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
-
I did some research on whether police are affected by any law regarding masons
To address the point on Police and whether they have to declare any membership looke here:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000032_en_5#pt6-pb5-l1g51
See Section 51
As regards what are "notifiable membnerships" the Masons tried to get around this in 2004 by saying that a police man could not regard the Masons are an organisation which in his view is threathening so he could say he is not a member of any such organisationIn that regard, it is our opinion that an Officer may truthfully submit that, unless he has other perceived notifiable memberships, membership of the Masonic Order does not constitute same and he may indicate that, as far as it is concerned, he has no notifiable membership.
A clear attempt by the Masons NOT to declare their membership serving police.
It isn't up to the policeman! The list was qualified in appendix A of this:
http://www.psni.police.uk/service_procedure_0609.pdf3.2 Organisations, which are perceived to be secret and self-supporting, and whose members cross criminal justice agencies, eg Freemasons, or Knights of St Columbanus. For example, differences in police decisions in apparently similar cases can give rise to allegations that the
relationship between a member of the public and the investigating officer was a key factor in such. It
is this crucial role of the police officer as a ‘gatekeeper’ to the criminal justice system - through the
use of police discretion - that can give rise to allegations of partiality.It is the Chief Constable’s belief that membership of any
one of these organisations could reasonably be regarded, by some members or sections of the
public, as affecting an officers ability to discharge his/her duties effectively and impartially.
Therefore if an officer is a member of any one of these organisations, and believes that such
membership is Notifiable, that officer is required to notify such membership to the Chief Constable.
(a) Ancient Order of Hibernians.
(b) Apprentice Boys of Derry Association.
(c) Freemasons
(d) Independent Orange Order.
(e) Knights of St Columbanus.
(f) Loyal Orange Institution (including the Women’s Orange Order).
(g) Royal Black Institution.
(h) Any other organisation, membership of which, an officer believes might reasonably be regarded
as affecting his/her ability to discharge his/her duties effectively and impartially.0 -
I watched the programme, and quite disagree with their analysis. But that is rather to be expected I think, as the websites express motivation is to attack Freemasonry...Well all im saying is there are others who claim that Irish Masonry courted publicity and found crisis:
http://www.evangelicaltruth.com/IrishFreemasonry.htm
IF one doesn't conform to all elements of the definition then one is not defined, one is similar.The argument you raised was one has to agree with ALL of it.
My counter argument was that one doesn't have to conform to ALL elements!
Yes senior masons would be about average. I doubt even one of the 40 would have a house worth in the million or more range.Fiar enough ,but but how about senior masons? If wealth doesn't correlate they should be about average and some be wealthy and some not so wealthy. The ones for example listed on the website. compared to the 40 or so senior GAA or senior churchmen (their PERSONAL wealth) or say 40 random TD's just to compare people at similar levels. Of the 40 or so of them how many of them live in a house worth less than 300k for example? i would think you would have difficulty in finding more then one or two if even that. Less than 400k, less than 500? I would recon that at least 35 of the 40 would have houses worth in the million or more range.
Again, that's something you should ask a librarian who works there.would you have a title and author /publisher reference?
We do allow in people who are religious, as I said.But you have to define what religion is if you don't allow people in who are religious.
I might be interested, but it doesn't involve me.But if it happens elsewhere in another Lodge you have no interest in it? Even if it happens because of lack of standards or lack of policy?
OK, cite the relevant law, and how it can be shown to have been applied to Freemasonry in court.Yes there does! If public money is spent or associated with a private boidy the court would have the right to pierce the corporate veil or politicians to ask for an enquiry into it. if it is not using public money and causing no public (or severe personal ) harm then they would not have a right.
I never said that people outside of masonry have an invalid point of view. Everyone has a valid point of view, even when it's empirically wrong.the idea that people outside of masonry have an invalid point of view is unsupported.
Probably because you see Freemasonry as a kind of organisation which it isn't. Like Lions or Rotary we don't often get very involved with what goes on in other Lodges, especially if they're in another country.Whether or not masons know I am that I am is beside the point. the point is if such things can exists elsewher in masonry or existed in the history of masonry and weren't dealt with and then occurred AGAIN then it is only expected that people outside masonry would find it odd that you are neither interested in dealing with corruption in masonry or learning from the past. If thinks are going all right in your Lodge you are not interested in how they go elsewhere. people would find this strange.
Then they should pursue their interests.Maybe not to you but I think I just pointed out how people in Donegal might be interested in how church leaders in Ferns allowed things to go on without reacting to them. Or how the Spanish changed the original Italian inquisition into a blood fest. they would be interested in how for example Masons corrupted the London detective force and when rooted out managed to do it again causing a second reform in the 1970s.
Again you're presenting as 'fact' something you've pulled from a conspiracy theory website. Anyway.. Freemasonry has nothing to do with the Klu Klux Klan.Im sorry if yo think I suggested there was . What I suggested was that racist and other groups have similar roots:
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/kkk.html
Actually I don't disavow myself of anything that I know of. Prince Hall Masonry is historically interesting, and I believe the Grand Lodge of Ireland recognises them as being in amity with Freemasonry.so you disavow yourself from "masonic styled" groups and yu refer only to the free masons.
Whaty about Prince Hall Freemasonry which draws its origin from Irish freemasonry?
On March 6, 1775, an African American named Prince Hall was made a Master Mason in Irish Constitution Military Lodge No. 441, along with fourteen other African Americans. You recognise all these lodges do you? The grand lodges in the US don't! http://bessel.org/masrec/phamap.htm Don't you find it interesting the States that "blackballed" them?
In telling you everything there is to know about Freemasonry? Hardly.I'm not suggesting that you sell everything. I'm suggesting there is power and influence in it.
