It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


If you are a judge, should you have to...

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 10:41 AM
Reveal your membership in a secret society?

There had been accusations that the General Medical Council (GMC) was adversely influenced by freemasonry and that this could be interfering with justice during their conduct cases.

There were even concerns raised that freemason doctors appearing before the GMC might have tried to use their connections to get the cases against them dropped, particularly at the early stages.

This is from an article from April. What do you think? Should judges be forced to say they are members of freemasonry? Does this set a precedence that will force members of other secret societies to reveal their membership or is this issue bias towards one faction? Will Bilderberg members be forced to reveal their membership?

posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 11:17 AM
In a word, no.

Should you have to reveal your religious affiliation to be a judge, a doctor? Should you have to reveal to whom you donate monies to be a judge, a doctor, a policeman?

I do not think ANYONE in ANY position should have to declare affiliations. If you think Masonry is secret, just watch what happens if you try to force those restrictions... you will NEVER know who is a member.

Further, and just to sharpen my point a little, if I were a judge, and a Mason, and your government required I divulge my membership, and I didn't, HOW WOULD YOU EVER KNOW???

Thank GOD the constitution of the United States forbids this kind of stupidity!! There is only one reason for registering members of any group, as Hitler amply demonstrated for us in the early twentieth century... bigotry and discrimination are NOT acceptable in any society, or, more accurately, shouldn't be...

posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 11:21 AM
In the UK there are many professions where declaration of Freemasonry is mandatory - the judiciary being just one of them. What was suprising was just how few Freemasons there actually are in law careers. The conspiracists were actually shocked when they discovered that people whom they had thought were Freemasons, turned out to have no affiliation whatsoever.

I totally disagree with the idea that a Freemason has to declare his membership. And why should he? What right does anyone have to demand that a man should reveal what he gets up to in his spare time?
Those who demand that Freemasons should declare themselves are complete and utter hypocrites. They are the same people clamouring for their human rights whilst stamping all over the rights of others.

Personally, I freely volunteer the information that I am a member. But if anyone demanded to know, I would probably tell them where to go.

posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Leveller
Personally, I freely volunteer the information that I am a member. But if anyone demanded to know, I would probably tell them where to go.

Here here. I don't think there's a problem with Masons denying Masonic membership...we wear Masonic rings, tie tacks, have Masonic decals on our cars, etc.
But this is different from people "demanding" we declare our membership, just because they don't like us.

Most of this has its roots in the false claim that Masons are obligated to conceal "each other's crimes"; if true, that would indeed compromise the judicial system.

But in reality, there is no such obligation. What we do obligate ourselves to is that, if a Brother comes to us with a personal problem, we won't go blabbing about it all over town, but will keep his confidence. Needless to say, this should be practiced by everyone, Mason or not.

But if a Masonic member is engaged in unlawful or unmasonic conduct, not only are we are not obligated to "conceal his crimes", but it is our duty to file charges against him for violation of his Masonic obligations to obey the moral law.

Fiat Lvx.

[edit on 20-8-2004 by Masonic Light]

posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 12:34 PM
I agree. Should this (USA) country ever pass such a moronic law, i would
find a way to set aside my personal "problems" with the Craft and apply.

if this type of thing should ever come up as being discussed as a law I would be
one in the forefront demanding that every possible association that could in any way influence a persons decisions or judgement must be included and disclosed.

think of the possibilities.

[edit on 20-8-2004 by stalkingwolf]

posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 09:02 AM
Absolutely not. What a gross invasion of privacy that would be . . . . .the unconstitutionality of such a requirement boggles the mind. THIS is why I'm motivated beyond words to be a Civil Rights/Criminal lawyer. Constitutional violations are happeneing daily in Canada and the U.S. It is unacceptable and disgusting to the extreme. Canada's immigration policies, for instance, border on fascism and outright racism.

[edit on 21-8-2004 by LTD602]

[edit on 21-8-2004 by LTD602]

posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 09:03 AM
I agree, no one really should have to declare their associations with something like the Masons, I think it is a violation of freedom.

new topics

top topics


log in