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.

 

Freemasonry: Revolution vs Obeying All Laws - A Contradiction?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I have been struggling with a few concepts lately, mainly dealing with the masonic views of tyranny vs masonic conduct.

For example, masonic law roughly states they "obey all laws under whose protection they live; to serve their fellowman, and maintain high standards of conduct." Freemasons are also required to obey all orders / summons from their Lodge and Grand Lodge.

Now this is good and all, but how did this play a role in the French Revolution? Obviously, the Masonic element was involved with treason (or revolution, depending on your stance at the time). Most certainly not in line with Masonic ideals... unless you consider this excerpt from the Scottish Rite / Council of Kadosh 24th Degree, "Prince of the Tabernacle," it states:



As Masons, we must fight continuously against superstitions, wrong knowledge, false prophets, tyrants, and despots. Our task is to free knowledge from the monopoly of classes, casts, leaders, or priests; and to disseminate it to everyone.


Is this not contradictory to following all laws of the land, and Lodge, under the circumstance that your political leaders and/or officers within the Lodge/Grand Lodge may become corrupt at some point, and become themselves propagators of superstitions, wrong knowledge, false prophets, tyrants and despots?

For example, take current political atmosphere into account. There are a great number of people (perhaps even masons) that would consider the President and VP as tyrants, and despots.

Obviously, a revolution would be against the law. So how could you follow both simultaneously, without disregarding the cognitive dissonance it creates?


[edit on 1-9-2008 by scientist]




posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 

Pike covers it elsewhere as well

The mass of men are always looking for what is just. All the vast machinery which makes up a State, a world of States, is, on the part of the people, an attempt to organize, not that ideal justice which finds fault with God's ordinances, but that practical justice which may be attained in the actual organization of the world. The minute and wide-extending civil machinery which makes up the law and the courts, with all their officers and implements, on the part of mankind, is chiefly an effort to reduce to practice the theory of right. Constitutions are made to establish justice; the decisions of courts are reported to help us judge more wisely in time to come. The nation aims to get together the most nearly just men in the State, that they may incorporate into statutes their aggregate sense of what is right. The people wish law to be embodied justice, administered without passion. Even in the wildest ages there has been a wild popular justice, but always mixed with passion and administered in hate; for justice takes a rude form with rude men, and becomes less mixed with hate and passion in more civilized communities. Every progressive State revises its statutes and revolutionizes its constitution from time to time, seeking to come closer to the utmost possible practical justice and right; and sometimes, following theorists and dreamers in their adoration for the ideal, by erecting into law positive principles of theoretical right, works practical injustice, and then has to retrace its steps.
www.sacred-texts.com...
Emphasis added.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but aren't there some clauses that give the people the right to rise up if they're not being governed fairly?



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
btw, source for degrees 19-30:

www.guthriescottishrite.org...

I could not find an actual source for Masonic obligations to obey laws of the land, but I'm sure they are out there somewhere.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but aren't there some clauses that give the people the right to rise up if they're not being governed fairly?


right, but again that's good in theory... but in practice, these days you would instantly be labeled as a terrorist, would you not? They were arresting "suspected protesters" in St. Paul this past week, in anticipation for the RNC.

How is there even a smidgen of wiggle room, when all the references to revolution are so very vague?



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


Yes, in the blue lodge, and at numerous points during the Scottish Rite degrees, we vow loyalty to our country. The bit that caught me off guard, and I'm not finding it immediately through quick searches of Pike, is that one of the SR degrees has us vow to uphold the separation of church and state, both being powerful enough individually, believing that the two combined could not lead to any good. I'll try to dig through my SR monitor when I get home tonight and see if I have any more luck finding a quote. Think it's among the last 3 or 4 degrees.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
right, but again that's good in theory... but in practice, these days you would instantly be labeled as a terrorist, would you not? They were arresting "suspected protesters" in St. Paul this past week, in anticipation for the RNC.
Terrorist is just the new catchall for boogie men. The founders of our country were terrorists by the definitions in place in today's government.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton
Terrorist is just the new catchall for boogie men. The founders of our country were terrorists by the definitions in place in today's government.


precisely, which was the true inspiration for this post. True patriots are revolutionaries, and many of the revolutionary actions are attributed to masonry. So were these considered clandestine lodges in their time? Only after they "won" did they become accepted into regular masonry again?

I'm guessing that nobody really took the time to pass the note all the way up the chain for obvious reasons, but that leaves the answer being just as vague as where I started.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I think because things have changes so much in the last 232 years things in the masonic teachings must have adapted. I don't know this for any fact. But we are taught to be true to our government in masonic teachings. The founding fathers are now thought of as heros and patriots. I wonder what would happen masonicly if there was to be a new revolution. In 1776 we were revolting against Britan, today it would be against a home government. All I can say is it's one of those things that makes you go "hmm".

By the way, thanks for a thought provoking post.


[edit on 2-9-2008 by network dude]



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
we are taught to be true to our government in masonic teachings. The founding fathers are now thought of as heros and patriots. I wonder what would happen masonicly if there was to be a new revolution. In 1776 we were revolting against Britan, today it would be against a home government.


better question still, would the masons of 1776 create the same revolution today? Technically it would be somewhat of a masonic civil war, no?



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


It would not be out of the question, but I don't think it would be exclusively masonic or even a majority since political and religon are off limits in the lodge itself. I don't know how things worked back then but I heard they held lodge meetings in a tavern. Our state just announced this month that with special permission from the grand lodge we could serve beer at a function that had to do with masonry. I am not sure exactly how it was worded, but something to that affect. Things have changed though.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
better question still, would the masons of 1776 create the same revolution today? Technically it would be somewhat of a masonic civil war, no?


