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.

 

A Question For Masons

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 07:11 AM
link   
In the interest of greater debate and understanding (and bearing in mind that I am not attacking masonry, as I know to little to form a concrete opinion one-way-or-the-other...) I was wondering whether the issue of possible political figures of a country being masons brings into conflict the assertion of most masons (from what I have read here and in other sources) that they are encouraged to show total allegience to their nation of birth/citizenship. With the regualr concerns of political association and conflicting interests of politicians in many of our western 'democracies', isnt masonry a possible interest that member politicians should declare? And if not, isnt it going against the democratic spirit of our political systems (bringing any allegience into question?)??? Or is secrecy paramount????




posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Qoelet
In the interest of greater debate and understanding (and bearing in mind that I am not attacking masonry, as I know to little to form a concrete opinion one-way-or-the-other...) I was wondering whether the issue of possible political figures of a country being masons brings into conflict the assertion of most masons (from what I have read here and in other sources) that they are encouraged to show total allegience to their nation of birth/citizenship. With the regualr concerns of political association and conflicting interests of politicians in many of our western 'democracies', isnt masonry a possible interest that member politicians should declare? And if not, isnt it going against the democratic spirit of our political systems (bringing any allegience into question?)??? Or is secrecy paramount????


Patently flawed on several points, and rife with innuendo, I will try to clarify your inquisition.


I was wondering whether the issue of possible political figures of a country being masons brings into conflict the assertion of most masons (from what I have read here and in other sources) that they are encouraged to show total allegience to their nation of birth/citizenship.

I am at a loss with this statement, or question; it seems to merely buttress itself, Masons are instructed during the Degrees, that they are to put God, their country, their family and their vocation before Freemasonry. Your convoluted prose “possible political figures”, as opposed to “impossible political figures”… of what country? What are your concerns? Be direct, which political figure has concealed his membership to the Craft?


With the regualr concerns of political association and conflicting interests of politicians in many of our western 'democracies', isnt masonry a possible interest that member politicians should declare? And if not, isnt it going against the democratic spirit of our political systems (bringing any allegience into question?)??? Or is secrecy paramount????

Interesting that you put quotes around ‘democracies’, as though they were fictitious. Once again, who are these undeclared candidates that you allude to? The “Democratic Spirit” is the undying flower of Freemasonry, the Founding Fathers of the United States were in large part Masons; Masonic principles are prevalent within the Constitution, and more specifically the Bill of Rights. The secrecy you assume exists, quite simply doesn’t, the Brethren are proud of their membership, wearing Masonic jewelry, applying Masonic auto badges to their vehicles, and attending meetings in clearly marked buildings (not to mention us “Sorry Sons of the Desert” participating in parades :mnky
.

If you would care to wrench your thoughts from the depths of obfuscation, and present a manageable inquiry I will be propitious in response.

Divine Intervention



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 08:48 AM
link   
okay...
to continue the enquiry...

so in the US, do you have leading politicians/judges/etc who openly declare their masonry? Im not sure in Europe masons in politics are particularly forthcoming.. but I could be wrong... hence the enquiry...

Should masons in politics declare their affiliation to their lodges like they would do others???

*oh, and European 'democracy' isnt heavily based on masonic figures in its development like in the US... that is an important distinction I didnt realise when first posting this thread... 'corporate' intersts like masony has been seen by many European political thinkers over the centuries as unhelpful and not in the 'sprirt' of democracy...*

[edit on 25-8-2004 by Qoelet]



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Qoelet
Should masons in politics declare their affiliation to their lodges like they would do others???


Anyone who holds a public job in the UK has to declare membership to any secret society, like Freemansonry, Orange Order,etc,etc.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by Qoelet
Should masons in politics declare their affiliation to their lodges like they would do others???


Anyone who holds a public job in the UK has to declare membership to any secret society, like Freemansonry, Orange Order,etc,etc.



They also have to do so in Europe.
A disgusting little law in my opinon.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 10:54 AM
link   
In the US, you cannot force a man to declare any affiliations. It is a violation of the first ammendment to our constitution, granting a man freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of speech... to force anyone to declare an affiliation would limit those freedoms.

So no, I think it is entirely wrong to try to force someone to declare an affiliation. First of all, the basic premise of forcing a declaration is based upon the false idea that being a member will cause one to carry out acts not in concert with their position, and second, since some feel that the membership is secret, HOW WILL YOU KNOW IF ALL MEMBERS OF THAT GROUP ACTUALLY COMPLY???

