Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Freemasons: Evil secret society or misunderstood nice guys...
Options
Comments
-
-
Ah. Another NWO conspiracy theory? Try posting it in the CT forum.its nice to know that goverment leaders, lawyers ,judges,barristers,business leaders,police officers,even presidents[many of whom have been excommunicated by the church]only joined to help charity and have a few drinks ?
Also, it's nice to know that you claim to know all this from someone writing a good reference letter for you, that got you a job, and that is wasn't because the stuff on the letter was true?
So a man who does good works was a member of a group that does good works. I fail to see your point.even a catholic pope was a member of freemasonary.0 -
my brother who at one time was in the police was told to join the masons to help his future promotion,his father in law was a high ranking CID officer, my uncle[who is now dead] was a wealthy business man who would do most of his dealings only with freemasons,so i know quite a bit about these people ,the catholic church is very specific about them,pope benedict XV1,in regard to masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden, CODE CANNON LAW 1917,explicitly declares that joining freemasonary entailes automatic excommunication, but after saying all that check out this web site, www.articbeacon.com0
-
Wow, Getz ... the nonsense your posting is only fit for the Conspiracy Theories forum. So in your last post you say the pope is against freemasonry, yet earlier you say he's a member. Can't you make up your mind, or have us Masons got control over that too?0
-
Actually from the bit of research I did, I think you dont get excommunicated, you "should not seek to receive communion"my brother who at one time was in the police was told to join the masons to help his future promotion,his father in law was a high ranking CID officer, my uncle[who is now dead] was a wealthy business man who would do most of his dealings only with freemasons,so i know quite a bit about these people ,the catholic church is very specific about them,pope benedict XV1,in regard to masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden, CODE CANNON LAW 1917,explicitly declares that joining freemasonary entailes automatic excommunication, but after saying all that check out this web site, www.articbeacon.com0 -
Advertisement
-
i would think at least that you, would read my post properly,in my post 326 i said,it is known that since the war years even a catholic pope was a member of freemasonary,just look up pope john XX111 but earlier than that, pope 1X has been proved to have joined the masons his signature is still in the records of one of the italian lodges of monte video,i noticed you havent denied any of my posts,just attact me. is this the usual masononic way? let others decidePaintDoctor wrote: »Wow, Getz ... the nonsense your posting is only fit for the Conspiracy Theories forum. So in your last post you say the pope is against freemasonry, yet earlier you say he's a member. Can't you make up your mind, or have us Masons got control over that too?0 -
this may help you,the church has imposed the penalty of excommunication on catholics who became freemasons,the penalty of excommunication for joining the masonic lodge was explicit in the 1917 code of cannon law,[cannon2335]and is explicit in the 1983code[cannon1374].because the revised code of cannon law is not explicit on this point,some drew the mistaken conclusion that the churches prohibition of freemasonary had been dropped.as a result of this confusion,shortly before the 1983 code was promulgated, the sacred congregation for the doctrine of the faith,issued a statement indecating that the penality was still in force,this statement was dated november 26 1983 and may be found in origins 13/27[nov 1983]450Bigdeadlydave wrote: »Actually from the bit of research I did, I think you dont get excommunicated, you "should not seek to receive communion"0 -
i noticed you havent denied any of my posts,just attact me. is this the usual masononic way? let others decide
Absoutely I've attacked the nonsense you're posting. If I was a member of a car club, and you accused my club of doing donuts in an old folks home car park, I'd do the same.