And then you quoted:To address the point on Police and whether they have to declare any membership looke here: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt6-pb5-l1g51 See Section 51
It isn't up to the policeman! The list was qualified in appendix A
" Therefore if an officer is a member of any one of these organisations, and believes that such membership is Notifiable"
So, in the PSNI an officer is requested to notify his membership of the Freemasons if he feels he should. But even so, not in the rest of the UK, or in Ireland, or in Europe or America. Perhaps you've discovered the world hotbed of police secret societies, or at least, according to the legislation, a hotbed where "The test is whether the police officer believes that membership of any particular organisation might reasonably be regarded, by some members or sections of the public, as affecting the officer’s ability to discharge their duties effectively and impartially".0 -
I watched the programme, and quite disagree with their analysis. But that is rather to be expected I think, as the websites express motivation is to attack Freemasonry...
Fair enough i didnt watch the programme. Ironically nobody else who is not a mason is commenting on it so it does show that the publicity gained for the masons seems minimal with respect to posters here.IF one doesn't conform to all elements of the definition then one is not defined, one is similar.
So , if there are ten boxes to tick for alcoholism or or addictive behaviour and someone ticks five and the test says "if you tick two oir more you are at risk" then they are "similar2 to someone with a problem?
Yes senior masons would be about average. I doubt even one of the 40 would have a house worth in the million or more range.
I'll have to accept your word on that too.Again, that's something you should ask a librarian who works there.
No it isn't. all you have to do is read the title of this years manual listing all the officers worldwide which I believe you have and Ill ask the librarian for the same title and publisher but a different year.We do allow in people who are religious, as I said.
My error. for "are" read "Aren't"I might be interested, but it doesn't involve me.
child abuse doesn't involve over 999 per cent of catholic clergy but catholics are interested in how it is dealt with.OK, cite the relevant law, and how it can be shown to have been applied to Freemasonry in court.
I did already in respect to a black member being denied membership of a US lodge and his lodging an objection on court which pointed out charitable status on tax grounds was used by that lodge.I never said that people outside of masonry have an invalid point of view. Everyone has a valid point of view, even when it's empirically wrong.
By "valid" i mean in the scientific sense i.e. that one is measuring what one claims to measure when they defined the measurement. If it is "empirically wrong" i.e. not measuring the same level for the same sample I would call it "unreliable" but not "invalid" . A reliable thermometer may for example always be exactly one degree below the actual measurement. the temperature is invalid but f the thermometer is reliable and it is easy to work out the real value.Probably because you see Freemasonry as a kind of organisation which it isn't. Like Lions or Rotary we don't often get very involved with what goes on in other Lodges, especially if they're in another country.
I don't know about them either. If the local council membership were all in the same club any club I would be suspicious.Then they should pursue their interests.
They did they gaoled the masons involved. Well most of them.Again you're presenting as 'fact' something you've pulled from a conspiracy theory website. Anyway.. Freemasonry has nothing to do with the Klu Klux Klan.
I didn't say it did. I stated they had common origins membership and symbolism.And then you quoted:
" Therefore if an officer is a member of any one of these organisations, and believes that such membership is Notifiable"
So, in the PSNI an officer is requested to notify his membership of the Freemasons if he feels he should.
NO! That is what the masons tried to do and advised their members to do . The law is quite clear they have to declare they are in not in any notifiable orginisation. there is also a list listing the Masons as one of these organisations and they have to say they are a mason if they are a mason! They have to give a reply.But even so, not in the rest of the UK, or in Ireland, or in Europe or America.
I don't know. You asked for a legal example and I supplied one! If the rules for Northern Ireland don't apply in Japan that makes no difference. i am not going to ask you to list all the laws in all of the rest of the world that don't apply!Perhaps you've discovered the world hotbed of police secret societies, or at least, according to the legislation, a hotbed where "The test is whether the police officer believes that membership of any particular organisation might reasonably be regarded, by some members or sections of the public, as affecting the officer’s ability to discharge their duties effectively and impartially".
Yes. Judges who are even in the same tennis club as a defendant may have to excuse themselves so that no hint of bias is present so why not the Masons? Justice has to be seen to be done.
But the law whether or not you agree with it (and the Masons not only disagreed but objected to police members being listed) is that members of the masons must declare that.0 -
No, because the definition says 2 or more. Your definition included all without qualification.So , if there are ten boxes to tick for alcoholism or or addictive behaviour and someone ticks five and the test says "if you tick two oir more you are at risk" then they are "similar2 to someone with a problem?
You've mentioned a 'manual' quiet a few times so I should have already pointed out I've never heard of a manual. I don't have any idea why you'd believe I have it. In fact, I rather doubt there's anything that lists 'all the officers worldwide', or even 'all the officers of lodges operating under the Irish constitution worldwide', which would be a tenth of the size of the former, yet still enormous. Trinity library will have copies of all books published by the Grand Lodge of Ireland, which includes the Laws & Constitutions, and the Calendar. But I'm not asking the librarian for you... you'll have to do it yourself.No it isn't. all you have to do is read the title of this years manual listing all the officers worldwide which I believe you have and Ill ask the librarian for the same title and publisher but a different year.
No problem; we also admit members who aren't religious, you'll find details earlier in the thread.My error. for "are" read "Aren't"
Over 999 per cent of catholics aren't interested though, just some of them.child abuse doesn't involve over 999 per cent of catholic clergy but catholics are interested in how it is dealt with.
Wow. How do you parlay that into a law in Ireland which has been proven in court to give you a right to know if a person, organisation, or company has a meeting with a judge or policeman, that person or organisation specifically being Freemasons? You're muddling your arguments.I did already in respect to a black member being denied membership of a US lodge and his lodging an objection on court which pointed out charitable status on tax grounds was used by that lodge.
Yes, I think perhaps the fact that they're all in the same council is probably enough to arouse your suspicions. Especially if they're not telling you how many toilets they have, eh?I don't know about them either. If the local council membership were all in the same club any club I would be suspicious.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the people of Donegal and the Spanish during the inquisition didn't gaol any Masons. And those investigating corruption in the police in Britain 'gaoled' criminals. Nobody went to 'gaol' for being a Mason.They did they gaoled the masons involved. Well most of them..
