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.

 

I wouldn't recommend masonry to any one.

page: 15
41
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
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]
No, I don't think you're an extremist at all. I'm just stating what others have asked. Where does does it end?

It's a foregone conclusion that at some point someone has offered someone else a job because they went to the same school. Just as certainly there have been miscarriages of justice because of the difference in race or religion between the judge and the accused. Heck, if I'm driving behind a car that has a bumpersticker that indicates the driver's kid goes to the same elementary school as my own kid, I'm likely to make some thought about them, even if I don't know who they are, just based on the commonality. (Maybe I'll be less pissed off if their car cut me off. *shrug*)

What I'm saying is that NOBODY exists in a vacuum. We ALL have life experiences that positively or negatively change the way we interact with those around us on a case by case basis. You have to take it on faith that someone who has taken an oath to uphold the laws of the land (such as a judge, cop, or other elected official) is going to put that oath above personal bias when it comes time to do their job. Yes, it doesn't always work. Yes. Their are corrupt people who slip through to positions of power. But nothing you've suggested so far would do anything to alleviate that problem. I'm not certain anything CAN be done about it, to be honest. It's human nature, so the only way out is to remove humanity from the picture, and I don't think that's an answer either.

[edit on 1/7/2010 by JoshNorton]




posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 


Agree totally, but people do have to go to school, a choice of religion etc but a private / secret group is fundamentally different. I agree the problem cannot be solved totally, I am not so blind to not see that but the risk can be reduced to a certain degree.

So when a requirement for Judges in the UK just to declare not de-list their membership to freemasonary was overturned recently it raises concerns. What harm would it be for a Judge to say I am a Mason, if you don't like it ask for another Judge? No harm at all, they could still be Mason's. Maybe some rulings would be examined because of it but should that not happen anyway?!?

Maybe a problem with the number of Judges being members? I don't know but I suspect the number is higher than one might expect.

So why hide that fact? Personal freedom is a little weak reason for a person holding a civic role? That is the concern and it indicates that there is a bigger problem than what sounds like a fairly innocent thing. It is no invasion of an individuals rights to declare membership its not like your stating your a member of an illegal organisation, there are far worse things force on us all daily. Been through an airport recently? Shocking stuff and getting worse.

So if I became President and formed a group of unknown purpose (private / secret group) with restrictive membership and invited all my group members into senior roles with no justification to you the voter what so ever that would be ok? We would also have strong ties ("friends") in big business and maybe even direct involvement whilst holding a civic role. I certainly hope that sounds unacceptable to you but sadly that is what we have and it is abused alot.

So when someone logically complains and debates the fact it is wrong and that a step in the right direction is taken it rains hate. No you can't fix all problems but you can fix some at least. Better than doing nothing at all surely? Sadly those in power will not vote for such a thing, why is that? Something to hide?

I am sorry as a voter and person that puts these people into place to represent society, I think society has a right to know more about those people than the John Doe living down the street. How they conduct themselves both privately and in office counts and is critical to justice and the roles that they perform, otherwise why did Bill Clinton get a roasting, surely that was more private?

Vote them out? Not as easy as alot of people in the selection pool are from the same mould and getting into the selection pool is made as hard as possible. Your right, it is a case of which school you went too as well and nothing to do with good intent for forefill the role. Very sad fact



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
But to add to the futility of it all, what possible good does it do to get all Masonic judges to register as such, if you're not also asking every lawyer or barrister appearing before those judges, every defendant, every accuser, and every witness? If the allegation is that a Masonic judge might hold bias in favor of a brother Mason, how can you not ask to smoke out every potential Mason who might appear before that judge?



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
So if I became President and formed a group of unknown purpose (private / secret group) with restrictive membership and invited all my group members into senior roles with no justification to you the voter what so ever that would be ok?
Yes. It's called a cabinet, and it's generally created every 4 to 8 years.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust


So if I became President and formed a group of unknown purpose (private / secret group) with restrictive membership and invited all my group members into senior roles with no justification to you the voter what so ever that would be ok? We would also have strong ties ("friends") in big business and maybe even direct involvement whilst holding a civic role. I certainly hope that sounds unacceptable to you but sadly that is what we have and it is abused alot.


I hate to bring this up, but have you ever heard of a country called the United States of America? That is exactly how the government here works. see "czar" in wiki.