Have I tried to debate your points? No. I learned a long time ago, that people who lie and make up stories on the Internet will continue to do so, no matter how logical you try to make the debate. Do I think there's any point in debating with you? Not at all. You've made up stories, made accusations, and are continuing to do so. To feed your fantasies by trying to reason with you would only make you seem a reasonable person capable or reasonable thought.0 -
let me remined you ,the post was,freemasons evil secret society or misunderstood nice guys,i personally worked with two grand masters,one in a lodge for burnley[ lancashire] he was the one who wrote me the job referance,the other grand master was from sale [cheshire]he was a chief steward on manchester liners,in my own opinion they were two of the nicest people you would ever meet,its not at ground level that the problems start,its when it is in goverment and law then corruption is rife,PaintDoctor wrote: »Absoutely I've attacked the nonsense you're posting. If I was a member of a car club, and you accused my club of doing donuts in an old folks home car park, I'd do the same.
Have I tried to debate your points? No. I learned a long time ago, that people who lie and make up stories on the Internet will continue to do so, no matter how logical you try to make the debate. Do I think there's any point in debating with you? Not at all. You've made up stories, made accusations, and are continuing to do so. To feed your fantasies by trying to reason with you would only make you seem a reasonable person capable or reasonable thought.0 -
Getz, I'd like to give you the opportunity here to verify some of your claims and show everyone reading this discussion that you're not just a nut on a rant about Freemasonry.
Which books are you referring to? Have you read any of them? How do you know they are by Freemasons? Please give us some evidence that can back up this claim.there are plenty of books bout freemasonary,most have been wrote by freemasons themselves
The best place to find reliable information about secret societies is on the internet? Do you really believe this? Can you please explain how you know something is true because it is on the internet?the best place to find the real story is by looking on the net at secret societies
How do you know this to be the case? Is this true for every lodge everywhere? I believe there are many lodges that happily receive requests for membership, even though candidates have to go through the usual procedures, filling out an application form, being interviewed, and in some cases a background/criminal record check.remember you just dont join freemasonary,you have to be asked
I believe that most lodges are of the opinion that all good men have something beneficial to offer, namely themselves, and by this I refer to their time, 1 evening a month. Anything beyond this is extra.you will only be asked if you can give somthing that can benefit the society
How do you know this? Can you cite some specific examples of such people, including how you know they are Freemasons?as far as the republic goes it in goverment/police/and big buisness
How do you know others were better qualified exactly? Did you see the other applicants CVs? If so, you must be very well connected. If not, how exactly do you know you weren't the most qualified person for the job? Maybe your friend spoke very highly of you, which one would expect from a letter of reference. I'd like to know exactly how you know it was these 'key' words that got you the job. Did they say to you, congratulations, you got the job, thanks to those key words in that reference letter your friend wrote for you?a few years ago when i was going for a interview for a job,one of my mason friend wrote me a reference,by using ;key words ; yes i got the job, even though others were better qualified
Really? What evidence do you have to support this claim?even religion is not free from it,it is known that since the war years even a catholic pope was a member of freemasonary
WRONG. You have obviously read this somewhere, you are in fact misinformed.during the first degree when the candidate is restored to the light, his attention is directed to the brethern standing around the altar ,THE MASONIC OATH,[the blindfolded candidate kneels at the altar, places both hands on the volume of sacred law,the square and compass,and repeats after the worshipful mason]most solemny and sincerely promise and swear,that i will hail ever conceal,and never reveal any secrets,arts,parts,points of the master masons degree,to any person or persons whomsoever.i will acknowlege and obey all due signs and sommons,further i will not cheat or wrong ,nor defraud a mastermasons lodge,nor a brother of this degree,under no less penality than my body severed in two,my bowels taken from thence burned to ashes,the ashes scattered before the four winds of heaven. there is a lot more than that in the oath,i just censored the bit about not bonking the grandmasters daughters and wife