OK, then Freemasonry does not have common origins with the Klu Klux Klan. How's that? Presumably, some Freemasons were/are members of the KKK, and if you feel that denotes affiliation of the organisations, you may explain the similar affiliation of Catholics, Protestants, Democrats, Republicans, teetotalers, stamp collectors and all of the other groups and organisations over the years who have had members that were also in the KKK.I didn't say it did. I stated they had common origins membership and symbolism.
Symbolism is something that Freemasonry also shares with many many groups, without sharing their ideals or ethos. It's certainly interesting to see where the corrollaries come from, but it would be silly to assume anything from it. The Egyptians, Freemasons, and American government all use the 'All Seeing Eye'. Jews and Freemasons use the 'Star of David'. Nazis and Americans use the Eagle. Hindus and Nazis use the swastika. People use symbols.
Actually Grand Lodge advised members to notify their membership if they felt it was notifiable, whilst noting that the list you quoted was withdrawn in 2004. So the quote stands; officers must declare their membership if they believe that membership is notifiable. In my opinion Freemasons were quite right to object to being included on the list since I honestly believe that membership should absolutely not affect an officers ability, or even desire, to discharge his duties effectively or impartially. And if it did, that person should neither be a Freemason nor an officer of the law, in whatever jurisdiction.NO! That is what the masons tried to do and advised their members to do . The law is quite clear they have to declare they are in not in any notifiable orginisation. there is also a list listing the Masons as one of these organisations and they have to say they are a mason if they are a mason! They have to give a reply.
Indeed, Judges are not required to declare their membership of a tennis club. And I should think a Judge might feel he had to recuse himself if a defendant was a member of his Masonic lodge, so that there was no appearance of bias. That decision is one that is made by judges, and is not legislated for them. Basing legislation on 'perceptions' is in itself unjust, to use your own colorful examples it's like forcing Jews to wear stars on their clothing because of the 'perception' certain people had of them.Yes. Judges who are even in the same tennis club as a defendant may have to excuse themselves so that no hint of bias is present so why not the Masons? Justice has to be seen to be done.0 -
No, because the definition says 2 or more. Your definition included all without qualification.
No it just listed all. But allow me to clarify. ow about if two or more of the criteria in the
"definition" I gave apply?You've mentioned a 'manual' quiet a few times
Based on what the MP said when he introduced a bill in Westminster calling for all members to be listed.so I should have already pointed out I've never heard of a manual. I don't have any idea why you'd believe I have it.
because he said so?In fact, I rather doubt there's anything that lists 'all the officers worldwide', or even 'all the officers of lodges operating under the Irish constitution worldwide', which would be a tenth of the size of the former, yet still enormous.
so you have never seen heard or have any knowledge of any publication listing lodge officers for a particular country?
Or never heard of a masonic manual?
Like this one?
http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/masonic_manual/documents_and_lodge_jewels.htm
Or this one
http://www.themasonictrowel.com/education/others_files/masonic_etiquette_protocol.htmIf a Master is in doubt about the correct form of etiquette for some particular occasion he has several authoritative sources of information upon which to draw. He should consult the Manual of Lodge Programs and Protocol, the Mentor's Manual, the Officers Manual, the Manual of Ceremonies or the Constitutions of Masonry. He may confer with his older members, such as Past Masters, who usually have had experience of the kind needed on this occasion.Trinity library will have copies of all books published by the Grand Lodge of Ireland, which includes the Laws & Constitutions, and the Calendar.
Only because molesworth street gave it to them:
http://stella.catalogue.tcd.ie/iii/encore/record/C|Rb10963929|SGrand+Lodge+of+Ireland|P0%2C1|Orightresult?lang=eng&suite=pearl
Irish Freemasons' calendar and directory / [Grand Lodge of Ireland] : containing a list of lodges, R.A. chapters, K.M. councils, K.T. preceptories and rose croix chapters on the registry of Ireland, a list of members of the several higher degrees and a variety of useful masonic information.
Freemasons. Grand Lodge of Ireland.
Dublin (Freemasons' Hall, Molesworth St., Dublin) : The Grand Lodge, 1954-1986.But I'm not asking the librarian for you... you'll have to do it yourself.
given the irish lodge published their officers I am surprised you never heard of this publication or that English ones might have similar publications.Over 99.9 per cent of catholics aren't interested though, just some of them.
If you are saying that not all Catholics are interested in how something might have been covered you would probably be right but the vast majority would be3 interested in the truth coming out and systems being there to prevent it. they would NOT be of the way you suggest of masons. They would not mostly say "leave other local units run things their way and if they are corrupt we aren't interested"Wow. How do you parlay that into a law in Ireland which has been proven in court to give you a right to know if a person, organisation, or company has a meeting with a judge or policeman, that person or organisation specifically being Freemasons? You're muddling your arguments.
i certain am not! I can forensically lead you through the whole debate again and how it involved the police mason connections but I can also show that THIS above point was about you mentionein about no legal bans or legal problems ANYWHERE. when you stated:Yes, and criminal activity is not condoned, nor concealed, by Freemasonry as an organisation.
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISAW View Post
i beg to differ. If the public interest is being thwarted the public have every right to know.
...
I can see that's what you believe, the point I have been trying to make is that that there exists no right/entitlement in law to this information for a member of the general public.
I showed you where the claimant (a mason) claimed it did exist!Yes, I think perhaps the fact that they're all in the same council is probably enough to arouse your suspicions. Especially if they're not telling you how many toilets they have, eh?
Be as flippant as you want but the fact remains that withholding information whch should be available or being in the same club DOES lead people to be suspicious.Actually, I'm pretty sure the people of Donegal and the Spanish during the inquisition didn't gaol any Masons. And those investigating corruption in the police in Britain 'gaoled' criminals. Nobody went to 'gaol' for being a Mason.
the went to gaol for being involved in a masonic conspiracy.
