Originally posted by DRAZIW
They can't do anything to him. He is a "Master Mason" . Once a mason, always a mason.
False. Once expelled or suspended, a man is no longer a Mason until reinstatement (which, in this case, will never happen).
They still have to recognize him as a MM and protect him. Since the masons all swear an oath to protect each other, regardless.
False. Masons take no such oath, and in fact are directly told that any oath is null and void when it conflicts with the law. Also, as stated before, he is no longer recognized as a Mason.
He has broken no oath
Except for those to honor the laws and edicts of his Grand Lodge, which inculcate the utmost respect for the rule of law.
But, the important thing, is that he doesn't think that he himself is crazy. And he is trying to "communicate something" to people he thinks will understand.
Yes, it's definitely important to consider the self-diagnosis of a mass child murderer.
And those inside the order do not think he is crazy either, otherwise they would enable a public trial to let the people see for themselves that the guy was just insane. Instead they isolate him, and will keep him that way. They symbolically, cut out his tongue--i.e. will not let him speak to the public--etc.
"They" have no power to do anything of the sort. Said power rests with the Norwegian judicial system.
Yet, what Freemasons do behind the scenes is secret, and no Freemason can reveal it--"by speech."
False. No Freemason will be believed "by speech".
Was Breivik "trying to reveal" the truth about Freemasonry in some way, by his act, while keeping to the oath of silence?
Or was he insane and morally corrupt? Which seems more likely?
Why did he post a picture of himself in Freemason garb, to deliberately and "obviously" link the "evil deed" to the "Freemason institution"? He must have known it would "reflect badly" on the institution of Freemasonry. Why did he want to do that? He deliberately drew unwanted negative attention to an institution that prides itself on charity and other public good deeds.
If you'll recall, he considers it his magnum opus, and himself a hero. There is nothing negative about his perception of the event.
Something else is going on here. Forget the manifesto. I looked through it. It's pure junk. The real message is
Right, what he actually said about it isn't a good source when determining motives. How we can demonize people we don't like is what we need to be looking at.
some good guy wanted to expose some bad men who were so powerful that he could find no other way to do it himself but by this contrived act of evil.
So your position is that a mass murderer of children is a hero. Got it.
Now we are forced to think. If one bad apple was found in the bunch, maybe all the apples in there are rotten?
No, we're not "forced to think that". You want to think that, you want others to think that, and you want those two things so badly that you're willing to make a hero of, let me say it again, a mass murderer of children. I think I've found the rotten apple.
Whay did Breivik want to tell the world that? Was he a really good man, who stumbled on real evil, and decided a lesser evil was the only way to draw attention to the greater evil?"
Of all the "lesser evils" between nothing and whatever you think Freemasons do, he had to pick that? Why is that easier for you to believe than "he's a bad person"? Why do anti-Masons need to demonize Freemasons so badly that you'll jump into bed with (once more, with feeling) a mass murderer of children? That's the motive you should be trying to find.
edit on 29-8-2011 by OnTheLevel213 because: grammar fix