Only someone who had gone through the first three degrees in a warranted lodge would be able to make this claim, which obviously you have not. It seems quite clear to me that you have read this on one of your internet sites. Can you verify this please?this society with secrets[which incidently will never be uncovered by the rank and file saps,whithin the blue lodges first three degrees]
How do you know exactly that Freemasons occupy social strata at the highest level? What exactly is the highest level of social strata, because I am confused as to what you mean precisely.a secretive society with members occupying social strata at the highest level
If Freemasonry is documented to be involved in all kinds of corruption, can you please tell us all where we can access such documentation? Of course, there must be proof that the organization is involved in such corruption, and not just some of its members. What documentation is there that shows Freemasonry as an organization is involved in 'corruption'? Because I would really like to see it.documented to be involved in all kinds of corruption
On what do you base this claim? I can assure you that Freemasons are accountable to the law, for one, and also to their families and employers, as according to its principles, family and personal duty come before Freemasonry.and basically accountable to nobody
Really? That's an impressive list. Surely you can cite some examples, as well as how you know they are Freemasons. Which presidents have been excommunicated by the church? How do you know? And why would it be so hard to believe that such people would join an organization in order to give something back to their communication, and experience a feeling of community and brotherhood with their fellow men, regardless of their social status or wealth?goverment leaders, lawyers ,judges,barristers,business leaders,police officers,even presidents[many of whom have been excommunicated by the church]only joined to help charity and have a few drinks
Your brother was at one time in the police? What happened? Did he get kicked out when he didn't become a Freemason? Who told him this exactly? Maybe some crackhead the crap out of whom he was beating in an alley. Well, we don't know, do we?my brother who at one time was in the police was told to join the masons to help his future promotion
Ah, so this is how you know so much about Freemasonry. Because your uncle, who is now dead, was a Freemason. Well, I guess we can't ask him, now, can we? Who was your uncle? What lodge was he in? What degree was he? If this is your only source of information (and the internet, of course), then I'm sorry but perhaps you have been misinformed.my uncle[who is now dead] was a wealthy business man who would do most of his dealings only with freemasons,so i know quite a bit about these people
I did just that. There is no Pope IX. There is a Pope Pius IX and a Pope Gregory IX. To which are you referring? Here is a snippet about Pius IX from Wikipedia:just look up pope john XX111 but earlier than that, pope 1X has been proved to have joined the masons his signature is still in the records of one of the italian lodges of monte video
So we can probably safely rule Pius IX out as a Freemason. Would you agree? As for Pope Gregory IX, he was pope from March 19, 1227 to August 22, 1241, well before the establishment of Freemasonry as we know it today.Contemporary Catholic scholars generally agree that Pope Pius was a deeply revered and even beloved Pope by Catholics worldwide in his time.[1][2] However he was truly disliked, and even hated as well, by Masonic forces of his time, which may have contributed after 1848 to anti-Catholic persecutions and legislation in several countries.
I looked up Pope John XXIII. He died on 3 June, 1963, and was beatified on 3 September, 2000. So he was a Freemason? And was beatified? Wow, yes the church must really hate Freemasons. How exactly do you know he was a Freemason? Can you verify this claim?
Can you, Getz, in fact verify any of your claims?0 -
Advertisement
-
if you think i am going to start bringing up all the links to prove my points again,you had better think again,but if you want to find names and people who are leading freemasons[who have been found out ,then the link is www.freemasonarywatch .org0
-
Prove your points 'again'? When did you prove them the first time? Proof requires something called 'evidence', perhaps with family in policing, you may have heard of it. It's something that factually or tangibly verifies a claim to be true. Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far you haven't provided any.
Do you in fact have any evidence that is not internet-based? And to reiterate my previous question, can you please explain how you know something is true because it is on the internet?0 -
the same way you cannot prove it is not true,that link i put up only works on a home pageProve your points 'again'? When did you prove them the first time? Proof requires something called 'evidence', perhaps with family in policing, you may have heard of it. It's something that factually or tangibly verifies a claim to be true. Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far you haven't provided any.