If I were a mason in the UK, and up for a judgeship or whatever, I certainly would not tell you... Here I wear my masonry proudly and quite openly, but I am not going to wear a gold star on my coat so folks can deny me jobs, housing or lock me in a concentration camp... I see folks that ask for or try to require declaration of affiliation as nothing more, or less, than modern nazis.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by theron dunn
If I were a mason in the UK, and up for a judgeship or whatever, I certainly would not tell you...


That's the whole point Thereon. If you didn't state you affiliation you would be in a lot of trouble. Since 1998 all new judges must declare their membership in the UK. It is the only organisation membership that they are ordered to submit.

www.publications.parliament.uk...

As you can see from the link, Freemasons are a rarity within the UK judicial system anyway - there are none in the House of Lords, one in the Court of Appeal and two out of 96 High Court judges.
The thing that always amazes me about the claims that the UK judiciary is controlled by Freemasons is the absurd contradiction of this scenario. Who is controlling and creating the law that says Freemasons have to declare their membership? It certainly isn't Freemasons.

The same goes for the Armed Forces, Politics, Clergy, Police Force and many other careers. You have to declare. What's even more galling is that some of the above have even stated that they will actively discriminate against Freemasons within their employ. Conspiracy theorist claim that Freemasons conspire secretly to gain promotion, when the truth is that their State employers publicly state that they oppose Freemasonry and that it's members will treated as second class citizens - even though they may be the most qualified for the job!!!

This is hardly the work of Freemasons, nor does it point to Freemasonry being an organisation that controls the strings of power. In fact, it proves the opposite and just how open to attack Freemasonry actually is from those who wish to find a scapegoat. After all, it can hardly control power when keeping it's own people out of power.
It's utterly amazing that anti-masons can turn the tables and say that black is white regarding Freemasons and their promotion chances.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Qoelet
Should masons in politics declare their affiliation to their lodges like they would do others???


What others? Do you feel political candidates should have to declare their religious affiliations? Their sexual preferences? How about if they've had any Jews or Communists in their ancestry?

If we're going to ignore the concept of reasonable privacy on one thing, why not ignore it on all things?



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 12:31 PM
link   
In the US, it is not required that anyone declare their membership in any society, as we as a nation believe in free association. However, there's never been a major political figure in the US who was a Mason and tried to hide it.
Masons are proud our their Fraternity, and are proud of being associated with it.
16 US Presidents have been Freemasons, 21 Vice Presidents, and many congressmen, including many in the original Constitutional Congress of 1782.

Fiat Lvx.

[edit on 25-8-2004 by Masonic Light]



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Leveler, I understand that it is the law to declare your affiliation, but given that the stated purpose of the hatemongering modern nazis is TO discriminate against Masons, I would refuse to obey that law... how would anyone know? We're a great big secret organization, right?


Thoreau wrote that it is a man's DUTY to disobey bad laws, and since the stated purpose of these types of laws is TO discriminate, were I in a position to choose, I would choose to refuse.

Thank g-d that is a non-starter here in the US.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Its interesting to see the stark difference in idelogical thinking. In europe generally, any such 'private interests' are viewed with suspicion in politics (regardless of the reality that EVERYONE will have some kind of private interest), whereas it would seem that in America, the more classical liberal sentiments of the polity actually celebrate private civil society over state-interfered socio/political life. Real enlightenment stuff (well from a country born from the enlightenment duh...). Well thanks people for answering that one *phew* I fear I now have more questions questions questions (although I have been looking through old Mason threads, as to try not to bore people with the same old fortnigthly Mason questions...)

Q



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by theron dunn
Leveler, I understand that it is the law to declare your affiliation, but given that the stated purpose of the hatemongering modern nazis is TO discriminate against Masons, I would refuse to obey that law... how would anyone know? We're a great big secret organization, right?



There's a problem there. When I became a Freemason, I took a vow to obey the laws of my country and I therefore would have no choice but to reveal my membership.

Bad laws or no bad laws - it sucks. But there's nothing we can do about it.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
There's a problem there. When I became a Freemason, I took a vow to obey the laws of my country and I therefore would have no choice but to reveal my membership.

Bad laws or no bad laws - it sucks. But there's nothing we can do about it.


I have to agree with Theron. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Paul Revere took the same Masonic obligations as we, but they nevertheless had a duty to disobey "bad laws", and become revolutionaries.
In Nazi Germany, the National Socialist Party required Freemasons to identify themselves. Most, of course, did not.

Also, it could be argued that the very reason we were a "secret society" to begin with was to conceal our membership from the authorities, lest they bring us before the Holy Inquisition.

I completely agree with Pike on this issue. We have a duty to obey legitimate authority. We are under no obligation whatsoever to succumb to tyranny.

It could be said here that requiring Masons by law to reveal themselves is not in itself tyrannical. That may or may not be the case, but regardless, that's how it began in Nazi Germany, innocently requiring us to reveal ourselves to a Gestapo census. Next thing you know, we were being shipped to Dachau for extermination.

