.

Could that not apply to any organization though? I mean, the defendant could be in the same congregation at church as the judge. Or their kids could go to the same school. Or they themselves graduated from the same college. Where does one draw the line, or should we only appoint judges who have lead insular lives?

Yes it does apply to any organization that is my point.
Concerning your loaded question of appointing judges who have led insular lives, bah, I say, judges should be secular, outside of any, i'll use the term "organized box".
Drawing the line? Is that Masonic humor?
I just don't like to take a laissez-faire attitude when we are talking Justice in the hands of a few.

reply to post by applebiter


A party started by Fundamentalist Protestants.

Bigotry at it's finest. It was in an era where 1 out of 5 men where Masons.. they believed Masonry was taking men of God and corrupting them.

I am not surprised to see you support such a movement. And it was not the first "third party". I would learn more about that which you preach. And I find it amazing, your first OP was genuine and here I thought I found a guy to have an intelligent conversation with. S'pose I was wrong again.

The Anti-Mason Party wasn't the first 3rd party? Again with reading comprehension issues. I didn't say that Masons were the ones who directly started the party.

The Freemasons grew in size after the American Revolution. There are stories of American Masons, captured by British Masons, gesticulating like crazy to avoid being executed. And it worked.

The Masons, by the time of the birth of that political backlash, had developed ever grander titles. Being a Mason in no way makes you immune from the corrupting power of money and influence. The problem with corruption is that you only have to slip one teensie little time... and then you must either face the music or continue lying and doing what you know is wrong. Most people will make the latter choice when they believe they can get away with it. The fraternity of Masonry (and not just Masons; I'm not naive) provides coverage for weak men.

The only reason Freemasons were to be secretive in the first place was so that men would seek them out, looking for what they could not find elsewhere. Every other use of the secrecy is a perversion and an abuse. If you know the light, then you love the light. If you know darkness, then you love the shadows.

Originally posted by liamoohay
Yes it does apply to any organization that is my point.
Concerning your loaded question of appointing judges who have led insular lives, bah, I say, judges should be secular, outside of any, i'll use the term "organized box".

But who would you put in such a box? Or how would you define that box? That's what I want to know. What criteria for impartiality would YOU like to see for elected or appointed people in positions of power? I had this argument with Fire_in_the_Minds_of_Men a while back when he was calling for transparency. He too laughed off some of my counterpoints as ludicrous, but I stand by them. If a judge went to a church that heavily emphasized an afterlife, would you want him on a death penalty case? If a cop was raised with an eye-for-an-eye attitude, would that affect his ability to perform his duties?

If you're calling for transparency, it has to be complete transparency, uncovering every single association that person as ever had with any other person, class, group, company or organization. I believe such a requirement would be not only impractical, but draconian. So if that's too much, what less would YOU settle for? Again, where would you draw the line?

reply to post by applebiter


Lol ... wow.

That was the worst take on both American history AND Freemasonry history all in one post....

No they weren't here are a few:

The Free Soil Party, which was formed in 1848 to oppose slavery; the Prohibition Party (1869), which advocated the abolition of alcohol; and the Greenback Party (1876), which was established to support paper money. The Populist Party advocated agrarian interests. Thats just a small collection.. there were dozens of parties.


When it came to the revolutionary war.. it was the understood rule ( and they did follow rules back then) that if you did capture any solder from any side.. you did not kill them if they gave up.. You provide them with a place to sleep, eat, and wait til the was was over. England viewed this war as nothing more than a civil war.. and we were their brothers.. So in short.. any time a member of whatever side, mason or non, requested to be kept safe.. you keep them safe. We are talking about true men back then.





[edit on 13-6-2008 by ThirtySecond]

Hm. Well, then I have been misinformed about the Anti-Masons being the first 3rd party. Thank you for correcting me. I won't repeat the mistake.

On the other hand, it really isn't relevant to the subthread of corruption. To tell you the truth, I think the air has pretty much left this thread.

Originally posted by applebiter
The Anti-Mason Party wasn't the first 3rd party? Again with reading comprehension issues. I didn't say that Masons were the ones who directly started the party.

As someone who did a undergraduate thesis on Third Parties in the United States, I can safely say that the anti-mason party is no more than a footnote in the history books. It is recognized for what it is, and we know how little power it really had.

Originally posted by applebiter
The Freemasons grew in size after the American Revolution. There are stories of American Masons, captured by British Masons, gesticulating like crazy to avoid being executed. And it worked.

Do you care to cite such stories? Until I see them...just anti-mason propaganda in my books.

Originally posted by applebiter
Being a Mason in no way makes you immune from the corrupting power of money and influence. The problem with corruption is that you only have to slip one teensie little time... and then you must either face the music or continue lying and doing what you know is wrong. Most people will make the latter choice when they believe they can get away with it. The fraternity of Masonry (and not just Masons; I'm not naive) provides coverage for weak men.

