Originally posted by PublicGadfly
What I'm interested in, at this juncture, is how the oath(s) revolving around:
' protecting any, not revealing crimes but for murder and treason (and these are a judgment call)'
square with the obligation to uphold the law?
Which oath is preferential?
You have only mentioned ONE oath, and only part of it at that... but that is what we have come to expect from you...
The oath actually says that I will keep the secrets of a brother when GIVEN TO ME IN CHARGE AS SUCH... murder and treason excepted... that is not at
all what you presented in creating your strawman argument.
Also, just so you are clear, I have no obligation under the law to reveal ANYONES crimes, not to aid anyone in preventing a crime or in the capture of
a criminal... which is NOT to say I wouldn't, but there is no law that requires me to aid and assist in the capture or prosecution of anyone for
anything. So, your accusation is without foundation or value, being as it is untrue on both counts.
Which oath is higher?
Which oath??? You only posted a part of one oath...
Does he feel it is now a requirement to lie and that then this is justified or even a requirement?
NO. Keeping a secret is not at all the same as lying... thanks for asking.
Not from masonry's perspective but from his individual perspective.
here you try to knock down your strawman...
I don't care about the trappings of any ceremony- hang a rope around someone's neck, take them 'in tow.' What I care about is the impact.
Is this person now to be considered untrustworthy to non-masons? Or fellow masons for that matter because of some oath given amongst a comic
I am sorry you have no sense of obligation or honor or integrity... it is clear you do not care about ceremony, or, to be frank, much of anything that
can be seen from your posts, other than poking at what OTHER men see as important.
If I as a mason or non-mason were on trial against a mason I surely would want to know if the witnesses were masons.
that's because you clearly don't understand masonry. As a Mason, and I give my word to tell the truth, I would. If it conflicted with my masonic
obligation to keep secret what I received on the square (not admissable in court anyway, its HEARSAY) I would stay silent and refuse to answer...
that's not lying.
If they were I would want to know if they had ever had contact with the other party to the suit.
of course, and here you knock down the other strawman in your argument.
I wouldn't ask them- I would want to know from an outside source. A reliable source.
Like??? Yourself possibly, who hasn't told the truth yet? How can you sit there and defame masons whom you do not know, whom you do not understand,
based on an obligation you clearly do not understand...
Pitiful is what I call it...