WRONG!Actually Grand Lodge advised members to notify their membership if they felt it was notifiable, whilst noting that the list you quoted was withdrawn in 2004.
http://www.psni.police.uk/service_procedure_0609.pdf
IMPLEMENTATION DATE: 27 February 2009
DATE OF ISSUE: 27 February 2009
REVIEW DATE: 28 February 2010
It is a current list!So the quote stands; officers must declare their membership if they believe that membership is notifiable.
WRONG! See the RNM 1 form on the appendix of that CURRENT STANDING ORDER of the police as set out under Section 51 of the Police ACT!
So what? What you or they believe does not come into it. The RNM1 form specifically states that they tick the box if they are a member of the Freemasons! Based on the idea that members of THE PUBLIC want them to state it under the law requiring it.In my opinion Freemasons were quite right to object to being included on the list since I honestly believe that membership should absolutely not affect an officers ability, or even desire, to discharge his duties effectively or impartially.And if it did, that person should neither be a Freemason nor an officer of the law, in whatever jurisdiction.
Nonsense! If i was in a tennis club and was in a court and council made the remark that I was in the same tennis club as the judge the judge might well excuse themself from hearing the case. It would not mean they should not be a judge!Indeed, Judges are not required to declare their membership of a tennis club. And I should think a Judge might feel he had to recuse himself if a defendant was a member of his Masonic lodge,
Well i do think so but SO WHAT? the law REQUIRES a police man declare membership of the masons.so that there was no appearance of bias. That decision is one that is made by judges, and is not legislated for them. Basing legislation on 'perceptions' is in itself unjust, to use your own colorful examples it's like forcing Jews to wear stars on their clothing because of the 'perception' certain people had of them.
Whether or not you think it unjust
It is required under CURRENT LAW that masons in the police declare it on the RMN1 form!0 -
Advertisement
-
ISAW, I'd like to ask you a question. You're in here accussing our organisation of being involved with the KKK, with the orange order, of condoning illegal activities, and conspiracies against the state.
We've all answered you multiple times, and pretty much told you the way the Masons are, just a simple fraternity that got a bad reputation over a century ago, and the reputation never went away. I personally answered all the questions you put to me in a fair and honest way I thought. And each time we answer your questions, and try to reinforce the fact that if there is a secret society out there doing harm that it's not the Masons - you come up with new accusations.
Can I just ask why you're doing this? It's not fair, and it is quite hurtful.0 -
PaintDoctor wrote: »ISAW, I'd like to ask you a question. You're in here accussing our organisation of being involved with the KKK, with the orange order, of condoning illegal activities, and conspiracies against the state.
Nope didn't say that so your premise is incorrect.
With respect to the KKK and Orange Order I said the symbolism and history and background is common. The founders of the KKK were apparently masons. As regards the orange order the Lodges and ceremonies seem to me to be very similar.
As regards conspiracies and illegalities I'm stating historical fact. Scotland yars TWICE over the period of a century had to reorganise their detective branch because on BOTH occasions a group of freemasons had set up their own network within the police. If the IRA used the GAA and had a similar cabal insiode the GAA i would have problems with the GAA . I would not be opposed to the Irish Language or to playing hurling but I would have problems with the openess of the GAA.We've all answered you multiple times, and pretty much told you the way the Masons are, just a simple fraternity that got a bad reputation over a century ago, and the reputation never went away.
Nobody so far has stated that the freemasons in the past were corrupt and that they deserved this bad reputation. nobody has pointed to any changes in teh masons which prevented future similar events happening. In fact the SAME event (infiltration of the police) happened again! What was stated whas tyhat people in most of the masons pay little or no attention to how lodges which infiltrate the police might arise. The comparison was made to clerical abuse and the fact that Christian Churches are concerned and bring in new policies to prevent it happening again.I personally answered all the questions you put to me in a fair and honest way I thought. And each time we answer your questions, and try to reinforce the fact that if there is a secret society out there doing harm that it's not the Masons - you come up with new accusations.
Well I don't know if it is each time but I suggest you look at the thread title.Can I just ask why you're doing this? It's not fair, and it is quite hurtful.
Certainly you can ask me and I will do my best to answer.
I would first draw your attention to the fact that "why do you want to know" is not my first though when asked a question.
Next, It isn't my intention to have any personal attack on anyone and I certainly am not aware that I have done that and if i have please show me where and I will apologise for it.
Third, I accept that someone who is a committed Christian might be upset at having to discuss how a bishop for example decided to "cover up" abuse and how the church failed to respond to terrible abuse and failed to put in systems to prevent it.
Fourth, that does not mean that people becoming upset is the fault of anyone showing them historical facts. Someone becoming upset in fact may be symptomatic of their acknowledging abuse by people in the hierarchy of their organisation and may lead to them actually doing something about it. Sometimes discomfort may be a good thing. So while I accept your appeal to fair play to suggest that I am not fair just because I show you things you would rather not have seen is unsupported.
I myself am also interested in facts and honesty. Is it unfair to be suspicious of ANY organisation with secrets ? Especially when their secretive nature manifested in corruption of the state on more then one occasion and that even in the light of that knowledge nothing was done to put a system in place to prevent it happening again? Not only that but current senior members also say that such type of behaviour is something they would not be interested in and that they would leave other Lodges continue without prying into what they are doing? Is it not fair to critique such a system?0 -
Then the definition doesn't apply.No it just listed all. But allow me to clarify. ow about if two or more of the criteria in the "definition" I gave apply?
As I said, we don't have any such manual.Based on what the MP said when he introduced a bill in Westminster calling for all members to be listed.
because he said so?