Do you in fact have any evidence that is not internet-based? And to reiterate my previous question, can you please explain how you know something is true because it is on the internet?0 -
Actually, the correct link is http://www.freemasonrywatch.org. I have seen this website before, and have read many of its pages. They make a lot of very grave accusations and serious claims about Freemasonry, but I have yet to read or see there a single piece of irrefutable evidence. It's a lot of speculation, really. There is a lot of obviously fear-based hate-mongering directed towards Freemasonry in general, but nothing that can be substantiated by anyone. Getz, if you can show us otherwise, please do so.
I feel that individuals who feel such a strong degree of fear and hatred towards things they do not understand (Freemasonry being one example) need only to look at themselves more closely to determine the cause of this fear and hatred. As it is inscribed in the Temple at Delphi,Know thyself.0 -
if you think i am going to start bringing up all the links to prove my points again,you had better think again,but if you want to find names and people who are leading freemasons[who have been found out ,then the link is www.freemasonarywatch .org
Not the most cogent of arguments.. 'it's true the voices on the internet said so!'
By the way, there's no record I can find this century (or last) of anyone being excommunicated for being a Freemason.
The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the current Pope Benedict XVI was the head of the Congregation before being elevated, which in its' previous incarnation was more commonly known as the Inquisition, but that's by the by...) has published that Freemasons 'exist in a state of grave sin, and may not receive communion'. The crux of the Churchs' dispute with Freemasonry is that Freemasonry does not require a belief in Jesus Christ and therefore could cause Christian Masons to feel more closely bound to non Christian Masons than they might to Christian non Masons.0 -
so you dont think that freemasons will put their own before non masons in jobs, goverment , and areas of public life ? then why all the secret hand shakes,showing of secret rings,secret words on letters,all the usual religiuos symbles just so they can identifie each other,why not join a james bond club,they do that for fun,they are init for a reason and thats not for charity0
-
so you dont think that freemasons will put their own before non masons in jobs, goverment , and areas of public life ? then why all the secret hand shakes,showing of secret rings,secret words on letters,all the usual religiuos symbles just so they can identifie each other,why not join a james bond club,they do that for fun,they are init for a reason and thats not for charity
I think the first part of your question was covered pretty comprehensively quite early in the thread. As for the second part... well that's a secret
Although 'secret words on letters,all the usual religiuos symbles ' is a bit beyond me I'm afraid... not quite sure what you mean there!0 -
The reason for secret signs is simple. It is part of a system of inter-recognition that cannot be easily infiltrated by outsiders. Why? It is not, as some would propose, so that they can give each other promotions and other prejudicial favours, although it could be used for that purpose, just as all things beneficial can be used by the fearful or weak-minded for selfish and destructive purposes. In fact, the system of recognition is for the purpose of trust and confidence; if one member can prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone he does not know well is also a bona fide member, then it can be assumed that there is a commonly-agreed framework of trust and accountability that will apply to both parties. This can be very beneficial when entering into an agreement, for example, which involves risk and no collateral. A Mason will be accountable to his brother Mason, because he may be held accountable by a higher authority (e.g. his lodge, but ultimately God) should he fail to live up to that expectation. What this does in effect is create a framework of trust and mutual respect between those who would otherwise be strangers, or at least, less than well known to each other. In practice, of course, it is unlikely that any higher authority would ever need to be involved, as most Masons are aware of the expectation of trust and would live up to it without fear of reprisal or disciplinary actions. However, if it were to become known by a lodge that a member of that lodge had failed to live up to the standards expected of all Masons, namely that of honour and fidelity, it is quite possible that actions would be taken, namely that his name would be published in warranted lodges everywhere as one who did not live up to the standards expected of all Masons. All that being said, certain 'secrets', namely those relating to serious offences such as murder or treason, would certainly not be protected, and a brother Mason would be free to disclose such information to the relevant authorities without fear of any reprisal whatsoever, should he become or be made aware of such information, at any time.0
-