I think in today's 'politically correct' climate it would be hard to create a revolution.

It seems that there was a lot of political discussion at lodges in those days, but it's absolutely forbidden now.

I can see, however, how the lodge would be the perfect place to plan a rebellion if ALL the attendees were of a like mind.

Nothing like a closed meeting room with an 85 year-old shriner holding a rusty sword guarding the door for 'secret' bidness.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by emsed1
Nothing like a closed meeting room with an 85 year-old shriner holding a rusty sword guarding the door for 'secret' bidness.


lol, I suppose more than a few things have changed in regards to masonry since then...



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist

Originally posted by emsed1
Nothing like a closed meeting room with an 85 year-old shriner holding a rusty sword guarding the door for 'secret' bidness.


lol, I suppose more than a few things have changed in regards to masonry since then...


At a business meeting a couple of months back our Tyler (the dude who guards the door with a drawn sword while the meeting is in progress) was absent.

The WM appointed one of our older brothers to sit outside with the sword.

Well, usually the tyler goes outside and sits there by the closed door and we go through our rigamarole with the ritual and what have you. Whenever the WM gavels the meeting to order, the tyler usually just comes in and sits inside the door to participate in the meeting.

Somebody forgot to go get the old guy though and when the WM said for someone to run out and tell him to come in for the meeting he was gone!

I don't know if his prostate was giving out and he had to take a little trip to the men's room or if he just snuck off for a little nap but we were certainly in danger of being infiltrated by cowans and eavesdroppers!

Sometimes the handle falls off our sword though, so we just have to go ahead and sick the goat on folks if they try to break in.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


Excellent topic. I too have been curious about the seeming paradox between "obeying the law of the land" and participation in Revolution.

In a nutshell, I would say that the rule is a guidline which should be adhered to until it simply no longer can be in good conscience. In other words, you shouldn't go around racking up parking tickets knowing that your "brother" in the local police department will fix your tickets. Nor should you go about espousing revolutionary ideolgies for personal gain, or to stir up trouble for the sake of trouble.

On the other hand, if the tyranny of government becomes so opressive that one can not abide by the laws at all in good conscience, then you would have a duty to mankind to strive to throw off the shackles of tyranny and to restore liberty once again.

In other words, breaking the laws of the land is not something that should be taken lightly. Revolution is something to be considered with full understanding of the grave consequences and uncertainty of success. Short of a duty to Revolution, then the laws of the land must be obeyed.

Of course, this is just my own humble opinion, as an outsider.

[edit on 9/2/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by scientist
 


Excellent topic. I too have been curious about the seeming paradox between "obeying the law of the land" and participation in Revolution.

In a nutshell, I would say that the rule is a guidline which should be adhered to until it simply no longer can be in good conscience. In other words, you shouldn't go around racking up parking tickets knowing that your "brother" in the local police department will fix your tickets. Nor should you go about espousing revolutionary ideolgies for personal gain, or to stir up trouble for the sake of trouble.

On the other hand, if the tyranny of government becomes so opressive that one can not abide by the laws at all in good conscience, then you would have a duty to mankind to strive to throw off the shackles of tyranny and to restore liberty once again.

In other words, breaking the laws of the land is not something that should be taken lightly. Revolution is something to be considered with full understanding of the grave consequences and uncertainty of success. Short of a duty to Revolution, then the laws of the land must be obeyed.

Of course, this is just my own humble opinion, as an outsider.


Very good post in explaining that .The bible is trying to say that same thing when it says to obey the laws of the land.(but not near as clear as you put it .lol)
In fact may I have permission to use this when I am asked that question about my Christian beliefs about the law of the land and when would rebellion against it become necessary .because at some point when the AC makes us line up for a mark .Many will certainly have to not obey that law wouldnt you say ?



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
right, but again that's good in theory... but in practice, these days you would instantly be labeled as a terrorist, would you not? They were arresting "suspected protesters" in St. Paul this past week, in anticipation for the RNC.


Which goes to the point of what I meant when I said "consideration of the grave consequences." If you expect to win a Revolution, you have to accept that you may fail, and that you may die, much less worry about going to prison. Not something to be taken lightly, nor a decision to be made whimsically. So until then, it is required that the "law of the land" be obeyed.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by emsed1
I can see, however, how the lodge would be the perfect place to plan a rebellion if ALL the attendees were of a like mind.


And I think that is at the heart of the answer. If the Masons were to involve themselves in rebellion, then the need to do so would have become so obvious that when the issue was raised there would be little or no dissent. You might even be able to skirt around the rule of not talking about politics by arguing that Revolution is not politics, it is war against oppression and worse. A war against those who would destroy all that is valued by Freemasonry. A war against evil.

Unless of course you guys really are evil like some people like to argue.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Simplynoone
 


I'm flattered! You may use it as you wish, so long as you reference it. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Sure will thank you very much
I was asked that question yesterday in another post when talking about my beliefs and I didnt have the right way to say it .
I appreciate it.
Ok sorry yall ..Im outta here..

Oh PS I just noticed something you may want to edit
[something that should be taken lightly.]
Shouldnt it say .....should NOT be taken lightly ?


[edit on 2-9-2008 by Simplynoone]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


I believe it has everything to do with generations. The older guys are all gun ho for patriotism, military and obeying orders. For the longest time Masons where not even supposed to be involved in any form of Communist activities.


Hopefully the next generation will reverse some of this idiocracy.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join