Masons and conspiracy theories

Originally posted by Golfie
So what all this rambling means....I don't hold too much faith in the NY Times for printing factual information.

If you have ever had first hand knowledge of an experience and then read the newspaper account, you would not recognize the event.
The reporter may or may not do a good job of being impartial. But, they are human. They crop quotes. They omit things. They may or may not have reliable sources.
Whether it is the NYT or the XYZ Weekly, not everything is gospel.

I hold little or no faith in many of the things the media puts out.

Firstly, it was the washingtontimes article i linked to for the shooting and secondly, thinks about this.


1 side of the coin to this story was the washintiontimes, second side was told by official masonic sites or this forum.

For starters we all know most people arent going to check out anyting more into the incident besides what they read in the papers, and even if they did, like myself, they distruss the story from the masons because its not idependent.

You cant have a truly objective inverstigation when the ones investigating the incident are from the same organization that are being investigated.

And the masons here are still calling the washington times liars.
As i said, there is no reason to sensationalize such an event, no motive.

You cant just say " to sell papers " that doesnt wash.

Looks like im going to have to email the times and see if they still stand by the story.




[edit on 23-2-2005 by Qui Bono]

Originally posted by Qui Bono
For starters we all know most people arent going to check out anyting more into the incident besides what they read in the papers, and even if they did, like myself, they distruss the story from the masons because its not idependent.

I quess I can't figure out how this shooting puts Masonry in a bad light. It's like here is this one unfortunate incident, and it makes the entire fraternity evil?

If I had a choice between trusting any Mason and trusting any reporter...well, no contest, I'd choose the Mason.
Why not see if there is a conspiracy in the media to subjugate the truth?

What have the Masons ever done to you to inspire such bad feelings? This is not directed only to you, Qui Bono, but to others currently posting here.

I never said "evil light" i said it tarnished their image.

And of course a mason is going to believe the masons over the times.

Ive said previously before, i have nothing against them, dont hate them or anything.

I basicly started off talking about masonic obelisks, which i have seen in my home town and still intend to post here, that was my initial inquiry, which was denied instantly, i was made to look like a fool by the tone and zeal of some masons here, i feel that its only fair i have gravatated to this frame of mind.

To hold a certain level of distruss.

I think i remember asking masons why they conceal their affiliation in public.
ie judges, politicians, etc.
The answer i got was they dont.

Then i see past articles in the BBC of when a bill was presented to make future masons in public services, like judges and politicians, etc,
disclose their affiliation, that masons were vehemently opposed to it


I cant be bothered running around looking for conspiracies in the media,
thats one rabbit hole ive already explored, and the only defence against it is to take multiple points of views on subjects, filter out the garbage, weigh up the evidence and try and come to the conclusion that makes most sense.

But when its one isolated incedent, in some small NY town, why would the washingtontimes lie about it? or fabricate evidence.

they did say the truth that the people where masons, that they where in a masonic lodge.

The only this you disagree with is that it wasnt a sanctioned ritual nor was it masonic.

Obviously the people interviewed at the time by the Times, told the reporters that it was some masonic ritual gone bad, then the mason PR team went into full gear to distance itself from the event.

Just sounds all too suss.

Originally posted by Qui Bono
I think i remember asking masons why they conceal their affiliation in public.
ie judges, politicians, etc.
The answer i got was they dont.

Then i see past articles in the BBC of when a bill was presented to make (i.e. force -A) future masons in public services, like judges and politicians, etc,
disclose their affiliation, that masons were vehemently opposed to it

And this surprises you why?

Why should they be forced to declare membership? Why? Why? Why?

I would comment on the Eid thing but I just had this argument a week or so ago and frankly I'm tired of talking about it. Two words: Isolated, and unsanctioned.

P.S. DTOM: It's official - your thread has the most replies in the whole Secret Societies forum.

[edit on 2/23/05 by The Axeman]

Isnt that a bit cold just to say that, a man died in some tragic accident.

And, yes, i believe that any "secret" organization should declare, if they have affiliation.

Im not for registers or anything like that, thats just plain evil, but when asked, they should be compelled to dislose.

Its a truth and trust thing.

Plus this thread is titled Masons and conspiracy theories for a reason.



[edit on 23-2-2005 by Qui Bono]

Originally posted by Qui Bono
I never said "evil light" i said it tarnished their image.