Neither of these links are Masonic manuals listing members worldwide? But one of them is quite interesting, thanks.so you have never seen heard or have any knowledge of any publication listing lodge officers for a particular country? Or never heard of a masonic manual? Like this one?
http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/masonic_manual/documents_and_lodge_jewels.htm
Or this one
http://www.themasonictrowel.com/education/others_files/masonic_etiquette_protocol.htm
Eh, that was my point actually, that we gave it to them? Because it is published and freely available to anyone?given the irish lodge published their officers I am surprised you never heard of this publication or that English ones might have similar publications.
Actually, I'm pretty certain that the vast majority of Masons would be interested in ensuring there is no corruption in the Freemasons.If you are saying that not all Catholics are interested in how something might have been covered you would probably be right but the vast majority would be3 interested in the truth coming out and systems being there to prevent it. they would NOT be of the way you suggest of masons. They would not mostly say "leave other local units run things their way and if they are corrupt we aren't interested"
You forensically joined up two different points there.i certain am not! I can forensically lead you through the whole debate again and how it involved the police mason connections but I can also show that THIS above point was about you mentionein about no legal bans or legal problems ANYWHERE. when you stated:
I showed you where the claimant (a mason) claimed it did exist!
The crux of your point is you believe Masons are "withholding information whch should be available", whereas I believe private information about citizens should not be freely available.Be as flippant as you want but the fact remains that withholding information whch should be available or being in the same club DOES lead people to be suspicious.
That's certainly not what they were charged with or convicted of, is it?the went to gaol for being involved in a masonic conspiracy.
Just to keep it short, you left out this part of the form (3.6):WRONG!
It is a current list!
WRONG! See the RNM 1 form ... Based on the idea that members of THE PUBLIC want them to state it under the law requiring it.
"Therefore if an officer is a member of any one of these organisations, and believes that such membership is Notifiable".
You misread the point.Nonsense! If i was in a tennis club and was in a court and council made the remark that I was in the same tennis club as the judge the judge might well excuse themself from hearing the case. It would not mean they should not be a judge!
In Northern Ireland. If the PSNI officer believes his membership is notifiable.Well i do think so but SO WHAT? the law REQUIRES a police man declare membership of the masons. Whether or not you think it unjust It is required under CURRENT LAW that masons in the police declare it on the RMN1 form!
To review, ISAW you are trying to present the actions of a small number of individuals as an organisational action, which you think justifies you in trying to attack the privacy of all members of the organisation. I've already stipulated that yes, there were people who were Freemasons who were involved in criminality. There will be again. Just as there were and will be from every other organisation you can think of. I've stipulated our membership is not secret, but is private for those who wish it to be so. So if you review your posts, what exactly is it you're asking here? Or are you simply arguing for the sake of arguing?0 -
[1] the welsh assembly have placed a legal requirement on membership declaration for freemasoms. [2] members of the police and judiciary in england are asked to voluntarily admit to being freemasons.0
-
Both true, and lifted directly from Wikipedia I think?
However, if you check the Welsh Assemblys own website you'll find:
"However, in 2002, the Assembly’s Committee on Standards of Conduct (who supervise all arrangements in relation to the Register) undertook a review of this requirement. The Committee recommended that this requirement be removed from the Register, and replaced with a requirement to 'record’ membership of all closed Societies/organisations i.e. those that had certain membership requirements etc - which would include the Freemasons and others. The Assembly approved the Committee’s recommendation and the requirement to 'Record Membership of Societies’ was established and is set out in the Assembly’s Standing Order number 38. The Register of Members’ Interests and the Record of Membership of Societies are published along side each other on the Assembly’s web-site. The address for the relevant web page is www.wales.gov.uk/who/interests/register. "
http://www.assemblywales.org/abthome/abt-foi/disclosure-log-month-view.htm?act=dis&id=96465&ds=2/2007
Many Freemasons felt it was appropriate that their membership should be recorded in this fashion, as it was under the terms "A notification must be made by any Member of any membership, or position of general control or management, of a private society or a private club which has entry requirements for membership", and not an anti-Masonic record. As per ISAWs posts, it includes tennis clubs, golf clubs, and even the Royal Society.0 -
Advertisement
-
. As per ISAWs posts, it includes tennis clubs, golf clubs, and even the Royal Society.
As it happens I am a fellow of a royal society, and I would have no problem declaring it if i was elected to public office. Fair enough, it really probably doesn't make much difference but I think if i was elected i should declare any club - GAA Freemasons Royal Society etc. of which I am a member.0 -
Then the definition doesn't apply.
Tell that to the alcoholics who attend meetings. they would be delighted to find any excuse to say that they are not alcoholics because they only tick some of the boxes.
You have a "monitor" don't you?As I said, we don't have any such manual.
But you are saying you have no lists of members of lodges in Ireland?
how odd! You are however in a bit of a bind there since either you dont have the information and that asks questions of the "system to avoid abuse" point. Or you do have such information and keep it to yourselves which asks questions of the "secrecy" point.Neither of these links are Masonic manuals listing members worldwide? But one of them is quite interesting, thanks.
Welcome.Eh, that was my point actually, that we gave it to them? Because it is published and freely available to anyone?
If the masons gave a publication to Trinity library that does not mean they did it because it was freely available . they could have donated it. But the point is that if they did it only because it was legally required then that supports the idea of police having to be legally required to declare membership of the masons.Actually, I'm pretty certain that the vast majority of Masons would be interested in ensuring there is no corruption in the Freemasons.
Good. What are you dong about it then as regards bringing in systems to prevent it?You forensically joined up two different points there.
thanks. and when you want to criticise the history of my posts just refer to the ones you think are not dealing with the issues raised would you?The crux of your point is you believe Masons are "withholding information whch should be available", whereas I believe private information about citizens should not be freely available.
If they are not elected or members of the police or judiciary!
I dont think if a footballer was a mason it might lead to corruption.That's certainly not what they were charged with or convicted of, is it?
