posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 10:19 PM
reply to post by LightinDarkness
Brilliant post. Although I am not a Mason, I wholeheartedly concur with the psycho-social dynamic assumed in such a bold framework. Some of the
highlights of your astute take on Anti-Masonry:
1) No one is truly happy with their life, and therefore they require a scapegoat
2) Since Masons are typically happier, healthier, wealthier, more institutionally entrenched, and more secure than the profane, they present the
perfect target for such misplaced emotional baggage
3) Freemasons are a mixed group. They can be of different ethnicities (they may be in separate but equal halls) and they can be of different sexual
orientations or diverse political views (unless they are blackballed by other Masons, who know best after all how to serve their communities). They
can't be felons, typically (unless they belong to prominent families), but this is an indicator of the high moral standards that Masons try to
uphold. The point is, if any Mason or group of Masons does something out of line or espouses some crazy ideas, this should not reflect on the
Freemasons as a group. However, Anti-Masons come in only two flavors, and even if they ever really had some small, legitimate bone to pick it would be
impossible to separate the wheat of their grievance from the chaff of their obvious psychological maladaptions (see points 1 and 2).
"Anti-Mason" is a nomenclature that gives Anti-Masons a linguistic equality with Masons, however, and I would suggest that they be referred to as
"Suppressive Persons", or SPs. Just a suggestion. Carry on with the brilliant work.