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.

 

Masons as revolutionaries.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Could masons possibly be a bastion against tyranny? Why with all the jazz about the French revolution and such. Oh, and that pesky American one. Could it be that Masons form secret cells of resistance utilizing code, word, and symbol to subvert tyrannical governments? Wow, I had an epiphany. maybe I owe my freedoms to a mason! As they espouse the tenets of free society. Discuss amongst friends.......




posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Freedom also means the freedom to do evil.

Revolutionary means making order out of chaos. Whose order? Whose chaos?



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.







[Mod Edit - stuck period key]
fix page format

[edit on 5/4/2009 by Sauron]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by solomanskey
 


I wouldn't count on Modern (WW2 and beyond) Masons to be revolutionary. The older gents imposed wording to essential make being subversive to the GOVERNMENT (note not the constitution) a Masonic Crime.

My ol' grand lodge changed the wording a few years ago from "Communist" to "Subversive" and no one understood why I was so upset.

Masonic teachings of Freedom and Equality and all the other Enlightened Ideologies naturally attract defenders of Freedom, revolutionaries and those on the fringe. The institution it's self of course has no specific political course.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Of course Masonry doesn't espouse insurrection at the institutional level. But like the American Revolution many revolutionaries were brothers. and as Rockpuck stated very eloquently Masonry attracts persons who espouse ideals which if threatened by tyranny could cause some or most of those individuals directly or indirectly to revolt.

Rockpuck, how do think the GL would deal with brothers who did revolt? As the Oath clearly states this to be a masonic crime. If the government were to become tyrannical then that requirement would become null and void would it not?



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck


My ol' grand lodge changed the wording a few years ago from "Communist" to "Subversive" and no one understood why I was so upset.


Because it is unmasonic to deny a communist admission if he otherwise qualifies. When we take the obligation, we are told that it will not conflict with our "religious or political opinions, be they what they may".

Two very well known Communists have been Freemasons: Brothers W.E.B. DuBoise and Salvadore Allende.

Of course, we would have to distinguish between "communist" and "Stalinist", the latter of whom would not meet the additional qualifications.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I am personally always amused by the Masonic writers who insist that a good Mason is a peaceable and loyal citizen, subservient to the law and government under which he lives and who, then, three chapters later extol the virtues of the Founding Fathers who were Masons. Let's face facts, the Founding Fathers were guilty of treason against the Crown to which they had, in most cases, on several occasions sworn true fealty.

However, they recognized that the tyrant has broken faith with his people first and by definition is unworthy of the loyalty of his people.

Still, the fraternity could be said to have hedged its bets. There were, after all, loyalists who were Masons as well. We don't celebrate them today because they were on the losing side.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by driley
 



Yes, Masons try to paint themselves as the good guys, when really they are on both sides of the conflict.

Masons are both religious and rationalist, Catholic and anti-Catholic, conservative and liberal.

Masons soldiers may meet each other on the battlefield, and elect not to shoot one another.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Masons try to paint themselves as the good guys, when really they are on both sides of the conflict.

Indeed - all organizations will highlight the positive and not the negative. To my mind the many lists of "successful" freemasons available on masonic websites does not in any way imply that there are no bad freemasons.


Masons are both religious and rationalist, Catholic and anti-Catholic, conservative and liberal.

... black and white, young and old, Christian and non-Christian, upper-class and working-class. All true - and this knowledge helps put freemasonry into context.

However I would question your use of the term "rationalist". One must be a monotheist to be a freemason.


Masons soldiers may meet each other on the battlefield, and elect not to shoot one another.

Yes, and if more soldiers acted in this (masonic) manner then War would soon cease to be an effective tool for the Elite and perhaps we might make some progress.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
We try and paint ourselves as individuals, and someday you will learn there is nothing institutional controlling us, only our own beliefs.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


This is true, but from the 1950's until recently belonging to a Communist organization was supposedly forbidden. They some old guy gave a speech about how diverse our Nations enemies are, this and that, and said it should be reworded from Communist groups to any Subversive Group.

Now, how they can effectively enforce this, I have no clue as we don't screen people for political background. Perhaps it's there for decoration.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trinityman

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Masons try to paint themselves as the good guys, when really they are on both sides of the conflict.

Indeed - all organizations will highlight the positive and not the negative. To my mind the many lists of "successful" freemasons available on masonic websites does not in any way imply that there are no bad freemasons.

They don't just mention notable members, they also characterize themselves as community leaders, suitable rolemodels and as a charitable organization.



Masons are both religious and rationalist, Catholic and anti-Catholic, conservative and liberal.

... black and white, young and old, Christian and non-Christian, upper-class and working-class. All true - and this knowledge helps put freemasonry into context.

However I would question your use of the term "rationalist". One must be a monotheist to be a freemason.

Putting importance on both sides of a dichotomy is not a monotheistic principle. In fact, it is a "trinity"

I guess praying to The Almighty Dollar could count as monotheism.



Masons soldiers may meet each other on the battlefield, and elect not to shoot one another.

Yes, and if more soldiers acted in this (masonic) manner then War would soon cease to be an effective tool for the Elite and perhaps we might make some progress.

Then a soldier would be forced to drop his gun, but a Mason could never be forced to part with his working tools, despite the tale of Hiram Abiff's death.

A soldier -- who is also a Freemason -- illegally refusing orders from his superiors is acting subversively. Would a revolution carried out in such a manner be a direct violation of Freemasonry?



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by solomanskey
 


I wouldn't count on Modern (WW2 and beyond) Masons to be revolutionary. The older gents imposed wording to essential make being subversive to the GOVERNMENT (note not the constitution) a Masonic Crime.

