Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

In the 21st century, why does Freemasonry still discriminate against women ?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
The Constitution is touted as this great document, and yet, it denies roughly 50% of it's population equality.


The Constitution is a great document. The flaws lie with the people who do not adhere to its true intent, and that would also go for those alive at its ratification. Social mores and additudes are to blame for the reason these views were in place, not the Constitution, it was written to transcend them. People are flawed, the intent of the document is true.




posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Then what of women-only lodges that exisited, and still do, from several centuries ago? I assume you feel that they need to be gender integrated despite their sentiments to the contrary?


Oh Lord ( ! )


I repeat that your ''argument'' is based upon a logical fallacy that 10-year-old children can appreciate as not true...


A society whose real-world ''justification'' is based upon a demonstrably illogical premise, tells us all we need to know about this bigoted, neanderthal organisation.


It's the intellectually dishonest members that I reserve my contempt for.
edit on 24-1-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Semantics. I should have said, "As it currently stands'..."


Not semantics at all.. I wasn't criticising your wording at all; rather, the fact that the US Constitution was signed, sealed and delivered by obnoxious sexists and racists, who happily subjugated women and black people.

If you think that this ''document'' is something to write home about, please acknowledge your mistakes, and get into the 21st century.



Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Your ignorance of United States history is showing. Free Black men always had the right to vote and also held office prior to the Civil War. The XV Amendment only reaffirmed this due to the discrimination practiced in the South.


Ah, no. My understanding of US history is accurate, as is shown by me calling you out on the revisionist slant that people like you want to put on this antiquated and ridiculous ''constitution'', and the fact that I can provably and demonstrably show this document as nothing other than a piece of paper that merits no more consideration than any other 18th century parchment, that was signed by drunks of the ''elite''.


''Free black men'' ?


You just prove my point...


Franklin, Jefferson, Washington et al... All slave owners who thought that it was ''morally'' acceptable to ''own'' another human being as property.


Forgive me if I reject the antiquated, cave-man, ''rights'' that these scum-bags outlined in the toilet-paper that they inked in 1787...


How about a relevant Bill of Rights that could accurately be applied in the 21st century, rather than the cave-man ''rights'' that applied in the 18th century...


edit on 24-1-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
The Constitution is a great document.


What's ''great'' about it ?

I've already shown how the ''Founding Fathers'' approved of the subjugation of women, and the slavery of blacks.


Why are so many American citizens caught up in this ridiculous piece of paper, that should have no relevance in a civilised society ?


The US constitution is a piece of paper that was signed 300 years ago.

Why can't some Americans grow up ?



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I have an honest and serious question here.

Why do people want to blur the lines between the sexes ? What is to be gained by admitting women to male societies,and vice versa? Why is there a concerted effort to blur the line between the ying and yang? Since when did the sexes stop being proud of their differences and complimentary existences?

Is it all about the perceived withholding of power ?



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


I think I have the answer ...

BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY !!!




posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Cygnus_Hunter
 


Men and women are different, but in what way is a society better off by just admitting members who are men ?!



Despite my probing questions, four pages on, there has not been an argument to justify the sexual discrimination in their membership criteria.

This is telling.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


In what way is it better if we admit both? Currently both sexes have access to the same information, so what changes if we admit both?

On the other hand, just like in the gyms, admitting both might make someone uncomfortable and hinder their ability to absorb the information.

Change for the sake of change is useless and possibly damaging, so surely you see some benefit to pushing this change. Enlighten us, how does it make the world better by allowing women in Masonry, instead of letting them have Eastern Star?

Also, for the record, there are several variations of Masonry that do allow women.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Masons, or at least the ones who have commented on this thread, appear to have the logic of a small child...

Let's ignore any diversionary arguments, and just leave an open question to those who are members of this Naziesque organisation.

Explain why Freemasonry discriminates against women.

This is a simple question, and I would like the dinosaurs to answer.


What makes women unsuitable Masons ?!
edit on Tue Jan 25 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: Ad Hominem Attacks And You



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
In what way is it better if we admit both? Currently both sexes have access to the same information, so what changes if we admit both?


Nothing changes.

So why are you so adamant that Freemasonry should discriminate against 50% of the population ?

If both sexes have access to the same information, then presumably you are happy for both sexes to become Masons ?


This is nothing personal, but I'm going to ask this question at the end of every point that I make on this subject:

What makes women ineligible for Freemason membership ?

You are going to have to answer this basic question, before we all come to the obvious conclusion that the Masons are a bunch of neanderthal inadequates, who probably need justification for their subjugation of women...




edit on 24-1-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)
edit on Tue Jan 25 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: Ad Hominem Attacks And You



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Then what of women-only lodges that exisited, and still do, from several centuries ago? I assume you feel that they need to be gender integrated despite their sentiments to the contrary?



I repeat that your ''argument'' is based upon a logical fallacy that 10-year-old children can appreciate as not true...


I did not ask you if it was a fallacy or not, I was asking your opinion on other Masonic groups. Is there any particular reason you did not answer the question? Is what rather simple and straight forward.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
]Not semantics at all.. I wasn't criticising your wording at all; rather, the fact that the US Constitution was signed, sealed and delivered by obnoxious sexists and racists, who happily subjugated women and black people.

If you think that this ''document'' is something to write home about, please acknowledge your mistakes, and get into the 21st century.


Once again, the document was not flawed, it was the people who did not adhere to its prime tenets that were flawed. I think you understand exactly what I mean. To simplify the point I am making, if someone gave you simple instructions on how to complete a project and you disregarded a portion of them, is it your fault or the instructions?