They came into contact with each other because they were in the same masosnic lodges. They had lodge dinners together. I can list bity wont boither at this point to do so. the point is that if Winnie Mandela FC did things they are wrong but soccer might not be bad because of it. I accept that point. What I ask is how to the South African authorities prevent a similar occurrence?Just to keep it short, you left out this part of the form (3.6):
"Therefore if an officer is a member of any one of these organisations, and believes that such membership is Notifiable".
3.5 The test is whether the police officer believes that membership of any particular organisation might
reasonably be regarded, by some members or sections of the public, as affecting the officer’s ability
to discharge their duties effectively and impartially.
3.6 In the light of this test, the Chief Constable, through statutory consultations, has produced a list of
organisations referred to below at (a)-(h). It is the Chief Constable’s belief that membership of any
one of these organisations could reasonably be regarded, by some members or sections of the
public, as affecting an officers ability to discharge his/her duties effectively and impartially.
So the case is that the boss thinks masons are notifiable but if masons don't want to say so they can probably avoid it but if they ever getinto any trouble and the accusation ios made they can be hanged by the boss sayiong "I told them to tell me but they didnt" Everyone is happy then. The masons can tel members they don't have to declare membership and that will be ok if the policeman never gets in trouble over his membership. But if anyone ever objects he is snookered.You misread the point.
I didn't. See 3.5 "the test is..."In Northern Ireland. If the PSNI officer believes his membership is notifiable.
If he thinks he can keep it a secret thern that is up to him yes. If it ever gets out he is snookered.To review, ISAW you are trying to present the actions of a small number of individuals as an organisational action, which you think justifies you in trying to attack the privacy of all members of the organisation.
If they are civil servants, in public office. policemen. army officers etc. Actually anything that taxpayers money is spent on or a public contract can be made to.
Otherwise whatever private life they have is their own business,I've already stipulated that yes, there were people who were Freemasons who were involved in criminality. There will be again. Just as there were and will be from every other organisation you can think of.
Fine but if the Boy scouts or the Church have a criminality problem they institute a child protection policy and a clergy vetting policy. What have the masons done?I've stipulated our membership is not secret, but is private for those who wish it to be so. So if you review your posts, what exactly is it you're asking here? Or are you simply arguing for the sake of arguing?
What you do in a Lodge is private. Yo may be having orgies there but that is your own business. The point is if they are civil servants, in public office. policemen. army officers, anything that taxpayers money is spent on or a public contract can be made to etc. it is in teh public interest to know what they are up to.
Otherwise whatever private life they have is their own business,0 -
Tell that to the alcoholics who attend meetings. they would be delighted to find any excuse to say that they are not alcoholics because they only tick some of the boxes.
to clarify I am here above referring to AA meetings or NA meetings.You have a "monitor" don't you?
Again to clarify it would seem a monitor is a manual of rituals and not of membership so I admit the error here. I must track down the Hansard quote i read about a "manual".
HERE IT IS:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199293/cmhansrd/1992-07-01/Debate-1.html
He refers to a "handbook"According to the 1991 masonic handbook for County Durham--which for masonic purposes includes Sunderland--Sunderland has 29 lodges with a total membership of 1,597. There are also various other masonic bodies, including eight royal arch chapters with a membership of 390, Master Masons with 24 members, Royal Ark Marines with 31, the Rose Croix with 59 and Proceptories--do not ask me what all this means, Madam Speaker--with 32. Several other masonic bodies do not list the total number of members. They include the Knights Templar Tabernacle, the Royal and Select Masters, the Order of the Secret Monitor, the Harte Conclave and Allied Masonic Degrees.
I was looking for a reference to a similar "handbook" for the Lodge with the bent police officers.
as he stated aboveIt lists every lodge, in each case giving the number of members and the names of current officers and past masters.
That is why I was interested because it would prove whether the policeman was indeed a lodge Master.
Again to clarifyI didn't. See 3.5 "the test is..."
the original point made by you as i see it was that no masons ever were legally required to declare membership.
Here is another example from the UK. It would appear masons were required and took a Human rights case and had the law reversed.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091105/wmstext/91105m0002.htmThe Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Jack Straw): Since 1998, all first time successful candidates for judicial appointment or the magistracy have been required to declare whether or not they are freemasons, the aim of the scheme being to promote public confidence in the judicial system. [stated in Nov 2009]
...The United Grand Lodge of England made representations in May...we have decided to end the current policy of requiring applicants for judicial office to declare membership of the freemasons.
it would also appear that they were banned in 1824 going by the hansard commons debate on March 30th of that year. (Mr Dawson on page 16 of handard Vol XI part II)
http://books.google.ie/books/download/The_parliamentary_debates.pdf?id=jEkFvBVj1JQC&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U1uyTpFElOv3qpdjiylhNlhjnebUg
(on page 27 of that PDF)
So it appears that my FACTS are correct masons were regulated in the past. The broader issue however is about whether such laws were correct or would be today. There were laws allowing slavery for example. My argument is that if it is in the public interest ( by which I mainly mean for public good or even out of the public purse) then it should be declared.
So there are TWO issues here.
1 the broad principle of whether Freemasonry can be viewed by the public as something requiring regulation. I submit that given the history and not knowing of any changes of practice that they should.
2. Given the principle of regulation is accepted (and this goes for golf clubs banks and other organisations as well to different degrees) how does one go about it AND TO WHAT EXTENT SHOULD THEY BE REGULATED?0 -
my main agument about masony[not just freemasons] that when working in the public service law/local/and goverment where there could be a conflict of loyalty, they should register the fact that they are members of these organisations,in the UK members of parliament who get paid advisory positions,or are affiliated to trade unions ect have to register their interest,then every thing will be open and above board , i have always believed if you try to hide things you will be mistrusted0
-
Again I'm going to try to wrap up as many of these points together as I can without these huge quotes going on:
With regard to declaring Membership of Freemasonry.
