I wouldn't recommend masonry to any one.

reply to post by W3RLIED2


And solution to what problem would that be? Seems to me that you just left and joined another bunch of brothers. What happens to the "bad" masons? Nothing I guess, business as usual so with all the blah blah about doing good and nothing to worry about here from ATS masons. Can you explain why no backbone has been shown in dealing with the rotten apples? I see more response to threads on here..

Would it not be a good work and improvement to your club if you weeded them out? They sound like the guys who "could" use influence against others as so many people complain about and is my core problem.

What or who would you like to see weeded out? And then, what exactly (without a rambling 5 paragraph rant) would you like to hear? What answer do you want? What answer would satisfy you to CTF down and act like a rational person?

reply to post by scooterstrats


I am calm and very rational, but thanks for your concern. Bit confrontational my friend, tone it down.

Weed out the old guard? The corrupt, brandy swilling back scratchers? Remember the bad guys that "could/do" use Masonic influence in business, government, law etc etc..

What would I like to hear? A bit of truth and openess would be a good start, some debate would be nice. And lets not jump on the usual merry go round of "oh but what truth! Were not telling where we keep the peanut M&M's!!" were all a bit smarter than that I hope, and I hope you get my meaning.. Would be nice to not have to respond to ten attacks at once.


[edit on 6-1-2010 by Bunker or Bust]

I am not your friend. And I dont take orders from you or anyone..

So then, the "old guard" is either dead or or waning. Is this ok?

You ask for what you want to hear as truth. Ok, I'll tell you truth as you see it despite facts. Tell me what to say so that you feel vindicated And tell me up front what the lies are so as not to bore us all again. Work with me here chief. What should I not say that you feel is wrong, and what do you want to hear to make you happy?

reply to post by Bunker or Bust

Can you explain why no backbone has been shown in dealing with the rotten apples?

Because people are entitled to their opinions, no matter how asinine and pathetic they can be .. we are all entitled to be an asshat. We are also entitled to up and leave a bunch of asshats to find people who are .. er.. not asshats..

Can't just boot people out of a fraternity because they age inhibits their ability to be openminded..

You do know Masons are Human-beings right?

Backbone or not, on a personal note, I felt that if I would have stuck around I would have ended up getting even angrier. Which would have done nothing to solve the problem. Instead I spoke to some of the brothers around the area and met with a new lodge.

I also made this decision because there is 'ass-hats' (I was lmao Rock in every group. It's not my job or do I want to try and change their ways. People are people. I understand that even better now... at least more so thatn I did a few months ago. In effort to keep my passions in check I chose to leave the situation instead of add fuel to the fire. And I'm glad that I did. Not all the masons in the world are old guys, and while I have a lot of respect for the wisdom they can provide to us younger guys, it is nice to have brother's around that are closer to my generation, and even a couple younger than me.

Rockpuck summed it up nicely. Masons are humans, and humans are flawed. I'm not going to turn my back on a fraternity that I love becasue of the actions of a few.


[edit on 6-1-2010 by W3RLIED2]

I don't believe this.

Fair enough and can I quote:

"Rockpuck summed it up nicely. Masons are humans, and humans are flawed. I'm not going to turn my back on a fraternity that I love becasue of the actions of a few."

THIS is why some Masonic individuals use influence, connections and protectionism to look after their brothers and families. THIS is why such people that hold such membership should not hold a public office where judgement and policy is given or set be that governement or legal system.

The fact that they would support a brother over a non brother or the fraternity as a whole speaks clearly enough. Should membership be kept secret for such positions of responsibility? I seriously think not based on the obvious.

I agree humans are flawed and as such with any serious endeavour the risks are reviewed and reduced to the absolute minimum. When I tried to debate this point much earlier in this thread I got group flamed, called a retard etc.

Denial of the fact that humans are flawed and that wrongs can and do happen within the Masonic order is what brings the hate to be honest. No action taken to remove those that do wrong? with that attitude the world would be a different place. (Corrupt police, Hitler, Sadam, the list goes on and on)

So by proxy as a member you endorse their abuse of power for self gain or whatever negative action it is used for by doing nothing to address the "ass hat" element. And sometimes wishing to help a brother, may even be manipulated to taking part in such an action.

So this is why Freemasons are viewed by outsiders with distrust. It appears to be one giant old boys club where elitest favour and "We are better than you mentality" runs rampant. (This is a common PERCEPTION).

reply to post by Bunker or Bust


So....out of curiousity, is there a particular reason why you find Freemasons worthy of your contempt insofar as being accountable but other fraternities escape unscathed? Are you a throwback to the 1820's?

reply to post by Fitzgibbon


"other fraternities escape unscathed?"