Fiat Lvx.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Leveler;

The addition of obey the laws of my country is a recent one. The only thing my obligation says regarding the laws of the land is that I will keep the secrets of a brother murder and treason excepted. And since masonry does not, as a group, address civil laws, but only the fraternal rules of morality and upright behaviors, I am free, as a citizen, to make my own choices.

On this, my choice is clear... I will not aid or abet modern nazis in making me wear a yellow star. Aren't we to fight injustice? What about our brothers in Nazi Germany that went underground during Hitler's Reign after he outlawed masonry. Would you obey THAT law, if your government passsed it?

It just seems there is a point beyond which a law should be disobeyed because the LAW ITSELF is contrary to human rights and dignity. This law, requiring the disclosure of affiliation to a SPECIFIC GROUP, seems to me, Hitlerian, and one that SHOULD be disregarded... but then, my obligation doesn't speak to profane laws at all, but only to moral behaviors.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I find it absolutely fascinating that masons stick together and plot plan and scheme against the profane (non masons). They corruptly favor each other at the expense of non masons in every sphere.

But they hate to be recognized as masons, because then non masons would hate and revile them just as much in return.

The cowardly hypocrisy of masons is a fact. If masonry was the towering moral example it is claimed to be, masons would proudly wear their masonry in public as a badge of Honor.

No, masonry is a secret sly shameful loathsome thing that must be kept hidden from their victims at all costs.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Warpspeed
No, masonry is a secret sly shameful loathsome thing that must be kept hidden from their victims at all costs.


The only victim here is one of ignorance - you.
Everything you have said has been refuted and proven wrong, time and time again.

But why should I be forced to declare my membership? What right do you have to tell me to state that I am a Freemason? Since when do you have the authority to stamp all over my freedom? Why should I disclose something that I may wish not to make public? I love the way people like you demand your own right to freedom whilst hypocritically denying the same right to others.

The only "secret sly shameful loathsome thing" here is your ignorance. It's a pity you didn't keep it "hidden".

Thereon. My pledge was to obey the laws of any country in which I may find myself residing. Murder and Treason is not the only crime excepted as I would be bound by my promise to expose any transgression that broke the law.

As for the law forcing us to reveal our membership? Yes, it does infringe on my human rights. But then there is a Court of Human Rights that deals with these cases. I believe that Italian masonry is challenging at the moment and as the UK is part of the EU, any judgement will also be pertinent here.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by theron dunn
Leveler;

The addition of obey the laws of my country is a recent one. The only thing my obligation says regarding the laws of the land is that I will keep the secrets of a brother murder and treason excepted.


Really? We (up here) except Murder, Treason, Felony, and all other offenses contrary to the laws of God or Man.

[edit on 25-8-2004 by AlexKennedy]



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Warpspeed
I find it absolutely fascinating that masons stick together and plot plan and scheme against the profane (non masons). They corruptly favor each other at the expense of non masons in every sphere.

But they hate to be recognized as masons, because then non masons would hate and revile them just as much in return.

The cowardly hypocrisy of masons is a fact. If masonry was the towering moral example it is claimed to be, masons would proudly wear their masonry in public as a badge of Honor.

No, masonry is a secret sly shameful loathsome thing that must be kept hidden from their victims at all costs.


Ding! Ignored.

It is the tradition of our order not to reply to slander and attack.

Since time immemorial, it has been the tradition of Freemasonry and Freemasons not to reply to slander and attack. It is felt that nothing can be gained from striving with the hateful. Although his philosophy is foreign to the order, we must recall the words of Nietzsche :


"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster,
and if you gaze into the Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."


If a man is to improve himself, he must take practical steps to do so, and for this reason I will not reply to this attack. Please do not take my silence for assent... it is merely an indication that the argument presented is self-evidently false and baseless.

Those with serious questions about Masonry or my experiences therein are invited to contact me by U2U or through a message in the "Secret Societies" forum.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Warpspeed
I find it absolutely fascinating that masons stick together and plot plan and scheme against the profane (non masons). They corruptly favor each other at the expense of non masons in every sphere.

But they hate to be recognized as masons, because then non masons would hate and revile them just as much in return.

The cowardly hypocrisy of masons is a fact. If masonry was the towering moral example it is claimed to be, masons would proudly wear their masonry in public as a badge of Honor.

No, masonry is a secret sly shameful loathsome thing that must be kept hidden from their victims at all costs.


I find your statements to be interesting, could you provide some proof of your contention that we stick together and plot plan and scheme against the profane?

thanks



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Can you prove that you do not ?

It is a silly request really.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join