Freemasonry is NOT a Religion!

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
reply to post by Rockpuck

 

Your rituals are more religious than you admit. The whole staging of it, the strategic use of light and sound, the gestures, the bling-bling regalia, the rote recitation and profuse dialogue almost to the point of incantation. These things are indeed elaborate rituals with extreme religious-like overtones.

However, if you're willing to call it a mystical play ... then I'm game.

I have nothing to add to the discussion, all ritual and religion being lost on me, but I wanted to quote the following from another thread as I felt it pertinent to the discussion.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
(From the Tao de Ching.)

38. Ritual

Well established hierarchies are not easily uprooted;
Closely held beliefs are not easily released;
So ritual enthralls generation after generation.

Harmony does not care for harmony, and so is naturally attained;
But ritual is intent upon harmony, and so can not attain it.

Harmony neither acts nor reasons;
Love acts, but without reason;
Justice acts to serve reason;
But ritual acts to enforce reason.

When the Way is lost, there remains harmony;
When harmony is lost, there remains love;
When love is lost, there remains justice;
But when justice is lost, there remains ritual.

Ritual is the end of compassion and honesty,
The beginning of confusion;
Belief is a colourful hope or fear,
The beginning of folly.

The sage goes by harmony, not by hope;
He dwells in the fruit, not the flower;
He accepts substance, and ignores abstraction.

So, in other words, the further from the core "mystery" or "truth" you get, the more elaborate the rituals become. When you get back to the source, you should expect to find none.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Wallo in your own self consumed ignorance if you choose. Your childish behavior earns you a spot on my Ignore list.

Take a chill-pill pal. The "Ohh yes, the brushing of the teeth bit" was a joking retort - and quite clever if I do say so myself.

That's the problem with the constant bickering in these threads that include the sequential letters M A S O N in the title. It has gotten to the point where one cannot distinguish anymore between humour or vitriol.

How sad is that?

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
So, in other words, the further from the core "mystery" or "truth" you get, the more elaborate the rituals become. When you get back to the source, you should expect to find none.

That is quite profound. I agree.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
So, in other words, the further from the core "mystery" or "truth" you get, the more elaborate the rituals become. When you get back to the source, you should expect to find none.

That is quite profound. I agree.

Thank you.

Just passing on the wisdom of others, the thanks goes to my friend Illusions. Glad you appreciated it as much as I did though.

reply to post by JoshNorton


Thanks for the perspective. This is the second time today you've surprised me with your honesty. I respect that.

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
reply to post by Rockpuck

 

Your rituals are more religious than you admit. The whole staging of it, the strategic use of light and sound, the gestures, the bling-bling regalia, the rote recitation and profuse dialogue almost to the point of incantation. These things are indeed elaborate rituals with extreme religious-like overtones.

However, if you're willing to call it a mystical play ... then I'm game.

[edit on 23-6-2008 by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men]

You know what else fits your description? The changing of the guard. Or how about the sunset ceremony at Fort Henry? I'm sure there's a wide multitude of differing events that would just as easily and as accurately fit your description and still not be even remotely religious.

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
[
Rituals are the key features, I'd say, that makes religions, well, religious. Otherwise you'd just be praying at home or amongst fellow devotes. Without ritual, there is no fellowship and a shared spirituality.
[edit on 23-6-2008 by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men]

Are fellowship and shared spirtiuality an absolute requirement of religions? What about a christen hermit or the solitued budish monk?

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
You know what else fits your description? The changing of the guard. Or how about the sunset ceremony at Fort Henry? I'm sure there's a wide multitude of differing events that would just as easily and as accurately fit your description and still not be even remotely religious.

I have no idea what they do at Fort Henry but the Changing of the Guard certainly is 'religious' in origin in that it symbolises the creation of state as the object of worship, thus allowing the king/queen to inspire the same religious fervour in their fighting men as the Pope inspired in the crusaders. Nationalism is simply a progression from organised religion just as politics and the military are.

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men

Originally posted by Rockpuck
It is merely theatrical.

It is much more than theatrics. A Deity is invoked. That, in combination with all the bling-bling mystico-babble ... and ohh my!

Deity is invoked at the open of each congressional sesion. Soooo, I guest congress is a form of religion oh there is also a lot of mystico-babble too in MHO.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I have no idea what they do at Fort Henry but the Changing of the Guard certainly is 'religious' in origin in that it symbolises the creation of state as the object of worship, thus allowing the king/queen to inspire the same religious fervour in their fighting men as the Pope inspired in the crusaders. Nationalism is simply a progression from organised religion just as politics and the military are.

Most people would simple see it as a way to honor brave men that gave their life up to protect the freedoms we enjoy today. Freedoms like being able to freely say what we wish to here on this page. I have no ideal what you are trying to say with king/queen or Pope

I wonder if there is a reason why everyone whose proclaiming that masonry is a religion completely ignores my post where I cited a peer reviewed scholarly definition of religion - which (how surprising) does not fit masonry.:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A key component of the accepted scholarly definition of the religion is that there must be a "network of reciprocal relationships which a believer, or a group of believers, believes to exist between him, her, or itself and the non-verifiable/non-falsifiable beings." There is no such network of relationships that enforces a religious dogma in masonry. In fact, masons are commanded directly by the ritual that there spiritual needs are to be fulfilled by their own seperate religion, which comes before their duties to masonry.