Were there any fact that came out about the judges being masons and ruling in favor of brothers? I only ask because I have heard a lot of people from across the pond mention this particular corruption. I have not seen any news on it. For a law to be enacted, it must be a hight profile thing. That type of behavior would be considered un-masonic at least in my jurisdiction. Possibilities of having ones membership terminated.
Again, not saying it doesn't happen, just that it shouldn't.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Yep that is the US for sure and the UK and many other countries..

On the Judge thing, how do you prove it and get it addressed? You appeal which costs ALOT of money only to get another Judge who covers his colleagues back Mason or not (that happens as well). So where do you go for justice in that situation? It's a lose - lose situation, your correct alot of people have and do complain about this specifically (maybe more visible than other areas such as business / recruitment etc) and it does go on and with regards to the legal system that is a very dangerous thing hence the concern. And if you do cross someone in that group it can have a longer lasting impact which is why you don't have too many sensible people calling out Mason's over it. Paranoid maybe but it could happen I am sure you would agree within a geographical area at least. Plenty of baby eating rubbish here but not what is really important or the real wider concern of fraternity groups.

Business and other such favors are one thing but bending the law is a different matter. Guess there are more bad apples here then, but as I said before why not deal with it? Called out the OP on that for just "moving", public perception is damaged further by such a statement if you can see the logic.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 


Those can be changed by the persons involved, the Judge can't and has the final ruling in County Court in the UK and in Crown Court sets sentence. Crown Court jury might say guilty but it is the Judge that sets punishment, harsh or light and there are some big scopes to move around in..

Huge difference



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunker or Bust
 

Why? He should be a 2nd class citizen, treated as if he has done something wrong because he refuses to leave the Craft because the actions of a few? That's wrong. Plus, last time I checked bad manners wasn't illegal, its disparaging, but it shows no proof of "crony-ism" or a group cover-up.

I have done nothing wrong so why should I be restricted from public office. "I am a free man. Don't-tread-on-me! A good, law abiding citizen, not convicted of a felony."

Why stop at what fraternity you belong too? Why just the Masons? Isn't that prejudicial? Yes, it is. Its a slope towards discrimination over some irrational, baseless fear someone has.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunker or Bust
 

Yes, you could classify the Masons as a civic group. No, a civic group doesn't mean all can join, that's a non sequitur argument. The Masons actually do community services while the KKK spout racial hatred. Big difference between the organizations.

Are you saying there are victims of Freemasonry? Freemasonry teaches its members to be a good citizen, to be honest/truthful, to be loyal, and to be just. To compare the Freemasons with the KKK is rude.

The group is a private social group that has certain requirements. If a Judge personally knows a party involved with a court case, no matter how they know each other, should recuse himself.


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.

What do you mean here? Are you saying that a public official can be forced to drop his membership in a group? Isn't that a breach in his rights?

reply to post by Bunker or Bust
 

Well, I'm a US soldier and tax payer money goes to my salary, are you saying that I should be forced to quit the Freemasons? Everyone has some kind of outside interest no matter what. Freemasonry even teaches moderation and good conduct, never allowing our passions, our prejudices, or our interests to betray us.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunker or Bust
 

My choice of membership in an organization is my business just as is my religious choice. Its no ones business.

What harm? Why just the Freemasons? Its prejudicial and it shows immediate distrust of a group that is victim to ignorance, fanaticism, and tyranny.

Actually if I remember the other thread about the Judges, the number wasn't as high as everyone was thinking.

Personal freedom is never a weak reason. It should be the only reason. Your rights do not trump mine. When someone asks me why I shouldn't have to disclose my membership all I should have to do is hold up the US Constitution and be done with it.


I think society has a right to know more about those people than the John Doe living down the street.

Your right to know about my private life ends at my property line.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by KSigMason
 


Private? Not when the public pay your salary, ask Bill Clinton.

You have the freedom not too do it as well, no-one is forcing you to do it.
Ever applied for a job and part of that job requirement is you have a medical done once a year? Maybe a pilot? Why? Safety.. If you don't want a medical being performed then you can't take the job! Same is it not?

US Solider, bet you were forced to take your anti biological warfare meds and your "history" will have been checked in detail at enlistment. Uncle Sam knows everything about you make no mistake, otherwise you would have had terrorists infiltrate on mass! Job requirement.. So yes I do feel that a civic role either political or legal should have a job requirement to not be a member of such a group, if nothing else but to remove the risk of recriminations and a conflict of interest being arised.