My ol' grand lodge changed the wording a few years ago from "Communist" to "Subversive" and no one understood why I was so upset.


You had restrictions barring communists? I can't fathom how that's not more reflective of an American McCarthyist legacy than genuine Masonic belief or values.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
reply to post by driley
 



Mason soldiers may meet each other on the battlefield, and elect not to shoot one another.


Now this would truly be "revolutionary". And such things have occurred. Most especially during the American Civil War. More poignantly, if Masons have fought/killed each other in almost EVERY conflict in the last 400 years then wouldn't this mean they aren't the ones in charge of a secret cabal running the world?
What IS revolutionary about Masonry is Brotherly love, relief, and truth. Three things which are STILL uncommon and hence revolutionary notions in this world.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
They don't just mention notable members, they also characterize themselves as community leaders, suitable rolemodels and as a charitable organization.


Which is exactly what some of them are. As to being a charitable organization - although charity is not an objective of freemasonry per se it is most certainly a spin-off, and a very welcome one at that.


I guess praying to The Almighty Dollar could count as monotheism.

It might, although such a person would struggle with the main tenets of the Craft.


Then a soldier would be forced to drop his gun, but a Mason could never be forced to part with his working tools, despite the tale of Hiram Abiff's death.

This is a very odd and obscure thing to say. What do you mean?


A soldier -- who is also a Freemason -- illegally refusing orders from his superiors is acting subversively. Would a revolution carried out in such a manner be a direct violation of Freemasonry?

It all depends where your priorities lie. It would appear that you are not familiar with the priorities of a Freemason.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
"Masons soldiers may meet each other on the battlefield, and elect not to shoot one another. "

A soldier -- who is also a Freemason -- illegally refusing orders from his superiors is acting subversively. Would a revolution carried out in such a manner be a direct violation of Freemasonry?


This is designed to be a trick question, which, at first glance, doesn't appear to have a suitable answer. However, consider the following...

In all aspects of life, whether a person is Freemason or not, if there is a conflict between moral and civil duties, a person's morals will always win.

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and all religions on earth would expect you to put your moral/religious duties above your civil duties if there were a conflict between the two.

Since all Masons are religious (in the sense that they believe in a Supreme Being), all masons would agree that moral/religious duties should prevail above civil duties, should there be a conflict between the two.

Therefore, since all Masons agree on this, acting 'subversively' in this peculiar situation would not be in violation of Freemasonry.

(Again, another reason why a belief in a Supreme Being is important in Freemasonry, since it gives a definite solution to circumstances where there may be a conflict of ideas - if in doubt, do what your own religion prescribes. For example, a speed cop giving a Brother a ticket is expected to make the correct moral choice, which is always more important than his relationship with his fellow Mason.)



[edit on 25/3/2009 by Saurus]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Saurus
 



So loyalty to the fraternity supercedes loyalty to one's nation?

If by revolution, you mean the socialiist concept of revolution just for fits and giggles, then maybe Masons are revolutionaries.

However, this makes it difficult to seperate Ron Paul from the Freemasons, being that "revolution" was his campaign slogan during the 2008 presidential election.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trinityman

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
They don't just mention notable members, they also characterize themselves as community leaders, suitable rolemodels and as a charitable organization.


Which is exactly what some of them are. As to being a charitable organization - although charity is not an objective of freemasonry per se it is most certainly a spin-off, and a very welcome one at that.

So Freemasonry teaches good men and members of a community to play both sides against each other? Where does belief even enter the picture?



I guess praying to The Almighty Dollar could count as monotheism.

It might, although such a person would struggle with the main tenets of the Craft.

I've heard once, that you can make more money out of jail than in it.



Then a soldier would be forced to drop his gun, but a Mason could never be forced to part with his working tools, despite the tale of Hiram Abiff's death.

This is a very odd and obscure thing to say. What do you mean?

I'm sure you know the tale of Hiram Abiff's death.



A soldier -- who is also a Freemason -- illegally refusing orders from his superiors is acting subversively. Would a revolution carried out in such a manner be a direct violation of Freemasonry?

It all depends where your priorities lie. It would appear that you are not familiar with the priorities of a Freemason.

Obviously not, since I framed my response a question.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

So Freemasonry teaches good men and members of a community to play both sides against each other? Where does belief even enter the picture?



Thats arguing semantics. If you're talking politics there are many different ideals held by individual Masons. The question of Masons as revolutionaries is different also. I'm sure there are many among the Masonic community that would feel obligated to take it upon themselves to have some part in a coupe' or revolutionary movement, and there are those who would oppose. It's a choice for each person to make.

Belief enters the picture only becasue there are requirements to become a Mason. None of the requirements are political in nature.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by W3RLIED2

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

So Freemasonry teaches good men and members of a community to play both sides against each other? Where does belief even enter the picture?



Thats arguing semantics. If you're talking politics there are many different ideals held by individual Masons. The question of Masons as revolutionaries is different also. I'm sure there are many among the Masonic community that would feel obligated to take it upon themselves to have some part in a coupe' or revolutionary movement, and there are those who would oppose. It's a choice for each person to make.

Belief enters the picture only becasue there are requirements to become a Mason. None of the requirements are political in nature.



I would think that a coup-d'etat is against the law in many countries, and hence not allowed in Freemasonry. Coup-d'etat is not about politics, it's about government. There's a difference. Politics is trying to negotiate the system, coup-d'etat is about supplanting it.

Granted, not all revolutions are coups-d'etat. However, I would also assume illegal political activism (eg: destruction of property, inciting or civil disobedience) is also not allowed in Freemasony.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join