...or in other words, a club.The reason for secret signs is simple. It is part of a system of inter-recognition that cannot be easily infiltrated by outsiders. Why? It is not, as some would propose, so that they can give each other promotions and other prejudicial favours, although it could be used for that purpose, just as all things beneficial can be used by the fearful or weak-minded for selfish and destructive purposes. In fact, the system of recognition is for the purpose of trust and confidence; if one member can prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone he does not know well is also a bona fide member, then it can be assumed that there is a commonly-agreed framework of trust and accountability that will apply to both parties. This can be very beneficial when entering into an agreement, for example, which involves risk and no collateral. A Mason will be accountable to his brother Mason, because he may be held accountable by a higher authority (e.g. his lodge, but ultimately God) should he fail to live up to that expectation. What this does in effect is create a framework of trust and mutual respect between those who would otherwise be strangers, or at least, less than well known to each other. In practice, of course, it is unlikely that any higher authority would ever need to be involved, as most Masons are aware of the expectation of trust and would live up to it without fear of reprisal or disciplinary actions. However, if it were to become known by a lodge that a member of that lodge had failed to live up to the standards expected of all Masons, namely that of honour and fidelity, it is quite possible that actions would be taken, namely that his name would be published in warranted lodges everywhere as one who did not live up to the standards expected of all Masons. All that being said, certain 'secrets', namely those relating to serious offences such as murder or treason, would certainly not be protected, and a brother Mason would be free to disclose such information to the relevant authorities without fear of any reprisal whatsoever, should he become or be made aware of such information, at any time.0 -
Well, there lots of clubs that don't have secret means of recognition amongst members. Freemasonry is a kind of club, but that is not really enough to define it, as a club is simply any organization that has members. A fitness club, a snooker club, a chess club, a poker club, a sailing club, these are all clubs, but Freemasonry is a lot more than these simple member-based groups. I think the whole secret element adds something else, along with the system of morality, the fact that it is based on moral principles. Also the belief in a supreme being makes it spiritual, but without being a religion (which it is not). It's a brotherhood, an order, a club, and a fraternity all rolled into one. I think it's kind of in a class of its own, as there aren't very many organizations in the world that are quite like it.0
-
Advertisement
-
for a number of years there has been problems some of justice when a freemason has been involved,in the UK, a parliament select committee was set up to look in to the matter of possible corruption,the committee was told how two asian businessman stumbled on a masonic dinner at a hotel,and were prosecuted on trumped up charges of assulting police officers,they found that freemasonary was also involved in relation to discredited and eventually disbanded west midlands serious crime squad,they also found that,freemasonary may also have been a factor in the stalker affair.do any of you remember that one ?john stalker[not a freemason] was deputy chief constable of the gr manchester police,and was sent to northern ireland to investigate the shoot to kill policy, he produced a critical intrim report in to the circumstances surrounding the shootings,and clashed with the RUC chief constable john hermon[freemason] stalker said he was shut out of key decisions,john stalker claimed his suspension was a pretext to remove him before he caused a major political controversy,he was replaced by colin sampson[freemason] chief constable of the yorkshire police,the report has never got published[i wonder why] .because the home office committee found wide spread suspicion of freemasonic corruption, now freemasons who join the judiciary or the police now have to declare their membership,this also applys to magistrates, crown prosecutors, prison staff,and probation officers,yep they are misunderstood.0
-
Specifically?for a number of years there has been problems some of justice when a freemason has been involved,
Actually the select committee never reported on this alleged incident, it was an anti masonic writer who claimed it had been brought before the select committee.in the UK, a parliament select committee was set up to look in to the matter of possible corruption,the committee was told how two asian businessman stumbled on a masonic dinner at a hotel,and were prosecuted on trumped up charges of assulting police officers
In fact the select committee found that it 'cannot entirely exclude the possibility that it (freemasonry) may have been a contributory factor', but found no evidence that freemasonry had been actually been a factor at all. The Serious Crime Squad was disbanded due to allegations of malpractice over a span of decades, and at the time of disbanding five of almost one hundred members were believed to be Freemasons.they found that freemasonary was also involved in relation to discredited and eventually disbanded west midlands serious crime squad,
But again, to actually be specific, John Stalker himself said he did not believe he was a victim of masonic conspiracies, or of Masons, and the select committee specifically stated that it 'could not conclude freemasonry played any significant part' in the affair.they also found that,freemasonary may also have been a factor in the stalker affair.do any of you remember that one ?john stalker[not a freemason] was deputy chief constable of the gr manchester police,and was sent to northern ireland to investigate the shoot to kill policy, he produced a critical intrim report in to the circumstances surrounding the shootings,and clashed with the RUC chief constable john hermon[freemason] stalker said he was shut out of key decisions,john stalker claimed his suspension was a pretext to remove him before he caused a major political controversy,he was replaced by colin sampson[freemason] chief constable of the yorkshire police,the report has never got published[i wonder why] .