Why do you think people care about Freemasons in such roles? Honestly why do you think a lot of people think there is a problem? Because the bad stuff does happen, not exclusive to Freemasonary members I know but you can perform risk mitigation and being a Freemason should NOT be a job requirement. In some circles shall we say it can help..

"Freemasonry even teaches moderation and good conduct, never allowing our passions, our prejudices, or our interests to betray us."

Re-read your posts and stop to think how someone else might read it, a bit passionate maybe..


Edit: Read through the whole thread, see how moderate and well mannered Masons react to constructive questioning (certainly on my part). Now tell me that if someone "crosses" a local group that no malice would be held to someone living in that area when terms such as retard are used and without apology.. Oh by the way most run local business in the area, police, legal, medical, banks etc etc etc. Guess it's ok if your on the inside..

[edit on 8-1-2010 by Bunker or Bust]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
reply to post by KSigMason
 


Private? Not when the public pay your salary, ask Bill Clinton.


You're pairing extremes of position and/or position and saying the exact same degree of transparency is demanded. Last time I checked, a regular grunt doesn't have the purview of raining nuclear death from above.
Whether intentionally or not, you're advocating for a level of societal interference that would've made the Stasi drool with envy.

Quite simply you're throwing out a canard comparing the degree of control and oversight that is

a) Unmanageable

b) Unnecessary

and

c) In it's Goebbelian depths, goes against the very tenets of the free society we claim to hold dear.


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
You have the freedom not too do it as well, no-one is forcing you to do it.
Ever applied for a job and part of that job requirement is you have a medical done once a year? Maybe a pilot? Why? Safety.. If you don't want a medical being performed then you can't take the job! Same is it not?


No it isn't and I would think that it should be slef-evident to even the most fevered brow why that should be.


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
US Solider, bet you were forced to take your anti biological warfare meds and your "history" will have been checked in detail at enlistment. Uncle Sam knows everything about you make no mistake, otherwise you would have had terrorists infiltrate on mass! Job requirement..


Guess what the primary difference between those kinds of scenarios and the one you're advocating is? At the genesis, they've proven prophylactic benefit rather than your prurient prying.

The end doesn't justify the means.


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
So yes I do feel that a civic role either political or legal should have a job requirement to not be a member of such a group, if nothing else but to remove the risk of recriminations and a conflict of interest being arised.


But you seem loath to address the repeated challenge of just where such exclusions should stop. If I as a member of the Freemasons am forced out of a job because of some wooly-headed thought that I might be part of some evil cabal, what's to stop this Naziesque tapdance from sweeping up dem ebil Knights of Columbus? I mean they're a fraternity too and even more exclusive than Masons! Who knows what unspeakable deeds dem Catholicks is doin'? Better to exclude them peremptorily before they can do any unseen damage!
That work for you, Chief Counsellor?

And do we start profiling sinister (as in left-handed) banjo buskers? Where does it end? Define why it is in your mind only Masons are worthy of such exlusion.


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
Why do you think people care about Freemasons in such roles? Honestly why do you think a lot of people think there is a problem?


Because some individuals (the same kind of individual who takes the most shocking-on-the-surface chain emails at face value) get some perverse pleasure at partying like its 1829 which just goes to show that there's nothing new under the sun when it comes to unwarranted suspicion. These are the types for whom Snopes isn't in their lexicon and who, were they barnyard fowl, would call Chicken Little an optimist.


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
Because the bad stuff does happen, not exclusive to Freemasonary members I know but you can perform risk mitigation and being a Freemason should NOT be a job requirement. In some circles shall we say it can help..


Whoa there big fella! That was a pretty shiny dime you just tried to sneak through a full-gallop about-face on!

You've been arguing that membership in Freemasonry should on its surface prevent a Mason from holding public position of any stripe. Now you're framing the bogeyman as membership in Freemasonry suddenly becoming a job requirement that's the dragon you seek to slay.

Pick an argument and do stick with it.

As for your 'feces happens' not being exclusive to Masonry assertion, thank you for admitting as much. Masons form the outset of this thread (and the myriad other near-identical threads that have popped up in the age of ATS) have been making this point. Like any other human-conceived undertaking, Masonry's perfection is limited by the perfection of the human condition in general. We strive to make good men better. But it's always possible for a fox to infiltrate the hen house. So, do we blame the hens and call them unwitting dupes providing cover for the fox even while they cast the fox back into darkness?