Many Masons (like myself) have no problem declaring that we are Freemasons. Some do however, and usually it's because of peoples negative views which could then affect their ability to earn a living (like a doctor for instance). Those views are much in evidence on this thread, and I respect that some people want to keep their membership private. Going back 30 or 40 years, masonic lodges would often list their meetings in local newspapers, including the names of officers and members. It's a pity that doesn't happen these days because it would make the order appear less secretive, but it didn't stop happening because Freemasonry suddenly became a secret society, it happened because conspiracy theorists started blaming Freemasons for all the ills in the world. There used to be Masonic parades in Dublin, but that stopped when people started to see men parading in collars as orangemen, and freemasons did not want to be associated with sectarianism. So there was a time when Freemasonry was a much more open and visible part of society, and I hope that when the crazies quiet down, it will be that way again.
So many members have no issue with registering our membership where it serves a proper purpose, such as the broad register of interests for the Welsh Assembly which shows what clubs and interests a member of the assembly has. However, I certainly would have issues with registering my membership where that registration is for the purpose of 'outing' people who are in a secret organisation dedicated to doing evil; because Freemasonry is not such an organisation and I resent that even being inferred.
Should Freemasonry be regulated in law? No. A democracy has no place limiting the right to assembly or freedom of association without overwhelming and unquestionable neccesity.
Certainly, politics, law enforcement, and public service should and must be regulated in law as they are servants of the state and people. That may very well mean that in certain circumstances Freemasons (amongst all other private club members) engaged in those areas of public service should declare their interests in order to be above accusations of bias or interest. But that's a very long way away from attempting to enforce legal regulation on a private club on the off chance that some people may suspect some members of some criminality at some time. And who's to say that having stripped people of a free right to assembly and association, the next step won't be to start banning organisations that are 'questionable'? Like maybe golf clubs, or language clubs, or opposing political parties...0 -
Again I'm going to try to wrap up as many of these points together as I can without these huge quotes going on:
With regard to declaring Membership of Freemasonry.
Many Masons (like myself) have no problem declaring that we are Freemasons.
Good for you.Some do however, and usually it's because of peoples negative views which could then affect their ability to earn a living (like a doctor for instance).
If they were a doctor of physics and where the chief name on a application for EU financing and the person awarding the money was also a mason I would have a problem with that.Going back 30 or 40 years, masonic lodges would often list their meetings in local newspapers, including the names of officers and members. It's a pity that doesn't happen these days because it would make the order appear less secretive, but it didn't stop happening because Freemasonry suddenly became a secret society, it happened because conspiracy theorists started blaming Freemasons for all the ills in the world.
Can you prove that? I would suggest that most people didn't blame masons for WWII or
the Atomic Bomb or the international communist conspiracy. I would however suggest that masons in history were involved in corruption in the police for example and that people do take this on board. The similarity with the orange order who have practically the same rituals and organisation (to my knowledge as a non lodge member) doesn't help either from an Irish perspective.There used to be Masonic parades in Dublin, but that stopped when people started to see men parading in collars as orangemen, and freemasons did not want to be associated with sectarianism.
Well why not parade in next years Patrick's day parade then and have a banner saying "We are not Orangemen and we detest sectarianism" mind you not allowing women ... what do you mean by "sectarian"? You only allow men who believe in God don't you?So there was a time when Freemasonry was a much more open and visible part of society, and I hope that when the crazies quiet down, it will be that way again.
Only parts were "open" or visible at any time in history.So many members have no issue with registering our membership where it serves a proper purpose, such as the broad register of interests for the Welsh Assembly which shows what clubs and interests a member of the assembly has.
Actually NO! I agree with you that members should declare membershios of any and all clubs of which they are members and that masons should not be the only one on the list but masons OPPOSED ANY declaration of their memberships.However, I certainly would have issues with registering my membership where that registration is for the purpose of 'outing' people who are in a secret organisation dedicated to doing evil; because Freemasonry is not such an organisation and I resent that even being inferred.
Some people believe that being in such organisations is possibly evil. They believe it of the GAA the Catholic Clergy, the masons, the tri lateral commission, the Bilderberg group, whatever. so what? Such memberships should be listed.
Now you are only arguing about where one draws the line.
For example shoulf Opus Dei ( a lay catholic organisation) members in public be listed?
Maybe? how about AA ( you have to believe on God to be in AA) ? Should someone be "outed" for being a drug addict or alcoholic? That is a bit more borderline. But addiscts don't meet in social clubs to d anything other then either take drugs or to talk about avoiding taking drugs.Should Freemasonry be regulated in law? No.
I agree . But their membership should if they are involved in any public money.A democracy has no place limiting the right to assembly or freedom of association without overwhelming and unquestionable neccesity.
assemble wherever you like. Just don't cost taxpayers money if you doCertainly, politics, law enforcement, and public service should and must be regulated in law as they are servants of the state and people. That may very well mean that in certain circumstances Freemasons (amongst all other private club members) engaged in those areas of public service should declare their interests in order to be above accusations of bias or interest.
Yes they should declare their membership in any lodge along with any membership of any gentlemen s club, yacht, golf or other club.But that's a very long way away from attempting to enforce legal regulation on a private club on the off chance that some people may suspect some members of some criminality at some time.
I agree what you do in your private club is your own business. I just want to know if you are member if you or the club get any taxpayers money or have any influence on society
e.g. on making or enforcing or interpreting the law.And who's to say that having stripped people of a free right to assembly and association, the next step won't be to start banning organisations that are 'questionable'? Like maybe golf clubs, or language clubs, or opposing political parties...
Yes I agree. I don't want to restrict any right to assemble or speech . I only want to know WHO assembled.0 -
i have no problem with anyone being a member of the freemasons,except when in public service,there has been enough proof of freemason corruption involvements in italy,the EU,northern ireland,scotland,and the rest of the UK to be uneasy about anyone who tries to keep their membership secret,i would feel the same way if[and this has just happened] a person who teaches my child is a member of the BNP,a conflict of interests0
-
They only reason you ought to have a problem with it, is if the person awarding the money is doing so because they are both Masons. Or in the same church. Or related. Something like that I presume. Otherwise their both being Masons, or in the same church, or related, or married, or whatever, is irrelevant.If they were a doctor of physics and where the chief name on a application for EU financing and the person awarding the money was also a mason I would have a problem with that.