Not because the committee found corruption, but because it found widespread suspicion of corruption, people who join the UK public service are asked, not required, to place their names on voluntary registers of Freemasons.because the home office committee found wide spread suspicion of freemasonic corruption, now freemasons who join the judiciary or the police now have to declare their membership,this also applys to magistrates, crown prosecutors, prison staff,and probation officers,yep they are misunderstood.0 -
i will respond to those points,certainly the person who reported the incident to the committee was anti/mason,[you would not have expeced a freemason to have reported it ,would you ? i never said john stalker said it was a freemason conspiracy,stalker was not around when the other chief inspector [a freemason who would be more acceptable to the RUC was sent in] it was the committee who came up with the alleged conection,all john stalker said in his book was that when i sat down at the desk with the chief of the police in northern ireland,a cigarette packet was handed over on it was said ,i know your granparents were catholic,this was denied by the RUC,as far as the committees report went,it said nothing so undermines public confidence in public institutions as the knowledge that some public servants are members of a secret society ,one whose aims is mutrual self- advancement,because of the belief of coverups,the goverment wanted to reopen the case,this was blocked by the house of lords[another freemason pit of snakes ]the main reason the british goverment could not make it unlawfull to ban freemasons from entering public services was because,jack straws words the decision not to make it compulsory was in the light of the EU court of human rights judgment against the state of italy,[yes freemasons are in high places,even the republic has its fair share,]when dick roche was asked about how many freemasons were there in the goverment ?he gave the typical politicians answer,question it is alleged that the irish goverment has many high-ranking freemasons,answer,i am not one of them,there are many decent people in the masons and opus dei,but i havent been a member of any of them.let the public make their own mind upSpecifically?
Actually the select committee never reported on this alleged incident, it was an anti masonic writer who claimed it had been brought before the select committee.
In fact the select committee found that it 'cannot entirely exclude the possibility that it (freemasonry) may have been a contributory factor', but found no evidence that freemasonry had been actually been a factor at all. The Serious Crime Squad was disbanded due to allegations of malpractice over a span of decades, and at the time of disbanding five of almost one hundred members were believed to be Freemasons.
But again, to actually be specific, John Stalker himself said he did not believe he was a victim of masonic conspiracies, or of Masons, and the select committee specifically stated that it 'could not conclude freemasonry played any significant part' in the affair.
Not because the committee found corruption, but because it found widespread suspicion of corruption, people who join the UK public service are asked, not required, to place their names on voluntary registers of Freemasons.0 -
They're running a charity event for a hospital near where I live.