If so, allow me to greet our new Puritan Overlords!


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
"Freemasonry even teaches moderation and good conduct, never allowing our passions, our prejudices, or our interests to betray us."

Re-read your posts and stop to think how someone else might read it, a bit passionate maybe..


A fault of the reader not the writer. I'll wait on you helping me with the mote in my eye while you deal with the beam in your own.



Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
Read through the whole thread, see how moderate and well mannered Masons react to constructive questioning (certainly on my part). Now tell me that if someone "crosses" a local group that no malice would be held to someone living in that area when terms such as retard are used and without apology..


You confuse the boiled-down rhetoric of ATS to real life which is a mug's game. You have people from around the world on both sides of the discussion here and there's a tendency to forego the normal social pleasantries that guide real life. That and the simple fact of the matter is that Internet chat boards are not usually good barometers of what you'll encounter on the street where you live (unless you live in Crazy Town). For your consideration, I submit virtually any 9/11-board whether here or elsewhere. A casual read would suggest that there's a seething international debate going on 24/7/365. Then compare that with real world. How does that compare with your experiences?

Take a poll and I'll wager that the experience of the vast majority will show that such fevered focus is not reflected on Main Street.

Internet chat boards are not emblematic of real life.


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
Oh by the way most run local business in the area, police, legal, medical, banks etc etc etc. Guess it's ok if your on the inside.


ORLY? And you 'know' this bit of intelligence from........what exactly? Your own extensive, representative experience? Or (as is more likely) did you pull that from the ether, unburdened by actual proof? And when exactly were the police a "local business"? I mean fire departments becoming public services happened in the 19th Century but IIRC law enforcement has ever been the purview of the crown and then of the society in general when the crowns were shown the door.

How about you do a fearless poll of a significant number of your local businesses and report back how many are owned by Masons, how many aren't, how many have Masons work there and how many don't and the total number of businesses and individuals you queried.

Should make for interesting reading if you've an ounce of scruple. I won't hold my breath though.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 


So anything goes for you guys then, NO restrictions on what you can and can't do, your privacy is total regardless, even if bad elements hide behind that? So everyone is free to keep everything private totally. In the REAL world you are monitored on CCTV as a simple example, what choice do you have over that? NONE. Oh but that's ok if your not doing anything wrong, the EXACT same applies to my point.

You can't seem to address in house bad apples, or won't. No response to that at all, strange that. But not really considering the mentallity behind alot of the replies, not all but a fair amount.

And you feel that as a collective group doing "good" is your given right and everyone else can take a jump. Because you know best? Good is based on perspective, what's good for you or "Masons" might not be good for everyone else which I might add is the MAJORITY of society. But screw it that's ok, can't stop you because your totally free and can keep hidden.
Gotcha

And now me suggesting and trying to debate that there should be some checks and balances which are representative of the significant MAJORITY and some of the concerns I am likened to a Stasi, whilst floating around in my "Goebbelian depths"? How dare you!!! Won't drop to your level, pathetic.

What about my right to choose by whom I am Judged? You better than me? You seem to think you are..

At what point did I provide a 100 point list of who cannot do such a role? Not my place to say, I am supposed to be talking to moderate and well mannered Mason's about a specific topic which relates to them not the Knights of whatever but hey drag in everything including the kitchen sink to avoid the debate. Very sad that you use the same tactic's time and time again. This is not an objective debate, waste of time.

Keep starring yourselves! Good work



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunker or Bust
 


What the hell?

Every day groups meet in private, from employers to boards of directors to your family.

Frankly, what we do in our meetings really isn't any of your business. If harm to another person arises from a group that meets in private (mafia anyone) then that's a different story.

We aren't a publicly-funded institution, a charity, a publicly-traded company, a government body, etc. We are just a group of guys having a meeting. Nothing we do has any impact on your life whatsoever and you don't have any right to know what goes on in our meetings.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunker or Bust
 


What in the world makes you think Masons are "judging" you?