And of course a mason is going to believe the masons over the times.

This is not true. While many masons are my brothers, I still see them as regular people with flaws and everything. The dedication that masons have to one another is heavily played up by conspiracy theorists and others... in the end we are all just human.

I basicly started off talking about masonic obelisks, which i have seen in my home town and still intend to post here, that was my initial inquiry, which was denied instantly, i was made to look like a fool by the tone and zeal of some masons here, i feel that its only fair i have gravatated to this frame of mind.

You were not made to look like a fool, and I'm sorry that you took it that way. You gotta understand that lots of us are pretty on edge in this forum, as we have come under attack many times and been accused of many things, some which are VERY offensive. But most of the time, guys on this forum simply try to correct and dispel certain false notions that people have, no offense is ever intended.

To hold a certain level of distruss.

Again, I think it's sad that people would think that one, or a few, people speak for a whole group. I may be a mason, but I'm also a person, and American, a software engineer, a skateboarder, a friend and a brother. No two masons are the same and, for most people, being a mason is only a small fraction of their whole life... masons all have strikingly different beliefs and opinions.

I think i remember asking masons why they conceal their affiliation in public.
ie judges, politicians, etc.
The answer i got was they dont.

Then i see past articles in the BBC of when a bill was presented to make future masons in public services, like judges and politicians, etc,
disclose their affiliation, that masons were vehemently opposed to it

You need to understand that to not advertise your affiliation and to conceal it are two different things. Sometimes it is necessary for people to keep certain things private, for a variety of reasons, and it is their right to do so if they wish. Surely you can see, noting how masons come under attack and are stereotyped, how some people might need to keep their membership private in their professional life. This is no different than keeping your sexual orientation or your financial goals private. Membership in our fraternity will not sway a judges or a politicians decisions one way or another, and it is no business of the public. That bill would have been a gross intrusion into the private lives of citizens, and that's why anyone with half a brain was opposed to it.

I cant be bothered running around looking for conspiracies in the media,
thats one rabbit hole ive already explored, and the only defence against it is to take multiple points of views on subjects, filter out the garbage, weigh up the evidence and try and come to the conclusion that makes most sense.

I think that things need to be explored in a scientific manner, based on evidence and tested to see if it holds up to that evidence. What makes sense is not a good test to define truth.

But when its one isolated incedent, in some small NY town, why would the washingtontimes lie about it? or fabricate evidence.
they did say the truth that the people where masons, that they where in a masonic lodge.

The only this you disagree with is that it wasnt a sanctioned ritual nor was it masonic.

Nobody said they lied about it, but they were grossly misinformed. That is obvious by the things they stated about the incident. The truth is that it was NOT part of our rituals. This kind of ritual could never have been allowed by a Grand Lodge, as they only sanction and permit the regular Blue Lodge degree rituals. I personally promise and guarantee you that... the newspaper just did not know this, and so what they printed was a falsity.

Obviously the people interviewed at the time by the Times, told the reporters that it was some masonic ritual gone bad, then the mason PR team went into full gear to distance itself from the event.

And rightly so... masons have been mistrusted and misunderstood for a long time! I mean, look at the automatic assumption of many non-masons on this forum... this is what masons are afraid of! We just want people to udnerstand that we are good guys trying to do good things, and just wish that people would understand that our secretive nature doesn't mean that it's OK to just ASSUME the worst possible scenario! We distance ourselves from this event because we know the public will treat it like it has treated many other things relating to us for a long long time.

Just sounds all too suss.

Well that's your opinion. Masons have never done anything to give the public a bad impression of us except be silent about our affairs, thus giving the public permission to imagine the very worst possible things about the fraternity (and to assume that individual masons represent the whole organization). That's just unfair.

Originally posted by Qui Bono
And, yes, i believe that any "secret" organization should declare, if they have affiliation.

Im not for registers or anything like that, thats just plain evil, but when asked, they should be compelled to dislose.

Absolutely not, affiliation with a fraternity is a private thing that a person does in his own personal time. We should disclose this just because people have the FALSE impression that masons favor other masons??? That's ridiculous. This should not be disclosed like sexual orientation should not be disclosed, IT'S NOT THE PUBLIC'S BUSINESS! If you dare to tell me that it is, I'd love to hear why.

Originally posted by Qui Bono
Isnt that a bit cold just to say that, a man died in some tragic accident.

And I have already stated that I think it is tragic, it's horrible, and my heart goes out to his family. Not cold at all. Just search and you will find a ton of information shelled out by the same people who are here having this debate with you right now, hence the tendency toward impatience with your insinuations.

And, yes, i believe that any "secret" organization should declare, if they have affiliation.

And just what the hell is your definition of "secret", 'cause the Masons aren't, friend, despite what you may have been told by people who don't know any better.

Im not for registers or anything like that, thats just plain evil, but when asked, they should be compelled to dislose.

Like a big six-pointed star on their chest, eh? But you only have to show it when someone asks... Pfft. Please.

Its a truth and trust thing.

What have the Masons done to you that you should distrust them any more than anyone else?

Plus this thread is titled Masons and conspiracy theories for a reason.

Yeah DTOM was looking for answers... Why don't you ask her where she stands now?

[edit on 2/23/05 by The Axeman]

Well ok, since im forever reading analogies from you guys lets try this one.

Say on a big public day like our Australia day where there are heaps of people watching the fireworks from our city forshore, and say through some altercation of some sort i get into a fight with someone.

Say for instance that in self defence i hit back and the person falls, hits his head and fractures or cracks his skull.

i get charged.

Now say i realize from a number plate, or a pin on his suit or whatever, that his father is a mason, wouldnt it be fair enough for me to know if the judge or the prosecutor or both are masons.

thats the crux of the matter.

Originally posted by Qui Bono
Well ok, since im forever reading analogies from you guys lets try this one.

Say on a big public day like our Australia day where there are heaps of people watching the fireworks from our city forshore, and say through some altercation of some sort i get into a fight with someone.

Say for instance that in self defence i hit back and the person falls, hits his head and fractures or cracks his skull.

i get charged.

Now say i realize from a number plate, or a pin on his suit or whatever, that his father is a mason, wouldnt it be fair enough for me to know if the judge or the prosecutor or both are masons.

thats the crux of the matter.

No, not really. What makes you think that people who are sworn to uphold the law would circumvent that obligation to drop the hammer on you? Especially when the Masonic Obligation specifically puts duty to God, civil duties (i.e. the law) and duty to family before duty to Masonry?

And you didn't answer my questions, either.

Yeah well, ill ask her then, where do you stand now.

was that the question ?


And just because you say there will be no impartiality because the freemasons culture is against it is not really sufficient. its back to the old, so we are just supposed to trust you ?

Anyways, my mates are dragging me of to the casino !
see ya's.

Originally posted by Qui Bono
And just because you say there will be no impartiality because the freemasons culture is against it is not really sufficient. its back to the old, so we are just supposed to trust you ?

YES, you are supposed to just trust us! We are masons, we should know!

What have we done to make you NOT trust us? Just because OTHER people tell you that masons hide this or that and lie, etc. etc? I'm telling you right now that masons are obligated to put their duty to God, their neighbors and their law/ government BEFORE masonry. Why would you not believe me? What have I done to make you not trust me (and if you say "because you're a mason", then I'm done with this conversation)???

Originally posted by Qui Bono
Yeah well, ill ask her then, where do you stand now.

was that the question ?

No. My questions were:

Why should they be forced to declare membership? Why? Why? Why?

And just what the hell is your definition of "secret"...

Like a big six-pointed star on their chest, eh? But you only have to show it when someone asks...

What have the Masons done to you that you should distrust them any more than anyone else?

And just because you say there will be no impartiality because the freemasons culture is against it is not really sufficient. its back to the old, so we are just supposed to trust you ?

What reason have you not to trust a man at his word? Just because he is a Mason? That's great. Way to go. oops I mean


[edit on 2/23/05 by The Axeman]

Originally posted by Qui Bono


And the masons here are still calling the washington times liars.

I didn't see anyone here call the Washington Times "liars". What I said is that that particular reporter confused a so-called "Fellow Craft Club" with the Fellow Craft Degree of Masonry. The other papers who reported on the event were more accurate.

There is not now, nor has there ever been, any firearm use in Masonic ritual. Even those opposed to Masonry know that.

Originally posted by Qui Bono
And, yes, i believe that any "secret" organization should declare, if they have affiliation.

If an organization is secret then its members are going to deny that it even exists. They're certainly not going to declare membership.