The involvement of concepts of Deity, ritual, etc. do not signify religion. There are religions without belief in any god, that have no prescribed ritual, etc. These things are not necessary nor sufficient for something to be a religion. What is necessary is a basic belief that you exist among a formal or informal network of believers, sanctioned by an institution, which attempts to bring you closer to a higher being.

[edit on 23-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

Originally posted by lost in the midwest
Most people would simple see it as a way to honor brave men that gave their life up to protect the freedoms we enjoy today. Freedoms like being able to freely say what we wish to here on this page. I have no ideal what you are trying to say with king/queen or Pope

That is because you are looking at what it is now, not at the purpose for which it was originally created. The Pope raised armies to fight the infidels, those that sought territorial gain via the crusades brought with them their own men, these forces were equipped by taxing the populace and paid by a promise of a share in the booty and a place in heaven. Many more volunteered simply for the chance to attack the 'non-Christians' and in some cases were whipped up into a frenzy by preachers. These men tended to fight harder and with greater visciousness than those only in it for the money. It didn't take the Pope or anyone else very long to realise they were on to something there (Ker-ching).

When England split from Rome, it found itself in opposition to Catholic countries, most notably Spain, and found that it could supplant belief in god with love of the Queen and country - ta da you have a proto-nationalism. The same principle was further developed by Oliver Cromwell into the New Model Army.

The Changing of the Guard is meant to stimulate an emotional response and fealty to the flag/head of state/fellow countrymen - whatever. Just as the ritual within a religious service is 'designed' to venerate god and unite the congregation in worship, and just as the ritual in Freemasonry serves to unite the congregants there with a sense of shared experience.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


I think you just explained why its a patriotic service, and not a religious service. The traditional roles of the Catholic and English churches have not been exclusively religious - they have played a large role in government. Just because the church had a hand in a tradition does not make it religious - when the church is in power, such rituals evoked patriotism.

I think people are trying to claim that because the emotions invoked by patriotism and religion are similar, that you can use them as synonyms for each other. The difference is that the focus of the emotion is on two different entities - one focuses on broad concepts of country and loyalty, another on Deity. Scholars of religion call patriotism "public religion," but they point out at great length that this does not mean it is religion - simply that its mechanics are similar in notable ways.

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
]In your outward demeanor, be particularly careful to avoid censure or reproach. Let no interest, favor or prejudice, bias your integrity, or influence you to be guilty of a dishonorable action.
...
neither are you to suffer your zeal for the institution to lead you into argument with those who, through ignorance, may ridicule it.

—The Monitor of the Lodge, Charge to the Entered Apprentice Mason

And this, Brothers, is why I choose not to debate pro VS anti- Masons.
Just the way I choose to act.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


I understand what you trying to say now, but I feel you are wrong in this case. These men fought for ideals, which out weigh any king or country for that mater. You may claim that these ideals were misguide if you like, but I would have to disagree.

I know you've probably heard of the Unkown Soldiers' tomb, where soldiers from variouse wars are commenorated. The march the soldiers perform, and the body of the soldier itself, is symbolic both of the lives lost, whos names were lost, and the respect people should have, and the respect the soldiers show, towards the men who were not forgotten for their service.
It's very much a rittual, and many people have variouse rituals they do hroughout their day, many of which they do because it's somehow important to them, and generally don't actually include religion.
Seriousness aside, anyone read Terry Pratchett? He has a fairly funny bit about rituals in one of his books, can't remember the title of the books it's in though.
My opinion is, rituals can have fairly ridiculous origins, and they can have seriouse origins. However they are not necassarily tied to religion, more to the person or people. ANd ultimately it's what the person gets from it that decides what the ritual is.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


I get the feeling you and Lost are talking about two different rituals, one English, one American.

Either way, even something founded through religion, if not specifically religious themselves, cannot and should not be called "religious".

Unless of course, something specifically religious occurs or is expanded upon in the ritual. Seeing as Religion permeates through society, everything is indirectly effected by it some way, however, not everything we do is religious in nature is it?

For instance, the Freemason rituals borrow heavily from Judaic scriptures and Biblical passage. However, while founded through religion, it does not expand upon any certain denominations religious beliefs, and, in fact actually makes it entirely deistic in nature. Nothing religious is brought up, however the philosophies that are for the most part shared throughout the World in every single major religion are expanded upon.

Freemasonry could be considered Religion. Just without .. the Religion. Because at the core of all Religion is a base set of Philosophies, and it is in those that we build our selves on. Religion is the concept of organized thought and belief, where instead of an individual deciding what is right and what they believe, someone from birth directs thought and emotion.

Just my take.

reply to post by Rockpuck


So if I get your last paragraph there correctly, Freemasonry could be considered a shell, or framework that someone can take their religion and/or philosophy and insert it into and then use to strengthen or build upon?

Originally posted by RuneSpider
So if I get your last paragraph there correctly, Freemasonry could be considered a shell, or framework that someone can take their religion and/or philosophy and insert it into and then use to strengthen or build upon?

That's the general idea I believe, yes. You know, making good men better and all that rot.

reply to post by JoshNorton


Sorry tech support has me where I'm rparaphrasing what people say.
At least it'll help me get a bette rpicture of the idea. My plans to join a Masonry lodge have been circumvented by my toe dragging and me having night shift, and a few other things at the moment. So, while it'll make it more difficult for first hand, personal expieriences, it makes it more of a point for me to discuss things.


[edit on 23-6-2008 by RuneSpider]