No I think the same should apply to them as well


"Are you a throwback to the 1820's?"

No - Thanks for the insult, very constructive and helpful for debate I am sure.

reply to post by Bunker or Bust


as I brought up in the other thread, should no person who is involved in a civic group be allowed to hold office? The same favoritism could be showed from any organization where like minded people gather.

If you answer yes to that, think about what kind of people run for office. I submit that it is the kind of people who get involved with community and may in fact be part of civic organizations.

reply to post by network dude


Are the Masons really a civic group? If that was the case then all could join? But do Masons not select who can join with the black ball and all that?

Extreme example but would you call the KKK a civic group? If you were a black man in court would you want a KKK judge? Extreme as I said but there are parallel references. No offence of linking is intended at all, just wanted to draw reference that it is about point of view.

By restricting membership you restrict the group makeup and as such the group is not representative of the wider populas and as such does not cover all of society. As such a position of public office responsible for the wider group could be compromised by membership of any said group. Fair statement I think as human nature is flawed, could a judge pass ruling on a family member? No.

You are correct alot of our political representatives do come from such "groups" and that could be used to explain some of the problems we have in the world. The only point I am trying to make is that fairness and justice be paramount, a person taking such a role should follow that. With flawed human nature which cannot be argued, membership of such groups can be open to abuse and that really does go on wholesale. Just saying that being a member of a group won't make a difference is not good enough to those which are not members. You would feel the same if the shoe was on the other foot I am sure, if not where would you draw the line? How far down that path away from justice and fairness for all would you wander?

Should political figures have outside business interests? No I don't agree with that either as again it is open to abuse and has been proven time after time.

Just fighting for openess, fairness and justice for all. I am not interested in Masonic secrets whatever they may be if they even exist at all. Nor do I think Mason's work toward a one world government, quite the opposite actually maybe an elite dictatorship but not a single world governement unless you are going to slaughter anyone with a difference be political, religion, colour or just does not make the membership grade etc.

It is not an attack on Mason's, so I don't get all the hate some of which is offensive and aggressive in nature?!? I could have slapped the alert button many times in this thread. Totally unwarranted and actually paints some of you guys in an even worse light based on wider perception of what Masonry is all about which is a shame. They complain about being picked on then give solid gold examples of why with offensive and elitest comments which do not contribute to an open an honest debate. I am actually defending what alot claim to fight for, so I can't see the logic.

Look around, are you 100% happy with government, justice and everything going on in the world? You can't eat an elephant in one bite, you have to take slices. Membership to groups and positions of authority don't sit well together, I understand you need some groups (political parties) for a political democratic process but membership is not restricted in theory and those group members can be removed by the populas so it's not the same by any stretch of the imagination.


Edit: I just flagged the thread, we might be on the brink of a common sense breakthrough, hopefully!

[edit on 7-1-2010 by Bunker or Bust]

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
Extreme example but would you call the KKK a civic group? If you were a black man in court would you want a KKK judge? Extreme as I said but there are parallel references. No offence of linking is intended at all, just wanted to draw reference that it is about point of view.

Did you forget about David Duke and Robert Byrd? Both of these men were members of the Ku Klux Klan and moved on into positions in government, Byrd being the current longest-serving senator.

By restricting membership you restrict the group makeup and as such the group is not representative of the wider populas and as such does not cover all of society.

Masonry is for men who believe in God and are of good standing (not criminals). This covers nearly half of the population, which as Masonry is a Fraternity, would make the number of eligible males nearly all who reside here. I based my numbers on a 2% Aethisim and a 6.6% incareration rate, which, while not exact, shows that very high majority of men can become Masons, if they choose.

As such a position of public office responsible for the wider group could be compromised by membership of any said group. Fair statement I think as human nature is flawed, could a judge pass ruling on a family member? No.

Please explain to me how, during a hearing, a judge may find out about someone's Fraternal affiliation, Masonic or otherwise?

You would feel the same if the shoe was on the other foot I am sure, if not where would you draw the line? How far down that path away from justice and fairness for all would you wander?

You have answered your own question; who becomes the next group who's affiliation you no longer 'trust'? Who is next for you to regulate and mitigate?

Nor do I think Mason's work toward a one world government, quite the opposite actually maybe an elite dictatorship...

How is a one world goverenment different from a dictatorship? It is still rule by one.







[edit on 7-1-2010 by AugustusMasonicus]

reply to post by Bunker or Bust


I do agree that favoritism has, does, and will happen in politics. Although I would like to think that because masons hold themselves to a higher standard, we would never take part in such actions, but the realist in me knows that that isn't always the case. I just think that any member of any group could be biased to that group and therefore would have the same temptations while holding public office. So where do we draw the line?