Ah, no. My understanding of US history is accurate, as is shown by me calling you out on the revisionist slant that people like you want to put on this antiquated and ridiculous ''constitution'', and the fact that I can provably and demonstrably show this document as nothing other than a piece of paper that merits no more consideration than any other 18th century parchment, that was signed by drunks of the ''elite''.


By all means, please demonstrate this in as much detail as you possibly can.:


You just prove my point...


Slavery was a very sad fact of all civilizations and unfortunately it was not abolished in the United States at the signing of the Constitution or prior to that with the Articles of Confederation.


Forgive me if I reject the antiquated, cave-man, ''rights'' that these scum-bags outlined in the toilet-paper that they inked in 1787...


The 'cave-man' rights you so sarcastically decry have formed the basis for many other constitiutional forms of government. Once again, they are flawed by their decisions, the Constitutions intent is still clear.


How about a relevant Bill of Rights that could accurately be applied in the 21st century, rather than the cave-man ''rights'' that applied in the 18th century...


And your proposals to this revised Bill of Rights would be?


edit on 24-1-2011 by AugustusMasonicus because: Networkdude has no beer.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton
Guess what? Here you are, scorning and ridiculing us. Feel better now?


Damn right.

I'm scorning and ridiculing your neanderthal organisation.

I've pretty much dismantled Freemasonry in this thread, and you ( albeit, not intentionally ) are just supporting the premise of my thread.

Monkey see, monkey do.



Originally posted by JoshNorton
The same can be said of Masonic initiations...


Ah, so someone has to get their penis and testicles out in the ''initiation''.

Thanks for confirming that.


Originally posted by JoshNorton
Again, the same could be said of Masonic meetings. Except for the bit about private bits out in public. But the rest of your statement holds ground... if Masonry were coed, the distractions of attraction to other members would detract from the lessons at hand.


So you bar gay people from joining the Masons ?

Nice !



Originally posted by JoshNorton
You've poo poohed the fraternity/sorority angle. How about boys schools and girls schools? Against those on prin
ciple? I


FFS, can't you people understand logic ?!

''Two wrongs make a right'' is one of the most egregious logical fallacies.

*SNIP*


edit on 24-1-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)
edit on Tue Jan 25 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: Ad Hominem Attacks And You



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
What's ''great'' about it ?

I've already shown how the ''Founding Fathers'' approved of the subjugation of women, and the slavery of blacks.


Once more, did the Constitution claim all men were equal even those these men did who compsed it not adhere to its tenets? The document was great, they very far from such. Do you not see the difference?


Why are so many American citizens caught up in this ridiculous piece of paper, that should have no relevance in a civilised society ?


Because society is typically far from civilized. Rights must be enumerated lest they be taken by the governments which have promised to uphold them.


The US constitution is a piece of paper that was signed 300 years ago.

Why can't some Americans grow up ?


Why does it even matter to you?


edit on 24-1-2011 by AugustusMasonicus because: Networkdude has no beer.
edit on 24-1-2011 by AugustusMasonicus because: Networkdude has no beer.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Masons, or at least the ones who have commented on this thread, appear to have the logic of a small child...

This is a simple question, and I would like the dinosaurs to answer.



Are insults supposed to propogate a civil discussion?


What makes women unsuitable Masons ?!


There are already female Masons so I do not see why you think they are unsuitable.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Why do weak arguments always fall back to the tired,and yawningly predictable call of NAZI ?

In my personal experiences, I have never met a Freemason who had fascist leanings or tyrannical oppressive views

As far as i know,fremasonary isn't a publicly funded organization,so why should they bow to outside pressure ?

Posted somewhere above is a good argument for this,would a sorority at a university admit male members?



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
''Two wrongs make a right'' is one of the most egregious logical fallacies.

Seriously, you come across as a bunch of simple neanderthals who can't understand the most basic points of logic.


Yet you repeatedly make ad hominem attacks. Is this logic?



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
reply to post by Sectumsempra
 


While I appreciate that you aren't personally putting forward this argument as justification for sexual discrimination, I think that by saying it's a ''fraternity'', and ignoring the fundamental reality of an organisation based on those terms, Masons aren't offering a logical validation of their discriminatory policy.




OK, it's obvious being nice won't work here.

Gotta pull the bandaid off quick.

Let me put it this way.

Quite frankly, sometimes, people just might not want you around. It's just a part of being human.

If you don't like it, go start a club for yourself instead of trying to be an intruder in someone else's life.










edit on 24-1-2011 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Guys ... you should give up on this thread. Stop trying to convince a wall . Talking to a wall is not beneficial for anyone. Let him believe what he wants. This is the internet. For all we know he is just a troll.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

I'm scorning and ridiculing your neanderthal organisation.

I've pretty much dismantled Freemasonry in this thread, and you ( albeit, not intentionally ) are just supporting the premise of my thread.


Sherlock, you have done nothing of the kind. As Augustus Masonicus pointed out, there ARE FEMALE MASONS! So there are options, if a woman wants to join Freemasonry there are Lodges under Grand Orient de France who would be glad to accept her. Guess what? Most co-ed Freemasons believe that Lodges should be able to choose whether they want to be all female, all male or mixed. Regarding regularity, who cares if the Lodges obedient to United Grand Lodge of England recognize them or not! There are still Lodges obedient to Grand Orient de France around the world that do!
edit on 24-1-2011 by no1smootha because: for clarity






top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join