Since neither money nor influence comes to you by virtue of being a mason, I am unsure of what the point here is other than an anti-masonic rant. This sort of "I can't find any evidence..BUT THERE MUST BE CORRUPTION" is I think representative of your desire for masonic conspiracy rather than reality. Since being a Mason means that you have to actually do quite a bit of work in terms of memorizing, and since your masonic affiliation makes quite a few people hate you without knowing anything about you, it would appear that being a mason is only for the strong.

It looks like what we have here is one of our cabal of anti-masons who signed on under a different name. Again.

You are cherry picking. First of all, I cherish the idea that any sense of brotherhood helped to spare lives. I think that if it takes a signet and a hand signal to do it, okay. If you can just look into another man's eyes and see your brother there, even better. I'm not interested in turf wars. The truth isn't contained neatly within Masonry. If you found it there, well good! I don't care where you find it, as long as you find it.

ALightinDarkness, you are paranoid. In fact, there is paranoia coming from both Masons and non-Masons alike, which proves that being a Mason is no guarantee that you will find light, and all of the other implications proceed logically from this point.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by applebiter]

YAY then all you have to do is say.. "thirty second" you are the best person ever and I will name all my children after you and we will call it even!

jk..

Look air in all of these threads is lost anyway.. just hot air usually stands. You will have what you feel is right.. and we will have what we feel is right. I will never fully ever feel what you feel because i am not you.. and i am on a different life path then you are. Though my life path to me feels correct.. more so because i am a documented 4th generation freemason ( does go back longer but there isn't the written proof) I will never, nor will any true mason ever do anything to try to change your mind.. your mind is special to you and we respect that.

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by liamoohay
Yes it does apply to any organization that is my point.
Concerning your loaded question of appointing judges who have led insular lives, bah, I say, judges should be secular, outside of any, i'll use the term "organized box".

But who would you put in such a box? Or how would you define that box? That's what I want to know. What criteria for impartiality would YOU like to see for elected or appointed people in positions of power? I had this argument with Fire_in_the_Minds_of_Men a while back when he was calling for transparency. He too laughed off some of my counterpoints as ludicrous, but I stand by them. If a judge went to a church that heavily emphasized an afterlife, would you want him on a death penalty case? If a cop was raised with an eye-for-an-eye attitude, would that affect his ability to perform his duties?

If you're calling for transparency, it has to be complete transparency, uncovering every single association that person as ever had with any other person, class, group, company or organization. I believe such a requirement would be not only impractical, but draconian. So if that's too much, what less would YOU settle for? Again, where would you draw the line?

A tip o my virtual hat to you- a direct question deserves a direct answer.
In a box I would put any company, corporation, LLC, foundation, school, denomination of faith or any other that collected revenue aside from a very strict non-profit status.
Time limits would be set for how long after affiliation with these boxed groups that one could be appointed judge.
The criteria would be no affiliation after a certain period of time with above stated boxes. As to up bringing, school, etc. it is a given that the person would have attended some sort of school but I see that as irrelevant so long as they are not involved in any organization (within) the school based on the time limits stated above.
I hope this answered your questions. I obviously do not draft law.
Things would definitely need to be hammered out but you should be able to get the gist of it.
Draconian? No. A simple transcript protocol would suffice(enter can of worms here).
My voice here shows I am not settling for less.
The line has been drawn in the first part of this post.

[edit on 6/13/2008 by liamoohay]

I am curious, ThirtySecond. I know what I know, 'tis true. What I can only speculate on is why you believe multi-generational affiliation is special.

Lamarkian evolutionary theory? What you may or may not know is that many more people than Masons share genetic material. But genes are funny things. They can be turned off or turned on, and at varying times in life. I'm hearing (in my imagination, of course) echoes of and argument over which Jews are true, or which Aryans are pure. All of it is ignorance, because it is all looking downward instead of upward.

reply to post by applebiter


Yes, you are paranoid. You are the one claiming "ZOMG, THERE MUST BE CORRUPTION" - your desire to make a masonic conspiracy does not mean one exists. Your also creating a straw man. You seem to do that a lot, do you like your logical fallacies?

For no other special reason than i love knowing the history of my family.. I also love knowing that though i never met my grandfather.. i share something very close with him.. so forth and so on. My family is very very big on our own personal history and we have doccumentation going back to 1184. In short..i love my family.. blood.. or masonic

I try to avoid logical fallacies. Sometimes I am fed red herring, which is tasty.

There are formal logical errors to consider, as well. You are trying to pin a bad syllogism on me that I haven't made. I never said all Masons are corrupt. If you had bothered reading my posts you would have seen phrases like "...respect for the work that I think Freemasons are trying to do...", etc.