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.

 

Another Throw away accusation...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Back to the secrets-

I don't expect any secrets to be divulged but I would like some clarification and and a little expounding. (note to new people- I have been branded 'anti-mason')

On the oaths- the ones involving keeping the secrets of fellow masons.

I understand the historical validity of such oaths what with the rumored tie to the Templars and all, what I don't understand is why such oaths are still given.

Isn't this a weak point?

It seems to me that any organization that requires protecting their own wrong-doers from the laws of society is akin to the corporate wrong-doers that lie and protect their compatriots from prosecution. In a free society, isn't a pledge to lie contrary to society? How can a good man become better when he is REQUIRED to lie for others?


And so here in what was posed as a question, we have the old "Do you still beat your wife?" question, which is really an attack. This one is particularly clever because it is an attack on three levels at once.
    1. Questions rational for masonic ritual.
    2. Asserts that masons will lie/are required to lie for brother masons
    3. Asserts slyly that masons would NEED someone to lie for them.

This was posted as a throw away comment on another thread, and when the poster was asked to provide any factual basis for these assertions, none were forthcoming. Why was there no proof forthcoming? Because there is none.

Another poster went on to suggest that a brother would give the grand hailing sign of distress in a courtroom, as a means of calling on a purported brother to aid them by lying.

So lets deal with the issues one at a time, and see where that takes us.

1. Criticisizing the historical necessity for the masonic obligations and thence for the penalities, though the latter was not mentioned directly. I always find it amusing when a non masons takes the time to criticize the way masons operate, seeing as they have SO MUCH personal experience from which to draw and form an opinion. The ritual is what it is because it teaches great moral lessons. Tradition is important to masons, and while some in society today are intent on tossing away what was ok yesterday in favor of some unknown tomorrow, masons tend to stick with what WORKS.

Historical facts show that masonry has produced some of the best and brightest... the list of famous masons reads like a who's who of the Military, Political, Financial, scientific, entertainment and literary communities, which begs the question: Were all those men good before they joined the fraternity, or were they better because they joined the fraternity?

Masons point to the great ones among us for a reason, not to say WE are those luminaries, but because our detractors claim that masonry is somehow less than what we claim... and by pointing to the great masons in history, we absolutely and unequivocably show them to be wrong. Evil cannot produce good, and masonry has contributed much good to society.

So, we maintain the obligations and traditions because they work. It is irrelevant to masonry that some nattering naybobs of negativitiy criticize the obligations, how we may administer them, what they contain, and so forth.

So now lets deal with the second issue. NOTHING in my obligation requires or asks me to lie for a brother. In fact, the very concept of a) being asked to lie or b) lying is antithetical to everything masonry teaches and holds out as right, fit, mete and proper. Oh, I have an obligation to aid and assist and distressed brother, but not to the extent of besmirching my own honor or integrity.

I have an obligation to keep the secrets of a brother as my own, murder, treason and felony excluded. This again, does not refer to lying. Not in word, deed, or spirit. This is a prohibition against carrying tales, and is a matter of trust and integrity and honor. Now, I know those words are out of fashion these days, and may be strange concepts for some, but to masons, honor, integrity, truth, faith, hope, charity, prudence, temperance, fortitude, justice are more than just words, they are the living, breathing lifeblood of the fraternity.

If a brother comes to me with a problem or in need of help, my obligation means that I will NOT share what he tells me with anyone, without his direct permission, which I am honor bound NOT to ask for... it means that I can trust a brother. It does not mean that I will lie for him.

Now, to the third layer of this accusation. That a brother mason would even ask a brother to lie for him. Since we are honor bound to the fraternity and to each other, the very idea of asking someone to lie is anathema to the teachings of the fraternity. I will not cheat, wrong or defraud is a significant portion of the teachings of the fraternity, and a part of the obligation itself. And the concept that a brother would "signal" another brother in court implies that a mason would be in a position that would require a lie to save him.

Since masons strive to act and live in an honorable, upright manner before god and man, the idea that a) a brother would be in court; b) that a brother would ask another brother to lie, and; c) that a brother would NEED a brother to lie is so ridiculous as to be on a par with someone asking what yellow smells like...

And, just for clarity, if a brother were to give the grand hailing sign in a court, it would be pretty clear to EVERYONE what was going on. It is not exactly... subtle, that sign, for obvious reasons.