Not sure the secrecy works so well in small rural communities ...0 -
-
Absolam, key point here. Well done and an excellent response. I was relieved to come back to this discussion and see I have very little to add in reply to Getz's 'proof' of a Masonic conspiracy. Suspicion of Freemasons has caused far more trouble in society than Freemasonry ever has, if it has caused any at all. It's sort of like suspicion of witchcraft. Getz, you are on a witch-hunt here, plain and simple.Not because the committee found corruption, but because it found widespread suspicion of corruption
Getz, doesn't that obviously make the claim biased? And why certainly? Is the world divided into Masons and anti-Masons? What about those who are impartial?certainly the person who reported the incident to the committee was anti/mason
Getz, this is incorrect. The committee was not established to allege anything, it was set up to prove or disprove the claims; to determine whether there was a connection, due to widespread accusations (like yours). It was determined that they were unfounded (like yours).it was the committee who came up with the alleged conection
Really? Nothing? At all?as far as the committees report went,it said nothing
You're on a serious rant here buddy. I have family who were in the Masons and I find this kind of stuff offensive. Why don't you go back to your Google searches and try and dig up something substantial? I'll tell you why, because you can't. Of all the Masonic conspiracy crap I've read on the internet (and it's a lot believe me) I have yet to find one shred that is either believable or verifiable. And in spite of all the additional 'information' you've posted here, Getz, that situation remains unchanged.this was blocked by the house of lords[another freemason pit of snakes ]
Getz, guess what, I looked this up. Thanks for the tip, I found this very interesting. In GRANDE ORIENTE D`ITALIA DI PALAZZO GIUSTINIANI v. Italy (No. 2), 26740/02, No. 97, the statutory obligation for Freemasons to declare their membership when applying for regional authority posts was found to be in violation of human rights. Should Catholics have to declare their beliefs when applying for such posts? Hindus? Wiccans? Jedis? What about members of the Lions Club, or Rotary Club members? Should they have to declare their membership? Of course not, why should they? It doesn't make any sense and no reasonable-minded person would suggest it. So why Freemasons? Why? I ask you, why should they have to declare their membership? What is it about Freemasonry that leads you or anyone to think that they should have to declare their membership when applying for regional authority positions? I would agree with this ruling by the EU Courts, such an obligation is a violation of basic human rights. Jack Straw was right to make the decision he did.the main reason the british goverment could not make it unlawfull to ban freemasons from entering public services was because,jack straws words the decision not to make it compulsory was in the light of the EU court of human rights judgment against the state of italy,[yes freemasons are in high places,even the republic has its fair share,]
And guess what, Getz? Jack Straw also stated that there had been "no evidence" of any "unacceptable behaviour by Freemason judges". Wow, no evidence. What a surprise.
This is a typical answer? I would have thought your typical answer would be something like, "I can neither confirm nor deny these claims...". I think Mr. Roche gave a 21st century answer to a 19th century question.i am not one of them,there are many decent people in the masons and opus dei,but i havent been a member of any of them.let the public make their own mind up
Getz, get with it bud. You're on a witch-hunt, and guess what, you don't have much company. Face the facts. Freemasons are just normal people. They aren't conspiring to take over the world.0 -
sir ,you protest to much, i would ask all,can a man who has taken and still adears to,the oath of the royal archmason be trusted to public office ?,he swears to espout the cause of a companion of this degree,so far as to extricate him whether he is right or wrong, he swears to conseal his crimes,murder and treason not exceptry, is this such a man bound by such an oath to br trusted with office ?ought he be accepted as a witness or a juror when another mason is party in the case, ought he be trusted with the office of judge or justice of the peace or as a sheriff ,constable,marshal or of any other office,Absolam, key point here. Well done and an excellent response. I was relieved to come back to this discussion and see I have very little to add in reply to Getz's 'proof' of a Masonic conspiracy. Suspicion of Freemasons has caused far more trouble in society than Freemasonry ever has, if it has caused any at all. It's sort of like suspicion of witchcraft. Getz, you are on a witch-hunt here, plain and simple.
Getz, doesn't that obviously make the claim biased? And why certainly? Is the world divided into Masons and anti-Masons? What about those who are impartial?
Getz, this is incorrect. The committee was not established to allege anything, it was set up to prove or disprove the claims; to determine whether there was a connection, due to widespread accusations (like yours). It was determined that they were unfounded (like yours).