We don't even judge each other because we believe with every ounce of our being that ALL humans are equal and their opinions valid.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

Would you also like to attend the private meetings of:

- Kiwanis
- Rotary
- Lions
- Elks
- Eagles
- Knights of Columbus
- Boy/Girl Scouts
- AMBUCS
- Foresters
- EVERY SINGLE LABOR UNION
- Circle K
- Grand Order of Water Rats
- Optimists
- Key Club
- Knights of the Maccabees
- Knights of Ak-Sar-Ben
- Knights of Da Gama
- Knights of Equity
- Knights of Father Mathew
- Knights of Honor
- Knights of Labor
- Knights of Peter Claver
- Knights of Saint Columba
- Knights of Saint Columbanus
- Knights of Saint Mulumba
- Knights of the Golden Eagle
- Knights of the Southern Cross
- Moose
- VFW
- Legion
- PEO
- AMVETS
- DAR
- Universal Negro Improvement Association and African Communities League
- Woodmen
- Red Cross


You are gonna be a busy Fascist if that's what you want to do.
# Knights of the Southern Cross (New Zealand)



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by emsed1
 


"You are gonna be a busy Fascist if that's what you want to do."

Actually I am liberal on most things, a bit left on others and sometimes a bit right. Fascist nope but thanks for your offensive attack regardless that it's wrong.

"We don't even judge each other because we believe with every ounce of our being that ALL humans are equal and their opinions valid."

Obviously, love the irony there..

Has everyone from the Masonic hit squad had a go yet? Won't be wasting my time with this much longer so hurry up.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunker or Bust
 

Bill Clinton abused his office and position, there were ethical implications. Plus, are you comparing joining a fraternity to a blue dress on cigar fellatio?

You comparing apples and oranges with the "no-one is forcing you to do it". Yes, I'm in aviation so I know all about flight physicals, but those have to do with physical readiness of the jobs. Membership in a group does not affect my medical readiness.

So if someone is fulled qualified for a position they shouldn't be hired because of their membership in a law abiding group? Right.

Actually I didn't take the meds because a federal judge said I didn't have to get the anthrax shots nor did I take the malaria pills. Yeah, I got a physical like everyone does when they joined the armed forces, and yes, most of my superiors know about my membership in the Masons. I'm just glad that we have privacy and freedoms that I don't have to give into maniacal beliefs.

How has my post betrayed me? Have I not made my point without personal attacks? My post said that I couldn't be passionate, but that I should never let go to any extreme.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 


So anything goes for you guys then, NO restrictions on what you can and can't do, your privacy is total regardless, even if bad elements hide behind that? So everyone is free to keep everything private totally.


'Scuse me? What orifice did you pull this wild spin on my post from? I (and others) have repeatedly asked you where the exclusion you propose ends and you've avoided defining that. Period. For whatever reason, you appear to have a woody against Masonry and seem oddly reticent to explain why Masons are the especial recipients of your attention.


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
In the REAL world you are monitored on CCTV as a simple example, what choice do you have over that? NONE. Oh but that's ok if your not doing anything wrong, the EXACT same applies to my point.


And what does that have to do with the price of beans in Dover? Because the thin edge of the wedge has been inserted, better to drive the rest of the remaining log home to get things over and done with? You want oversight over everyone, especially Masons for reasons you have articulated as having to do solely with your perception of what could happen, what might happen when two Masons meet.

You propose extending and inviting an Orwellian world as if it's something to be welcomed. You'll excuse me if I don't share your optimism that this is a desireable thing.


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
You can't seem to address in house bad apples, or won't. No response to that at all, strange that. But not really considering the mentallity behind alot of the replies, not all but a fair amount.


It's been addressed repeatedly by myself and others. You just don't seem to appreciate being told that your proposed cure is far worse than any possible disease. Tant pit.


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
And you feel that as a collective group doing "good" is your given right and everyone else can take a jump. Because you know best?


Because the degree of personal interference over other people's lives and private business you seem to clamour for and propose is Goebbels-like in its intensity. Because you propose a sledgehammer response to what at worst is a tsetse fly issue. Were you directing your ire instead at Knights of Columbus with as much vehemence, I'd be jumping to their defence with precisely the same arguments even though I'm neither Catholic nor a K of C member.

And yes; you can feel free take a jump. I certainly won't get in your way.


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
Good is based on perspective, what's good for you or "Masons" might not be good for everyone else which I might add is the MAJORITY of society. But screw it that's ok, can't stop you because your totally free and can keep hidden.
Gotcha


Do you actually read, parse and consider what has been repeatedly written to you in this thread? You were challenged a while back to cite which (if any private group) meets your threshold of approbation and why. If you can't do this, then why is it that you're singling out Masonry for your special ire to the apparent exclusion of every other group in the world?

Masons represent a good cross-section of male society. Our behaviour is governed by the same societal expectations, the majority of which Masonry is a representative subset. K of C (as I understand it [and Chief Counsellor, feel free to jump in and correct me where I'm wrong]) is precisely the same with the caveat of being focussed on Catholic men only. You ascribe to us power and influence far in excess of reality and more in line with what one would expect in a Dan Brown novel.

And if we're so hidden, explain the Temples and the ritual that's been available to the non-Mason for pushing three centuries. That's an odd definition of hidden you have.


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
And now me suggesting and trying to debate that there should be some checks and balances which are representative of the significant MAJORITY and some of the concerns I am likened to a Stasi, whilst floating around in my "Goebbelian depths"? How dare you!!! Won't drop to your level, pathetic.


None so blind.......

You refuse to define a limit for your quest for oversight, even when repeatedly asked. In the mind of a reasonable person, this suggests someone for whom Masonry is only the first hobby horse he intends to try to ride into the ground and if sucessful, who'll be the next rocking horse loser?


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
What about my right to choose by whom I am Judged? You better than me? You seem to think you are..


You're certainly within your rights to want to be sure of the impartiality of the Judge who sits in consideration of you. But inasmuch as you're in front of a Judge, clearly you've been in contravention of the expectations of the wishes of the majority in society and have been charged by an officer of the court with some infraction against society's ground rules.

Or are you now saying that a Masonic accuser has co-opted a Masonic copper to lay frivolous charges against you? How deep does that conspiracy go?



Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
At what point did I provide a 100 point list of who cannot do such a role? Not my place to say, I am supposed to be talking to moderate and well mannered Mason's about a specific topic which relates to them not the Knights of whatever but hey drag in everything including the kitchen sink to avoid the debate.


Yet you clearly have an opinion that Masons and Masons alone in your worldview are to suspect for being Masons. You just don't seem to be forthcoming in why Masons are unique in receiving your enmity. A number of different fraternities that share important essential similarities have been cited for comparison value for casual readers of this thread. You may be reticent to see the similarities but that doesn't mean everyone else is blind.

I'm debating; you're pontificating. There's a difference.


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
Very sad that you use the same tactic's time and time again. This is not an objective debate, waste of time.

Keep starring yourselves! Good work


Sorry you refuse to remove your blinkers. If just one casual reader learns to recognise the hallmark of an evangelist of a closet dictator, this thread hasn't been a waste of time.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   
So now it is suggested I am a criminal? Ever heard of civil law? With the level of defamation thrown around you might hear about it soon if you carry on that way.

I will provide a summary of my view to be clear, we could have debated the plus and minus side of such a suggestion but I will not debate any longer with individuals that lacks basic social graces and manners. I don't come here for abuse, I come here for debate.

A person holding a civil role, political or legal should avoid any involvement within any activity which could be brought into question with regards to a conflict of interest. Be that membership of an organisation or external business interests. There are already many safeguards in place to cover a big portion of this scope.

Any membership to any such group or business association should be declared, It is in the interest of the public to know about any such associations.

If it is not possible to suitably audit the membership or business association and it's activities then to preserve impartiality of the civic role the member should refrain from any such association.

So if people what to read church or parish meeting minutes that is possible and fine or a companies set of accounts. A private fraternal organisation is not due to the secret element and due to possibility of a conflict of interest occuring the civic role which is the primary duty and responsibility of the person should be paramount. Don't like it then don't take the job, a requirement to ensure fairness in the political and legal system.

I don't see what your problem with that is? There has to be some rules, guidelines, boundries or restriction for government and the legal system to exist correct? Or can I as British citizen stand for President of the United States? Why not because there is a rule, it restricts my freedom to do the role. Could I represent the people of an adopted country? Remember I would need to be voted in by those same people so if they were happy with it in a democratic system what would be the problem?

My suggestion is that an additional rule to go along with the many that exist removes the ability of a person performing a civic role which is accountable to the public to be a member of a secret group that has no accountability or transparency to the public which they service. That sounds quite reasonable and common sense when looking at it objectively.

So take your list of groups and tick off all that apply, hows that?

I really don't care what you do, who you meet and you can keep it as secret as you like. Not bothered at all. I distrust Freemasonary based on personal experience, but I have tried to not let that cloud my statement. I have tried to be objective and apply logic and common sense.

What I do care about is someone performing a civic role which could be compromised by external interests (ANY external interests). If your happy to have a legal and political system which does not have any controls or safety measures over those which govern or administer justice then it is you that is opening the door for the installation of a corrupt and extremist group. Ooops too late.

You can throw religion into the equation if you like, that messes up just about anything but the fact stands and risk mitigation against such acts for those in such positions of power should exist and in the large part they do. That is my view point, you are entitled to yours.

See I managed to get my point across without any offensive remarks, I have not questioned your intelligence, vision capability, linked you at an extremist group or hinted at a criminal past. It's not that hard to be polite in a debate with the opposing view point, you should try alot harder. As a group you may be able to get a discount on a class or something.

I raised the point because I wanted to debate the high number of fraternal group members in positions of power and if it is a good thing and should something be done about it? This very fact fuels alot of debate on ATS, but it appears that debate is not something you want. Reading back through historic posts to this board there is a very sad and common theme. There is a core collective group which goes out of it's way to gang attack anyone which presents a view which is in opposition to your views or that of your association. You will take a statement and look at it only from one angle or just take it out of context with what the poster intended. Rather than seek clarification you wade in with guns blazing.

I have taken lumps off you via that very method, combined with you collectively stating what your organisation stands for and the associated ethics and manners yet you display the polar opposite.

You have even be warned about such behaviour as can be seen by the sticky post at the top of the board yet it still continues which is a shame as I am actually very interested in your individual views and that of your group and how they are related to a broad range of topics.

So I will leave you too it so have fun, your objective has been achieved in this case also.

[edit on 9-1-2010 by Bunker or Bust]

[edit on 9-1-2010 by Bunker or Bust]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
So now it is suggested I am a criminal? Ever heard of civil law? With the level of defamation thrown around you might hear about it soon if you carry on that way.


Oh please!

Enough with the Perry Mason wannabe act. Your attempt to be intimidating is both transparent and laughable. Your own words were quoted in-context from this post..


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
"What about my right to choose by whom I am Judged? You better than me? You seem to think you are."


It seemed a quite reasonable interpretation that you're under some form of indictment. If you aren't then so be it. But mind and intention-reading by way of the Internet is a mug's game. Don't get your nose out of joint when your own unclear phraseology leads to mistaken interpretation.


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
I will provide a summary of my view to be clear, we could have debated the plus and minus side of such a suggestion but I will not debate any longer with individuals that lacks basic social graces and manners. I don't come here for abuse, I come here for debate.


So far, you've yet to actually debate. Certainly you've pontificated. You've prevaricated. You've dodged. You've weaved.

You certainly haven't answered questions that've been repeatedly directed to you for clarification or elucidation by multiple posters. That effectively renders your claim of being here to debate debatable.


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
A person holding a civil role, political or legal should avoid any involvement within any activity which could be brought into question with regards to a conflict of interest. Be that membership of an organisation or external business interests. There are already many safeguards in place to cover a big portion of this scope.


A big portion? Methinks you prevaricate. Please be so kind as to point out the specific shortcomings of present UK law with sufficient loopholes that would allow an evil-doing Masonic member of the Bench to continue his evil ways with impunity. I cite UK because your lexicon and spelling are clearly British and this entire issue is a hobby horse for a uniquely small group of Britons. If I'm in error in my assertion, please cite equivalent local loopholes and shortcomings that would justify your riding this rocking horse loser.


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
Any membership to any such group or business association should be declared, It is in the interest of the public to know about any such associations.


And again, I'll ask you to define for the benefit of the casual reader just what limits and exclusions are too out-there. You've already (and to my recollection, exclusively) focused this teapot tempest at Freemasonry without citing specific, repeated and egregious examples of how such an Stasi-like interference in a person's private matters on an on-going basis would have yielded such benefits as to overwhelm and justify the expense and reduction in personal privacy. You also ignore repeated request that you outline what you think the limitations of such 'right to know' legislation should be. Perhaps you think that a person in a position foregos any and all right to any degree of privacy. However, I'd prefer to hear your take on that rather than try to parse non-answers.