I also agree that our system isn't working the way it is now. Not even a little. I would love to find a way to fix it. I am just not smart enough of in the right position. Hopefully someone will be at some point.

Masons do get to elect who joins and who doesn't. It is a way to keep people who have less than desirable character from becoming one of us. It doesn't always work, but think it does more often than not. After I understood what masonry was all about , I would like to have it no other way.

When I asked where to draw the line, I was asking a serious question. And I appreciate you going about this in such an adult manner. (no masons r bad and they eat babies junk) You would probably be surprised to know how often that happens.

edit to add: I hope that since several masons are commenting here, that this doesn't constitute a masonic pile up. I just happen to enjoy conversations like this and I assume my brethren do as well.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by network dude]

reply to post by network dude


Well I think anyone that holds such a role should step away from anything which could be viewed, used, abused or manipulated in a negative way.

I think no external outside interests be it group, business is a fair request for someone doing such a job. At the end of the day me as citizen tax payer foots the bill for their wages, am I not the employeer? Would that not be an improvement in risk mitigation? Call it a job requirement, it is not a removal of rights as you don't have to take the role.

They should do it for the right reasons and to uphold that civic duty above everything else. I am sure there would be plenty that would still fill those roles if that became a criteria. Some sadly do it for other reasons and it is those individuals that are pulling us all apart and chewing on the bones.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


"Did you forget about David Duke and Robert Byrd? Both of these men were members of the Ku Klux Klan and moved on into positions in government, Byrd being the current longest-serving senator. "

Speaks volumes does it not? So based on that when is Osama running for congress? (I know he can't so spare me please, but you get the point)

"while not exact, shows that very high majority of men can become Masons, if they choose."

What about women? It is still a restriction and not representative of society. What about those that choose not to join?

"Please explain to me how, during a hearing, a judge may find out about someone's Fraternal affiliation, Masonic or otherwise?"

Don't know, I am not a Judge or member of a Fraternal group. Can you say without doubt that they would never ever find out though? No

Made it clear I think, no group affiliation or business interests is my suggestion in an aim to reduce the risk of abuse associated in performing a civic role.


[edit on 7-1-2010 by Bunker or Bust]

[edit on 7-1-2010 by Bunker or Bust]

reply to post by Bunker or Bust


so you think it should be a self policing kind of thing? What about that one guy out of 1000 who is an honest person wishing to enter into politics (no really, I heard there was this one guy) and also happened to be a mason? He might have values that would not let him use any personal affiliation to advance anyones goals politically. He might be just what that office needs.

I do realize this is not ever going to happen with a system as badly bruised as this one is, but it's nice to speculate.

reply to post by network dude


I think we the people should police it as was intended. As for the good Mason that wants to run for a seat, such things come at a price so no group membership should be allowed. It should be a job requirement, it won't happen and we will carry on being led by those who may have negative motives.

It is part of the price which requires ex presidents to still require security, you take the job at a personal cost to your personal life. But you take the job because you have a passion for it above everything else and are willing to accept the downside. I don't think we will ever see George W as an example in the queue at Walmart, because he can't do that. He has given up some personal freedoms to do a job, no-one forces him to take the job. Not sure if the security is forced but I bet it's welcome, Walmart would be off limits without it I guess.

So looking out the window I don't see it changing or getting better for a very long time. But like the elephant you can start somewhere.. Not picking on Mason's but this was a hot topic in the UK and debated a while back.

reply to post by Bunker or Bust


How about this:

1. No elected or appointed official may hold membership in any group. For reasons you've described.
   
2. No elected or appointed official may attend any church. Because if they have to prosecute someone they see every Sunday, that might be a problem. On the other hand if they're catholic judges prosecuting protestants, that could be a problem too.
   
3. No elected or appointed official may be an atheist. Because they might turn against someone who believed in God.
   
4. No elected or appointed official may watch any sports or other competitive entertainment. Because a Bills fan presiding over judgement of a Giants fan could lead to bias.
   
5. No elected or appointed official may attend any college or university. No school = no alma mater. No chance of bias due to "school spirit."
   
6. No elected or appointed official may have any children which attend any school, nor have parents who attended any school. See above.
   
7. No elected or appointed official may have any dominant racial genes. Eliminates all chances of "He did this because he was white and I'm not!"
   
8. No elected or appointed official may be male or female. Eliminates all chances of "He did this because he's not a she!" and vice versa.
   

Got any others to add? I think it would be a great system.

reply to post by JoshNorton


Think you might have gone a bit overboard there but number one was ok.

A+ for you

You are a friendly bunch after all

Edit: Rubbish attempt by the way to make me out to be some mental extremist.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by Bunker or Bust]