Really? Nothing? At all?
You're on a serious rant here buddy. I have family who were in the Masons and I find this kind of stuff offensive. Why don't you go back to your Google searches and try and dig up something substantial? I'll tell you why, because you can't. Of all the Masonic conspiracy crap I've read on the internet (and it's a lot believe me) I have yet to find one shred that is either believable or verifiable. And in spite of all the additional 'information' you've posted here, Getz, that situation remains unchanged.
Getz, guess what, I looked this up. Thanks for the tip, I found this very interesting. In GRANDE ORIENTE D`ITALIA DI PALAZZO GIUSTINIANI v. Italy (No. 2), 26740/02, No. 97, the statutory obligation for Freemasons to declare their membership when applying for regional authority posts was found to be in violation of human rights. Should Catholics have to declare their beliefs when applying for such posts? Hindus? Wiccans? Jedis? What about members of the Lions Club, or Rotary Club members? Should they have to declare their membership? Of course not, why should they? It doesn't make any sense and no reasonable-minded person would suggest it. So why Freemasons? Why? I ask you, why should they have to declare their membership? What is it about Freemasonry that leads you or anyone to think that they should have to declare their membership when applying for regional authority positions? I would agree with this ruling by the EU Courts, such an obligation is a violation of basic human rights. Jack Straw was right to make the decision he did.
And guess what, Getz? Jack Straw also stated that there had been "no evidence" of any "unacceptable behaviour by Freemason judges". Wow, no evidence. What a surprise.
This is a typical answer? I would have thought your typical answer would be something like, "I can neither confirm nor deny these claims...". I think Mr. Roche gave a 21st century answer to a 19th century question.
Getz, get with it bud. You're on a witch-hunt, and guess what, you don't have much company. Face the facts. Freemasons are just normal people. They aren't conspiring to take over the world.0 -
i just thought to add a little more to my anti/masonic rants,the DUBLAIN MASSACRE,large sections of the police report were banned from the public domain under the 100year secracy order,LORD KULLUN an established insider[mason] also omitted and censored references to the documents in his final report,parents and teachers were advised to concentrate their efforts on a campaign to outlaw handguns instead of focusing on how a mentally unstable freemason,already known by the police to be a paedophile had obtained a firearms licence for 6 handguns,hamilton enjoyed good relations with both local labour luminary george robinson[grand master mason] and micheal forsyth[mason] the scottish secretary of state and MP for stirling.then there was the child sex scandal in north wales[involving masons],when the chief constable of north wales said in court;lord kenyon a provincial grandmaster tried to pressure him into abandoning a crackdown .MARTIN SHORT BBC newsnight 19-3-01 entire units of the metroplitian police and flying squad and the drug squad were freemasons,they all,in the end were sent to prison,when you are bonded by a oath of mutual defence and loyality,you may well find that it is extremely difficult to squeal on your corrupt brethen,i wont even go into the jersey scandels AND YOU SAY WE HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT,0
-
Getz, how would you know the oath of a Royal Arch Mason? Unless you had taken it. Anyone reporting to know the content of such an oath, without having taken it, is probably misinformed. So how do you know this oath exactly?
There is no such person as 'Lord Kullun', not that I can find any evidence of. Who is this person?
Do you have any evidence for any of your claims? Surely you don't expect people to believe what you are saying when you haven't provided any references for any of it? It's quite obvious you are simply making this stuff up.
I am certain there must be more constructive ways for you to direct your creative ability.0 -
Advertisement
-
For all your investigations getz, how come you've left out two of the most important parts of the oath of a new initiate freemason?
I will not be involved in conspiracies against the state
I will uphold the laws of the society (Or words to that effect, been 9 years since I was an initiate).
You sir, are a conspiracy theory nutjob, and are full of sh*t. Making up stories, and now making up people to bring some sort of creedence to your made up stories. Please just go away now and stop lying.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement