Who's up for the challenge ?

I have to say, that's pretty funny . . .hehe.

Not all is lost.

Originally posted by NeonHelmet
I have a challenge for all MASON and PRO-MASON take a grape fruit put it in your mouth and peel it with your tongue, now how is that for a challenge?

I suppose I could take the obvious cheap shot and suggest that anti-Masons should try the same challenge using a different orifice.

But instead I will just consider the source and give NH a chuckle...
.

Originally posted by PublicGadfly

Shazam?

We're talking masonry not the Shrine!

Shazam- I have a hunch you either went or want to go through the 'burning sands' El Maida?

Been there, done that, got the fez... Al Malikah Shrine, Los Angeles, California. thanks for asking.

Don't get out much do you theron?

Actually, yes, I get out quite a bit, plenty of fresh air, lots of exercise... thanks for asking, but what has that to do with my statement that you masonic critics haven't the intestinal fortitude to say face to face that nasty little vile things you write on the internet?

Most of you critics satisfy yourself with stealing signs and leaving laughable Jack Chick tracts behind...

LTD and theron need to go to local pawn shops- why do you think those rings are there?

I dunno, why do YOU think they are there? Families not knowing what to do with them? Masonic critics stealing them and pawning them to buy more laughable Jack Chick tracts?

In elections- why do you think non-masons do better against masons?

Hmmmm, care to cite an example? Seeing as masons don't run AS MASONS, but as free citizens, and do not make a case of being masons when they run for office... of would you like to try to make a case against the 15% or so of Congress and the House that ARE masons, or perhaps against the 17 United States Presidents that have been masons... or is this just another example of sly innuendo without substance?

Put the sharp stick away sonny, before you hurt yourself with it...

Have either of you attended a masonic burial?

unfortunatley, I have attended a lot of them.

Go, wonder who these guys are that you've never seen at a meeting.

Not really. As men get older and feeble, it is not surprising that they do not attend lodge... though to be honest, I knew personally most of the men whose funerals I have attended... you see, part of my masonic duty is to visit these brothers, in hospital and at home, to check their welfare, to extend a little brotherly love... perhaps you are familiar with the concept?

How many of 'these guys' are there in your local area?

Quite a number, and growing rapidly, thanks for asking. My lodge has raised 13 men so far this year, and initiated and passed a larger number. We are doing real well, and I really appreciate you asking... oh, and most of those candidates are YOUNG men, two of whom recently left for Iraq.

If there are this many that show up for a funeral how many more don't?

Well, those as can, do, those that work, obviously can't. I see no problem with that... I work as a manager in a real estate business, so I have no problem getting the time off for the funerals. Why would you criticize a man for going to a funeral, and for not going... have you no compassion in your soul, or do you lack the necessary component of a human being, a soul?

Notice most judges that are masons do NOT wear any masonic 'regalia?' Did you ever wonder why these things are like this?

No, how many masonic judges do you know? I know two from my lodge, and THEY PROUDLY wear their masonic rings... see what I mean about sly innuendo without a basis in fact?

Everyone that is a professing mason must agree to immediately quit the fraternity should proof be provided that masonry has evil aspects or is involved in activities that non-masons would consider illegal or immoral.
Agreed?

Didn't get spooked, did ya?

No, I was ignoring you. Since you can't prove any such thing, I just chalked it up to more empty rhetoric along the lines of the "do you still beat your wife" questions. No matter how I answer, you would not accept the answer, so, as is my wont with baseless questions, like Chiefcounsellors, I ignored it.

What's wrong with Albert Pike (morals and dogma? I read him the first time in 1980. It changed my life, for the better!

Mine too!! At least we can agree on something, though I suspect you meant it as sarcasm.

Have you read 'Bro. Pike? I just kind of doubt it.

Never heard of it. Why would it matter if it is just more of the BS spouted by uninformed masonic critics? I have read Wr. Br. Albert Pike's biography, and find him to be a great man... do you have a point, or is this where you start insulting Pike as a way of denigrating his books?

Educate yourselve(s)- read on a little masonic history by active masons and ponder- �why is this so?�

So what? Some grand lodges don't recognize prince hall lodges. There have been good reasons offered for this, though I do not accept their rationale. MY grand lodge recognizes all Prince Hall Lodges recognized by the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Prince Hall of California, Inc....

want to continue?

Sure, though I have yet to see you offer anything worth consideration other than innuendo... and that is worthless...

would YOU like to continue to be publically spanked and made to look the fool? I mean, I have time and the facts...

[edit on 4/9/04 by theron dunn]

Originally posted by LTD602
How about getting off the internet to do research? Wow. There's a novel idea.

If we were in a Library you would have a point , but we are in an intenet forum and obviously the comments would be within that atmosphere.

so back to you. I await your next cutting remark.

I thought you guys insisted that you didn't coerce people to join, that an individual will seek this fraternity out on his own volition - this thread seems to put that lie out in the open - you are blatently soliciting members.

1.) I'm not a Mason.

2.) I am suggesting that if anti-masons want actual "proof" of this or that then they should join, or at the very least talk to a Mason in person. If people want to know what's going on, they should join, instead of yapping about it on the internet, when they haver never even been to an open house held at a Lodge or spoken to a Mason in person.

And . . . since I'm not a Mason, I COULD soilicit in the manner you speak of if I so choose.

Originally posted by MrNECROS
I thought you guys insisted that you didn't coerce people to join, that an individual will seek this fraternity out on his own volition - this thread seems to put that lie out in the open - you are blatently soliciting members.

Making information on Freemasonry available is not coercion or solicitation and neither is refuting the distortions made by non-Masons. IMHO it appears to me that you are grasping at straws.
.

LTD - I'll ignore the that fact that it painfully obvious you are a Freemason and say this - there are no "Anti-Masons."
I do not refer to myself by this term and neither does anyone else.
It is a term used exclusively by Freemasons and is is along the lines of "'n-word'." (rascist term for a negro)
Anyone that is labled such has no right to anything in Masonic circles and is used as an object of abuse.
You behaviour is completely in line with this, just as you arrogantly attack anyone who doesn't say nice things about your cult.
You even lable the few "uninitiated" people in this forum with this term such as GadFly.

[edit on 4-9-2004 by MrNECROS]

I have never said that I was a Mason.

I WANT to become a Mason. As I stated before (many times), I already have 2 sponsors, and there are still a few formalities before I am given a date for my initiation.

I simply look to what's reasonable in these debates, and that happens to involve defending Masons, whom I genuinely like and find quite friendly and open. If you want to categorize me with Masons all the same, feel free. I AM after all, a true Mason at heart.

I just like what Masonry has to offer, and I'm sure I can offer the Craft quite a bit as well.

Anti-Mason, Pro-Mason, and non-Mason are not terms of derision, or even racist, for that matter. They are simply classifications. It can be argued that your use of "Mason" is meant in derision as well. But no one has called you out on that, and I won't either. I'm not bothered by labels.

If I wanted to be racist, I'd call you a stupid Limey. But I haven't bloody done that yet, have I?

Cheerio.

LTD - I'll ignore the that fact that it painfully obvious you are a Freemason and say this - there are no "Anti-Masons." I do not refer to myself by this term and neither does anyone else.
It is a term used exclusively by Freemasons and is is along the lines of "." (rascist term for a negro)
Anyone that is labled such has no right to anything in Masonic circles and is used as an object of abuse.
You behaviour is completely in line with this, just as you arrogantly attack anyone who doesn't say nice things about your cult.
You even lable the few "uninitiated" people in this forum with this term such as GadFly.

there are no "Anti-Masons." I do not refer to myself by this term and neither does anyone else.

well I don't know where you have been reading, but I certainly would call you an Anti Mason.

It is a term used exclusively by Freemasons and is is along the lines of "." (rascist term for a negro)

This is also not true, The majority on Fundamentalist objectors ill say quite clearly , they are anti Masonic not anti Mason I grant you. It has always baffled me , how someone can be one and not the other.

Anyone that is labled such has no right to anything in Masonic circles and is used as an object of abuse.

Youhave not been to Freemasonry Watch lately then. Tryhaving a look round the , Masonic Child abuse reports and Satanic cults of Freemasonry.

You behaviour is completely in line with this, just as you arrogantly attack anyone who doesn't say nice things about your cult.

His behaviour is that of someone who just does not agree with you, and as usual the old, denegrate and conquer technoque come out. seen it , got the tee shirt.

You are doing exactly what you accuse him of. I am a freemason and proud of it. I have no idea if LDT is aMason or not . It should make no difference, he has his opinion and he has every right to hold it , as do you yours.

"His behaviour is that of someone who just does not agree with you, and as usual the old, denegrate and conquer technoque come out. seen it , got the tee shirt.

You are doing exactly what you accuse him of. I am a freemason and proud of it. I have no idea if LDT is aMason or not . It should make no difference, he has his opinion and he has every right to hold it , as do you yours."



An eminently fair perspective.

[edit on 4-9-2004 by LTD602]

Originally posted by MrNECROS
LTD -
cult.
You even lable the few "uninitiated" people in this forum with this term such as GadFly.

Uhh, look to the l- e f t

LTD and a few others don't like my screen name /shrug\ theron or masonic light (two other masonic claiming posters) claim something about derision?

LTD is in the 'new guy' stages of masonry buy his posts. df1 has been a mason, as of now, about 6 months (but knows all there is to know it seems)

Me, I'm like many others- just a few answers will do. Why hide everything?

ATS thread with a few questions still unanswered.

I do need to add a couple more and will now take the opportunity to do so.

Why do masons (as shriners) wear moslem/arabic regalia?

The story about the 'slaughter in the city of Fez, where:

the red fez commemorates the slaughter of a townfull of Christians. As the story goes moslems slaughtered the inhabitants then dipped their fezs into the blood of their victims. The name of the 'hat' takes its name from this city, Fez.

Why do the shriners claim to not be masonic yet only masons are admitted as members?

The Shrine thing has always puzzled me. Many masons strive for the Shrine yet the Shrine is not masonic- odd at best. Seems to me the same thing as the SS not claiming to be nazi??

Between the masons and the shrine are �the rites.� These are the hidden masons (ther than the ones on the roles that never appear). Very little visibility. The ranking from 4 through 32 occur here. 33 is supposedly an 'honorarium' given for masonic service from such varied tasks as cooking to fixing electrical problems yet the visible leaders are 33.

What is the goal of �masonry� as an organization?

If it truly is egalitarian then why so much emphasis on politics?
If it truly is �just a fraternal organization for self-improvement� then why do masons show up so often when control is the end result?

One of the oaths says:
...that I will keep the secrets of a brother master mason as my own when given to me in charge as such, murder and treason excepted..
Isn't there more? Doesn't it (the oath) go on to state something to the effect �at my own discretion�?

I've given the example of Sam Houston, famous man, mason and leader of the Texas rebellion as an example of a mason that let his oath to masonry outweigh his oath to his countrymen-

Was this 'masonic� or merely a lapse into some personal failing? If so then why didn't his masonic teachings keep him 'on the level' with his countrymen?

The apparently all-pervasive nature of masonry, even in 1830, was such that a man's honor was cheaply bought. Bought, some have said for the sake �of masonry.�

How many non-masons must die for the sake of a mason's oath?

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
df1 has been a mason, as of now, about 6 months
(but knows all there is to know it seems)

Actually I am not a Mason yet, but I do appreciate the compliment. Thanks so very much. I suppose from your perspective that it does seem I know all there is to know.
.

Masons = Masons

Non-Masons = People who are not Masons.

Anti-Masons = People who say bad things about Masons, and who don't like them.

Pro-Masons: Non-Masons who like Masons and Masonry, and/or Non-Masons who defend Masons and Masonry.

Some of you ARE against Masons and Masonry. Fair enough. The label says you are against Masons and Masonry. Some of you ARE NOT agaist Masons and Masonry, and there are labels that represent your views, too. The label represents your views. Democrat. Republican. Libertarian, etc. It is no more derisive than the term "Mason" or "pro-choice." They are simply classifications that represent your views. Since your views are different from AlexKennedy's, Masonic Light's, and my views, we need terms to differentate between them. These labels do that. The fact that people you don't like also employ these labels is irrelevant and . . . . . unfortunate, but still fair.

Pro = For.
Anti = Against.

Quite harmelss, really.

There is a division among us, in terms of opinions and views. I have no problem with aknowledging it. Unless of course, we all agree about everything. Then there's just no need.



[edit on 4-9-2004 by LTD602]

[edit on 4-9-2004 by LTD602]

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
Why do masons (as shriners) wear moslem/arabic regalia?

The full name of the Shriners is the Ancient Arabic Order of Nobles of the Mystic Shrine. The Order was founded in the late 19th century by two medical doctors who were Scottish Rite Masons, and they loosely based the Shrine on a loose-knit society of Islamic mystics called the Sufis (the esteemed Persian poet Rumi was a member of this society).
As such, Arabic and middle eastern symbolism is employed.

The story about the 'slaughter in the city of Fez, where:

the red fez commemorates the slaughter of a townfull of Christians. As the story goes moslems slaughtered the inhabitants then dipped their fezs into the blood of their victims. The name of the 'hat' takes its name from this city, Fez.

It is true that the word "fez" is derived from the city in Morocco where the hat was first invented. But the story about a "slaughter" occurring there is a complete fiction. According to the anti-Masons (which Necros apparently believes do not exist), The Muslim Sultan Idris I invaded Fez, and butchered 50,000 Christian residents there, dipping their fezzes in their blood. In reality, there is absolutely no evidence of any Christians being in Fez at the time, and there was no �slaughter� at all. There were sporadic battles between Muslims and pagans, with the Muslims eventually winning; but the fez had not even been invented yet.
By the time the fez came on the scene, practically all of Morocco had been converted.

Why do the shriners claim to not be masonic yet only masons are admitted as members?
The Shrine thing has always puzzled me. Many masons strive for the Shrine yet the Shrine is not masonic- odd at best. Seems to me the same thing as the SS not claiming to be nazi??

When we say the Shrine is not Masonic, we mean it is a separate organization outside of Freemasonry. In other words, the Shrine is not a Masonic Rite; instead, it is an organization which voluntarily limits its membership to Masons in good standing. If the Imperial Council of the Shrine so wished, they could change their constitution in order to allow non-Masons to join. Therefore, we mean that the Shrine is an independent fraternity by itself, even though at present all Shriners are also Masons.

Between the masons and the shrine are �the rites.� These are the hidden masons (ther than the ones on the roles that never appear). Very little visibility. The ranking from 4 through 32 occur here. 33 is supposedly an 'honorarium' given for masonic service from such varied tasks as cooking to fixing electrical problems yet the visible leaders are 33.

How exactly is the Scottish Rite (which confers 4� - 32�) �hidden�? The Supreme Councils have public websites, as do the individual Temples. My library is filled with books written by Scottish Rite Masons on the subject, all fully available to the public.
If they have �very little visibility� to you, I would only suggest you apply for a library card, or learn to launch a search engine.

How many non-masons must die for the sake of a mason's oath?

Better yet. Perhaps you could give us a couple of examples of some who did.

Didn�t think so.

Fiat Lvx.

An eminently fair perspective.

Your only saying that because I am absolutely right, as usual.

Hey, man . . . credit where it's due.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
How many non-masons must die for the sake of a mason's oath?

Better yet. Perhaps you could give us a couple of examples of some who did.

Didn�t think so.

Fiat Lvx.

Not so fast Fiat

I have posted the Sam Houston story a few times- perhaps in your haste you missed it.

A little Houston-trivia first:

On the evening of April 13, 1832, on the streets of Washington, Houston thrashed William Stanbery, United States representative from Ohio, with a hickory cane. The assault resulted from a perceived insult by Stanbery over an Indian rations contract. Houston was soon arrested and tried before the House of Representatives. Francis Scott Key served as his attorney. The month-long proceedings ended in an official reprimand and a fine, but the affair catapulted Houston back into the political arena.

Abandoning his SECOND wife (5 years later he got a divorce from his first wife!):

Houston crossed the Red River into Mexican-Texas on December 2, 1832, and began another, perhaps the most important, phase of his career. His "true motives" for entering Texas have been the source of much speculation. Whether he did so simply as a land speculator, as an agent provocateur for American expansion intent on wresting Texas from Mexico, or as someone scheming to establish an independent nation, Houston saw Texas as his "land of promise."

Let me post it again, in a little more detail.

March 2, 1836 Texas declared its independence from Mexico.
One of the singers of this declaration was Sam Houston . After the ignonimous defeats at the Alamo and worse one at Goliad by the Mexicans Houston became the commander of the Texas rebellion army. Retreating skillfully he drew the Mexican army across much of Texas.

Trapping the Mexican army at San Jacintothe freedom of Texas was won. This is where '0l Sam (Houston) let masonry dictate the fate of future Texans. Santa Anna was not only freed but treated as special emissary for Texas.

Surely this can't be right- but history tells us otherwise. Santa Anna (generalissimo of Mexican forces and president/dictator of Mexico)

Houston and Santa Anna were both masons. When Mexico initially invaded northern Mexico (Texas) Houston was not in command of Texican forces. The Texas rebellion was initially fought by Mexican citizens (Texans) against their LEGAL government. The Texans were a greedy and land hungry lot. The government was very far away. Negotiations had dragged on for a few years when Texas revolted.

Later, when Texas was accepted into the United States, Mexico invaded. At this stage Houston's crimes against his fellow Texans became apparent. Not only had Houston let the �butcherer of Texas� free he had also honored Santa Anna so that Santa Anna had added prestige when he returned to Mexico City. This led to Santa Anna's return to power.

Thus far Houston had aided a brother mason- no additional deaths had resulted. (very few anyway)

Now the �blood price of masonry.� Every single death, Mexican, Texican and American that occurred during the Mexican-War is squarely at the feet of Sam Houston. By his actions of not hanging Santa Anna and then honoring him Houston helped Santa Anna gain power and rebuild his shattered armies.

Thus it begins:

General Mariano Arista directed Mexican troops to cross the Rio Grande. On April 25, 1846, at Rancho de Carricitos (about 25 miles northwest of present-day Brownsville), 2,000 men under command of General Torrejon ambushed a squad of U.S. dragoons led by Captain Seth Thornton. During the skirmish which followed, the patrol lost 14 men killed, with the remainder being taken prisoner. Two wounded Americans later died.

Without belaboring the history of this conflict or the reasons subsequently used as explanation we will end this �example� for the time being.

Thousands of people died and America became 'greater' all because of a masonic oath.

In later years, 1860, Sam Houston (now with a Christian wife) became morose and melancholy. He realized that by treating �the butcher� as he had thousands had died. When civil war anew approached Sam Houston finally upheld an oath of more importance than his 'masonic blood promise,' he steadfastly supported the Union even to the point of public humiliation and vilification- finally, he tried to put his country before the craft.

Texas secession when he refused to take the oath of loyalty to the newly formed Confederate States of America, the Texas convention removed him from office on March 16

There are more, but this will suffice for ONE post.

DENY IGNORANCE admit that masons have abused the trust of their positions to further masonic goals!


[edit on 4/9/2004 by PublicGadfly]

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
I do need to add a couple more and will now take the opportunity to do so.

Why do masons (as shriners) wear moslem/arabic regalia?

The story about the 'slaughter in the city of Fez, where:

the red fez commemorates the slaughter of a townfull of Christians. As the story goes moslems slaughtered the inhabitants then dipped their fezs into the blood of their victims. The name of the 'hat' takes its name from this city, Fez.

Why do the shriners claim to not be masonic yet only masons are admitted as members?

Let me answer that... the shrine is a masonic club, that uses arabic symbols. Nothing to it. It is NOT a muslim organization, it is, as is masonry, open to men of any faith, and being a Shriner, I can tell you that in the initiation, there are at least five Volumes of Sacred Law OPEN during the initiation.

As for the Fez story, it is just that, a story, and has no basis in fact. Nice try at slander though. Would you like to provide ANY proof of that allegorical tale? Real proof, mind you, not someone's opinion on the internet... I will check.

Shriner's do NOT claim not to be masonic. Nice misdirection, but no cigar. ALL Shriners are masons. It is a requirement of membership, not only to be a Master Mason, but to maintain your dues paid in the blue lodge. Also, most shriners wear the square and compass IN ADDITION to the Shrine emblem. In fact, this year, the Grnad Potentate has added the Square and Compass to the Shrine emblem, and, among other things, is having the Square and Compass painted prominently on the Shrine Auditorium building in Los Angeles... and yes, the Shrine owns the Shrine Auditorium.

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
The Shrine thing has always puzzled me.

Only the shrine? You seem confused about all of masonry, but nice of you to admit that part.

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
Many masons strive for the Shrine yet the Shrine is not masonic- odd at best. Seems to me the same thing as the SS not claiming to be nazi??

Not at all, though I really admire how you slipped in the nazi allusion, even though it more accurately applies to you... remember Goebbels? Tell the lie, tell it often, and the people will believe it... and here you are, putting his command into action... but we are here to show you are wrong.

ALL Shriners are masons, a fact that the shrine proclaims it in everything they do:

www.ben-ali-shriners.org...
www.totse.com...
www.shrinershq.org...
www.shrinershq.org...
members.aol.com...
www.islipmasons.org...
www.123fargo.com...
home.thezone.net...
www.glmasons-mass.org...
www.museum.wabash.il.us...
kirk-white.com...

and these are just a SMALL sample of the facts. I used Web sites becasue these are the public statement of Shrine organizations... no one but gadfly is under the impression that Shriners "hide" that they are masons...

Here is a representative of what each of these sites says:

Every Shriner is a Mason

Members of the Ancient Arabic Order Nobles of the Mystic Shrine for North America are members of the Masonic Order and adhere to the principles of Freemasonry - Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth.

Freemasonry dates back hundreds of years to when stonemasons and other craftsmen on building projects gathered in shelter houses or lodges. Through the years these gatherings changed in many ways until formal Masonic lodges emerged, with members bound together not by trade, but by their own wishes to be fraternal brothers.

There is no higher degree in Freemasonry than that of Master Mason (the Third Degree). However, for those men who would like to receive additional instruction and explanation regarding the allegory and symbolism learned in the Masonic Lodge, the Scottish Rite or the York Rite bodies elaborate on the basic tenets of Freemasonry. A Mason must have achieved the 3rd degree before he can petition to become a Noble of the Mystic Shrine.

The Shrine's hundreds of thousands of members are distinguished by an enjoyment of life in the interest of philanthropy. The organization has a buoyant philosophy which has been expressed as "Pleasure without intemperance, hospitality without rudeness and jollity without coarseness."

Thirteen Masons organized the first Shrine Temple in 1872 - Mecca Temple in New York City. They knew they needed an appealing theme for their new Order, so they chose the Arabic (near East) theme. The most noticeable symbol of Shrinedom is the distinctive red fez that all Shriners wear at official functions.

Shriners are men who enjoy life. They enjoy parades, trips, circuses, dances, dinners, sporting events and other social occasions together. Furthermore, Shriners support what has become known as the "World's Greatest Philanthropy," Shriners Hospitals for Children.

Through fellowship and philanthropy, Shrinedom strengthens the soul and adds inner meaning to daily life. It thus spreads a glow of joy through one's entire family.

Men from all walks of life and all levels of income find fun, fellowship and relaxation in their individual Shrine Temple and its activities. There are also regional Shrine Clubs in many communities, family picnics, dances and scheduled trips to near and far - to mention just a few of the activities available.

For the Noble desiring even more activity, there are various Units that he can join, such as drum & bugle corps, Oriental bands, motor patrols, horse patrols and clown units. Every effort is made to be sure a Shriner has a variety of activities he can choose from.

There are 191 Shrine Temples located throughout the Canada, United States, Mexico and the Republic of Panama, and there are informal Shrine Clubs all around the world.

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
Between the masons and the shrine are �the rites.� These are the hidden masons (ther than the ones on the roles that never appear). Very little visibility. The ranking from 4 through 32 occur here. 33 is supposedly an 'honorarium' given for masonic service from such varied tasks as cooking to fixing electrical problems yet the visible leaders are 33.

And again, you display ignorance, or is it deliberate lying? There is nothing hidden about Scottish Rite or York Rite masonic bodies, or their members... unless it is just to YOU. Those who are members publically declare their affiliations. Also, it has been more than adequately explained what and who the 33rd degree masons are... no one seems to have a problem with that but you... why is that?

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
What is the goal of �masonry� as an organization?

Oooohhhh, me me! Over here! The answer to that is to make good men better men through service, brotherly love, and charity. Pretty nefarious truth there...

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
If it truly is egalitarian then why so much emphasis on politics?

Uh, would you like to provide proof of that contention? But a simple answer to that would be that good men seek to give back to their communities through service and charity. Political office is just one way that good men do that... would you have us eschew any public life because we are masons? If so, that seems entirely unrealistic, biggoted, and hateful... but I guess I shouldn't be surprised at that...

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
If it truly is �just a fraternal organization for self-improvement� then why do masons show up so often when control is the end result?

Really? Do you mean our free hospitals? Or would that be our free child ID services? Or would that be our free college scholarships? Or would that be at our free Angel Funds? Or would that be at any number of OTHER free services that we provide to the community? WOuld you like to provide some kind of evidence for your contention, or shall we simply accept your naked word on this... given the "honesty" that you have SO FAR brought to the table?

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
One of the oaths says:
...that I will keep the secrets of a brother master mason as my own when given to me in charge as such, murder and treason excepted..
Isn't there more? Doesn't it (the oath) go on to state something to the effect �at my own discretion�?

Not in my jurisdiction it doesn't. Grand Lodge of California. And even if it did, so what? At MY discretion is ALWAYS the case... if I were given something on the square, it is always at my discretion to keep my word and the secrets of a brother... but the plain fact is that the men of masonry are GOOD men, so keeping their secrets does not involve keeping criminal activity secret.

it means that if a brother is having personal problems, he can come to me and ask for my help on the square, and know that I will not divulge his secrets to anyone else. It is NOT a command to keep criminal activity secret, as you seem to be implying...

Too bad you can't understand keeping the confidence of a friend... you must not have many close friends, if you can't be trusted to keep your mouth shut.

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
I've given the example of Sam Houston, famous man, mason and leader of the Texas rebellion as an example of a mason that let his oath to masonry outweigh his oath to his countrymen-

Really? In what way? Would you like to cite here that slander, just so we can toss some facts at you to dispell that awful misapprehension you have about a great man? I mean, I wouldn't want you to pass through life despising a good man simply because of some irrational twist....

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
Was this 'masonic� or merely a lapse into some personal failing? If so then why didn't his masonic teachings keep him 'on the level' with his countrymen?

You post a slanderous innuendo here. Would you like to TRY to defend it?

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
The apparently all-pervasive nature of masonry, even in 1830, was such that a man's honor was cheaply bought. Bought, some have said for the sake �of masonry.�

Stale innuendo, without fact, is nothing substantive... how about trying to defend that?

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
How many non-masons must die for the sake of a mason's oath?

Depends on what you think you mean. NOTHING in my obligation requires me to act in less than an honorable way toward my country, my neighbor or my family. I see you slandering a great man, with stale innuendo. Can you defend such scurrilous attacks against a great man?

Oh, and by the way, some laws are meant to be broken... perhaps you have heard of the Jim Crow laws? Or perhaps you are not aware of the laws requiring slaves to be returned to their masters? Those are but TWO examples of laws that should be broken. In the UK, they have passed laws requiring masons to declare their affiliation... those also, are laws that I think are meant to be broken and ignored.

not because my masonic obligation speaks to them, but because I am a man, freeborn, with a sense of right and wrong, and a willingness to stand up for and fight against what I consider to be wrong, and to fight FOR what I consider to be RIGHT.

Masonry notwithstanding...

[edit on 4/9/04 by theron dunn]

Jim Crow and Black Laws- masonry in action!

theron

would YOU like to continue to be publically spanked and made to look the fool? I mean, I have time and the facts..

Oh, and by the way, some laws are meant to be broken... perhaps you have heard of the Jim Crow laws? Or perhaps you are not aware of the laws requiring slaves to be returned to their masters? Those are but TWO examples of laws that should be broken. In the UK, they have passed laws requiring masons to declare their affiliation... those also, are laws that I think are meant to be broken and ignored.

To your fist 'brag,' change the word to hit or slap- then go for it theron I love pain.

Btw, why is some masons are so into spanking? It's a that a ritual thing, am I right?

Who decides which laws theron? Sure I've heard of �Jim Crow� laws. They were oppressive laws passed by masons to keep masons in power. Lots of whites erroneously believe they were 'white laws.' it wasn't that grand of a scheme. The laws have been linked to [urkl=http://www.pbs.org/itvs/fromswastikatojimcrow/] racial-nazism[/url] in America. White immigrants helped ameliorate the effects of the laws to some extent. None the less, they are a stain upon the American fabric- a masonic stain.

Nothing new here- non-masons fought and walked streets and marched and got beaten, the masons sat back with their klucker bretheren and laughed.

Not the brightest example you could have used. Bro. theron. Does not make masonry look good. Who was president and who was in the house and senate when these laws were passed? Come on- come on- - let's see a loooong role of MASONRY on display!

*theron as a note- please reformat that tome you posted above- I can't tell who said what to who- is that the idea?