I don't care to be accused of putting words in someone else's mouth


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
If it is not possible to suitably audit the membership or business association and it's activities then to preserve impartiality of the civic role the member should refrain from any such association.


Who decides the cut-off threshold of whether said associations have provided sufficient intelligence to the authorities? And who watches the Watchers that they don't start turning their steely gaze at undeserving targets?


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
So if people what to read church or parish meeting minutes that is possible and fine or a companies set of accounts. A private fraternal organisation is not due to the secret element and due to possibility of a conflict of interest occuring the civic role which is the primary duty and responsibility of the person should be paramount. Don't like it then don't take the job, a requirement to ensure fairness in the political and legal system.


Certainly, you'll get more support for your suggestion when/and/or/if you actually get around to demonstrating with links to mainstream (not agenda-driven) sources where such Orwellian and draconian oversight was found to be required in the wake of repeated and egregious shortcomings on the part of existing law and oversight.


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
I don't see what your problem with that is?


Precisely! You don't or at least refuse to admit that maybe such all-encompassing peering will end up driving away the very people that're best qualified for such positions (and I don't refer to Masons in case you were intending to pursue that). Anybody with any degree of judgment would (rightfully so, I think) look at such a level of prying into their affairs as exceeding the worth of the position and the only ones that would cheerfully shoulder such a burden are those who're either unqualified and/or feckless or else cunning enough to hide or camouflage their associations (perhaps with the help of others) that we really would have to worry about the reasons for anyone taking such a position.

You'd hobble society's safeguards and make them especially beholden to those who have unearned sway over the officeholders.

Clever that!



Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
There has to be some rules, guidelines, boundries or restriction for government and the legal system to exist correct? Or can I as British citizen stand for President of the United States? Why not because there is a rule, it restricts my freedom to do the role. Could I represent the people of an adopted country? Remember I would need to be voted in by those same people so if they were happy with it in a democratic system what would be the problem?


The rules can be changed if the populace so wishes. But your last paragraph demonstrates the sort of black-and-white thinking lacking in real life experience and nuance that would ensure that you'd never hold the office you'd seek.


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
My suggestion is that an additional rule to go along with the many that exist removes the ability of a person performing a civic role which is accountable to the public to be a member of a secret group that has no accountability or transparency to the public which they service. That sounds quite reasonable and common sense when looking at it objectively.

So take your list of groups and tick off all that apply, hows that?


Your idea, YOU do the work. You've cited one group who you think deserve exclusion (for reasons that fail to pass the sniff test). Pray continue and draw up a comprehensive list of further such exclusions with separate arguments justifying their exclusion.

I await your list.


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
I really don't care what you do, who you meet and you can keep it as secret as you like. Not bothered at all. I distrust Freemasonary based on personal experience, but I have tried to not let that cloud my statement. I have tried to be objective and apply logic and common sense.


Ah! So you have an agenda which you have not heretofore admitted! It would perhaps make your position easier to fathom were the nature of said "experience" to be explained fully. Perhaps it's relevant. Perhaps it's a case of mistaken interpretation. Perhaps there's an actual issue that shouldn't have come to pass.

Pray elucidate!


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
What I do care about is someone performing a civic role which could be compromised by external interests (ANY external interests). If your happy to have a legal and political system which does not have any controls or safety measures over those which govern or administer justice then it is you that is opening the door for the installation of a corrupt and extremist group. Ooops too late.


Perhaps you might care to source statistics rather than unsupportable assertion.


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
You can throw religion into the equation if you like, that messes up just about anything but the fact stands and risk mitigation against such acts for those in such positions of power should exist and in the large part they do. That is my view point, you are entitled to yours.


I only cited the K of C as a single, simple comparison which you seem to be overlooking. Repeatedly. I certainly don't have an issue with them.


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
See I managed to get my point across without any offensive remarks, I have not questioned your intelligence, vision capability, linked you at an extremist group or hinted at a criminal past. It's not that hard to be polite in a debate with the opposing view point, you should try alot harder. As a group you may be able to get a discount on a class or something.


I've been polite and direct if blunt. I'm sorry if direct if blunt offends your sensibilities.


Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
I raised the point because I wanted to debate the high number of fraternal group members in positions of power and if it is a good thing and should something be done about it? This very fact fuels alot of debate on ATS, but it appears that debate is not something you want.


Supportable statistics go much further to make a compelling argument than unsupported assertion.

(to be continued)



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join