So, am I trying to imply that all masons upright, honorable men, without blemish and perfect? NO. We are human men, striving to be better men, living in a society that prizes the grey areas and obfuscation. We FIGHT each day to reach the lofty goals we set for ourselves, and for some its harder than for others, but we ARE trying to reach the goals and to be the men that masonry teaches us to be...

Are Masons a cut above the average in society? ABSOLUTELY!

I would trust a man on sight, simply because he is a brother. Not because I am foolish, but because I know that good men apply, good men stay, and masonry makes good men better.

So one more lie about masonry bites the dust.


[edit on 11/11/04 by theron dunn]




posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Much better!

[edit on 11-11-2004 by intrepid]



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by theron dunn
Historical facts show that masonry has produced some of the best and brightest... the list of famous masons reads like a who's who of the Military, Political, Financial, scientific, entertainment and literary communities, which begs the question: Were all those men good before they joined the fraternity, or were they better because they joined the fraternity?



First off, great post. Second, I would say the answer to that question would invariably be both, as a man must "be a Mason" in his heart to begin with, would you agree?

So that (to me) begs another question: Did these men get to the stations in life they achieved because of the teachings and effects of Masonry? Or better yet, Would these men have risen to whatever greatness in their respective fields had it not been for the fact that they were Masons? I have to say I think that it would make little if any difference. I could be wrong, and in some cases very well may be wrong, but it seems that they still would have their personal talents and abilities to rely on to get ahead in life. However, I would imagine that they were much more fulfilled in getting to where they did, and indeed in life, because of Masonry.

Makes sense to me...



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Thanks, Axeman.

I notice with interest that the party(s) making the accusation of which I speak have not even bothered to try defending their ridiculous assertion...

THAT alone is more telling than any response they might make...



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by theron dunn
Thanks, Axeman.

I notice with interest that the party(s) making the accusation of which I speak have not even bothered to try defending their ridiculous assertion...

THAT alone is more telling than any response they might make...


Indeed. I took notice of that myself... It's not like they can defend their position... It's flimsy and they know it. Sad, really... But typical...



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 05:23 PM
link   
My question is, why do points have to be made in a confrontational manner?



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I don't see it as confrontational... masons were attacked with slanderous lies, which is why I posted the refutation, and the originator of this particular lie continues with it on another thread. I just noted that while that person continues with this lie, that he has not even bothered to defend his statements.

Maybe it is confrontational to be up front with the truth, but as I noted, the very lack of defense by those MAKING this scurrilous and baseless accusation don't even try to defend the attacks they make, being satisfied, it seems, with simply throwing feces at the wall, apparently in the hope that some of it will stick.

THAT is MY main objection to those that criticize masonry... a lack of intellectual honesty and a patent willingness to lie about the good and honorable men that make up this fraternity.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Well I'm trying to keep this forum free for logical discussion and I see this as a "calling out." What would the most honorable man in history say about this? Something about turning the other cheek comes to mind.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 06:22 PM
link   
You turn the other cheek for too long and all you get is slapped around. We HAVE ignored stuff like this for hundreds of years. Today you cannot ignore lies any more, or folks will begin to see them as the truth... the very fact that folks seem to feel free to post these lies and attacks with impunity is proof of that. The fact that I am being called to task for refuting them is proof of my contention.

I am not interested in a fight, but I will not stand back from slander. I noted that the people who have made these accusations are unwilling or, more accurately, unable to defend them. That is hardly an attack. An attack would be what they are doing to masons. You don't see masons running around all over the place posting lies about folks with differing opinions, telling lies about them, slandering them, and generally acting in a manner that is socially unacceptable.

Yet here we are, and there they are... I am simply defending my fraternity against scurrilous and unfounded slanders. Are you DEFENDING their lies and attacks? Is this how YOU would have your friends treated?

This forum is about Denying Ignorance. I am attempting to deny ignorance and hate speech by pointing out the the attackers have no ground upon which to stand, moral, ethical or intellectual.

Would you stand by and do nothing if someone were to write that a female relative of yours was a prostitute or a drug dealer, or while your priest/rabbi/minister were accused, without basis other than bigotry of being a fraud and a cheat and all manner of other socially unacceptable things?

Well, neither can I.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Well my contention is that ATS hasn't been around for hundreds of years, but we are here for all it's members. The members that you are refering to have been silent in this thread. They have listened to reason. Look at this thread, just the Masons and me. I haven't attacked you, contrarilly I have given this forum an opportunity for all to discuss. It is appearant that discussion is not what you want, you want confrontation for the "oppression" you feel your fraternity has been suffering from for centuries. You won't get it here.

Closed.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join