Im not for registers or anything like that, thats just plain evil, but when asked, they should be compelled to dislose.

Compelled by whom? Who has the right to "compel" anyone in such a way? In a free society, men and women have the right to associate in any way they damn well please, and it isn't anyone else's business. It should also be noted that, when the anti-Masonic movement was launched by Nazis, it started innocently enough with Masons simply being "compelled" to confess membership. Next thing you know, they were being thrown in the gas chambers.

If you have the right to compel me to declare something, then I have a similar right over you. What sort of society this would be to live in, I'm certainly not going to find out without a damn good fight.

ML, you are oversimplifying things, but you know that.

Compelled by whom? Who has the right to "compel" anyone in such a way? In a free society, men and women have the right to associate in any way they damn well please, and it isn't anyone else's business.

Bul## ML. You do not have the power in a free society to associate with people any way you damn well please. There are laws to follow. That is why it is in the best interests of the people to know about secret society membership, since, I don't have to state that they can be used against us. Enough nonsense: the accused has a valid point and the Judge should and, according to the law, make available the lists (Freemasonary)

If you have the right to compel me to declare something, then I have a similar right over you. What sort of society this would be to live in, I'm certainly not going to find out without a damn good fight.

You say the Masons are not a secret society, you say it is a public fraternity. What are you hiding from if you don't want to delcare membership in a public fraternity? Also, I have partially successfully argued on this forum that Freemasonary is not a fraternity, but rather, meets the definition of Religion. Run a search to find it (recent).

Fraternity
1. A body of people associated for a common purpose or interest, such as a guild.
2. A group of people joined by similar backgrounds, occupations, interests, or tastes: the fraternity of bird watchers.
3. A chiefly social organization of men students at a college or university, usually designated by Greek letters.

Freemasonary falls under the first definition. The second is a little shadey, since people from very different walks can join. Course, the 3rd fails. So it definately meets one of the definitions of a fraternity. However, Freemasonary goes further than that description, much further. You must believe in a Supreme Being, whatever it is to you (total relativism), and as you move up, you come closer to Divine Illumination: personal belief systems are advocated for, of course, thus making way for a dynamic membership. Freemasonary "teaches" you things like, "Obey the law", "Help other Brothers out", and so many other one liners we hear from Masons on this board. In that way, Freemasonary brings with it its own belief system.

Religion
1. people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life
2. a particular institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine
3. a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by
4. an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by
5. life as a monk or a nun, especially in the Roman Catholic Church

In previous posts, some of us agreed that Freemasonary meets defintion 1, 2, 3 and 4. Each definition is separate, but there are 5 to work with.

Originally posted by freudling
Also, I have partially successfully argued on this forum that Freemasonary is not a fraternity, but rather, meets the definition of Religion.

No you haven't.
You've argued and made up your own mind. And you even admit that in your opinion you only partially won the argument.
So on the basis of an argument that in your own opinion you only partially won, you would single out a group of people from society?

Sorry dude. I know the Nazi comparisons are tired but it is entirely relevant here.
Do you want us to wear yellow stars when you have forced us to admit membership?

The Leveller:

Adding nothing of any importance to this thread: predictable.

Originally posted by freudling
The Leveller:

Adding nothing of any importance to this thread: predictable.

Well, thanks for the vote of confidence. I guess that's what a lot of the Nazi party members said when they decided to persecute Freemasons and send them to the concentration camps under Hitler's regime - "I don't agree with them, it doesn't matter". Personally I find your trolling predictable - deny other people their human rights whilst clamouring selfishly for your own. The amazing thing is that you would condemn others on a conspiracy theory and half baked "evidence" to destroy their rights whilst safeguarding those that you hold dear. You really do need to read Mein Kampf to see how it all works. That's not an insult - merely a statement of fact. Read it and see how you have been duped into believing lies. Read it and tell me that you aren't towing the line that is demonstrated there.

www.mondopolitico.com...


Answer me this also: Many times in the past you have stated during your "Freemasonry is a religion" argument, that it doesn't matter either way if it is a religion or not. Now you use the argument that if it is a religion you should have the right to force Freemasons to identify themselves.
So what's the deal? If it isn't important, how does it fit into your argument? Or are you just contradicting yourself?

[edit on 24-2-2005 by Leveller]