I'll go further; most people don't blame the Masons for anything at all.Can you prove that? I would suggest that most people didn't blame masons for WWII or the Atomic Bomb or the international communist conspiracy. I would however suggest that masons in history were involved in corruption in the police for example and that people do take this on board. The similarity with the orange order who have practically the same rituals and organisation (to my knowledge as a non lodge member) doesn't help either from an Irish perspective.
Why bother? We've nothing to prove.Well why not parade in next years Patrick's day parade then and have a banner saying "We are not Orangemen and we detest sectarianism" mind you not allowing women ... what do you mean by "sectarian"? You only allow men who believe in God don't you?
sectarian noun/adjective: adj mainly disapproving (a person) strongly supporting a particular religious group, especially in such a way as not to be willing to accept other beliefs
Indeed, and without obligation or duress too.Only parts were "open" or visible at any time in history.
Some Masons. And are you saying they shouldn't be entitled to express their opinion in the subject? You have plenty to say about it, and at least they're a part of the process, I should think they ought to be allowed to express how they feel.Actually NO! I agree with you that members should declare membershios of any and all clubs of which they are members and that masons should not be the only one on the list but masons OPPOSED ANY declaration of their memberships.
Such memberships being? All memberships of all organisations for all people? Listed where, by who, for what purpose?Some people believe that being in such organisations is possibly evil. They believe it of the GAA the Catholic Clergy, the masons, the tri lateral commission, the Bilderberg group, whatever. so what? Such memberships should be listed.
Where one draws the line is important; it defines who is being oppressed, who is denied freedom, who controls whom. That is why lines get drawn.Now you are only arguing about where one draws the line. For example shoulf Opus Dei ( a lay catholic organisation) members in public be listed? Maybe? how about AA ( you have to believe on God to be in AA) ? Should someone be "outed" for being a drug addict or alcoholic? That is a bit more borderline. But addiscts don't meet in social clubs to d anything other then either take drugs or to talk about avoiding taking drugs..
So you're saying that people 'involved in any public money' should have their membership of Freemasonry regulated in law? What about membership of golf clubs? Or membership of churches? How is that different from the Nazis legally regulating the Jewish population? Or the Masons, come to think of it.I agree . But their membership should if they are involved in any public money.
Thank you very much for extending to us the same privilege as everyone else gets in a democracy, although I'm wondering are you against anyone spending taxpayers money on assembly? Or just people you don't like? Issues for instance, with churches? Youth clubs? The Royal Society? The Freemasons don't take taxpayers money, and in fact put quite a lot of money into communities by way of charities.assemble wherever you like. Just don't cost taxpayers money if you do
Yet you've gotten quite irate about not being told what we do?I agree what you do in your private club is your own business.
The Freemasons are not publicly funded. I do hope however that we have a positive influence on society.I just want to know if you are member if you or the club get any taxpayers money or have any influence on societye.g. on making or enforcing or interpreting the law.
You obviously do, but to what end? To satisfy your own curiosity? Hardly a worthy motive for infringing on someones (legal) privacy. So where is your legal imprimatur for knowing WHO is assembling when people assemble?Yes I agree. I don't want to restrict any right to assemble or speech . I only want to know WHO assembled.0 -
Interesting you mention Golf Clubs Absolam. In my experience, most of the business deals and situations that can be influenced are usually done on the fairways.0
-
They only reason you ought to have a problem with it, is if the person awarding the money is doing so because they are both Masons. Or in the same church. Or related. Something like that I presume. Otherwise their both being Masons, or in the same church, or related, or married, or whatever, is irrelevant.
Yep. as long as EVERYONE KNOWS the commonalities. If they are in the same galf club or social club or same political party or both in the masons people should then know. If it happened that a THIRD man also got funding and also was a mason or in the same social club then that would be even more interesting.I'll go further; most people don't blame the Masons for anything at all.
so what? If the masons didn't cause all the ills in history so what? Nor did Opus Dei cause all "The da Vinci code" claims. But if there were members of Opus Dei in the police force and they subverted justice not just once but twice using and conspiring with other members of the group to which they belonged then people would be demanding that such membership be declared.Why bother? We've nothing to prove.
You are the one who suggested that it would be great if Masons could march on the streets like the good old days aren't you? And you are the one who suggsted that the masons had nothing to hide aren't you? Well? Is that just a claim you can't prove?sectarian noun/adjective: adj mainly disapproving (a person) strongly supporting a particular religious group, especially in such a way as not to be willing to accept other beliefs
so you are just saying the masons accept all religious beliefs then. so what is new? How about homosexuals anarchists or communists do you accept them?Indeed, and without obligation or duress too.
the fact that Masons were not under duress to reveal secrets does not remove the point i made about only PARTS being open to the public - which is the point you made when you mentioned parades and public notices in newspapers.Some Masons. And are you saying they shouldn't be entitled to express their opinion in the subject? You have plenty to say about it, and at least they're a part of the process, I should think they ought to be allowed to express how they feel.
Nope Im saying that the "some masons" who opposed the membership were senior masons who corresponded with their lodges and told them to oppose membership being openly declared and told them to tell any police members that it was okay for them to not declare membership of the masons. I'm saying that "expressing how i feel" is one thing. Getting MPs to back debates and taking a case to court is another.Such memberships being? All memberships of all organisations for all people? Listed where, by who, for what purpose?
Any members of any organisation who get taxpayers money or who may affect a change in any law, bylaw or public procedure.Where one draws the line is important; it defines who is being oppressed, who is denied freedom, who controls whom. That is why lines get drawn.
And i don't draw it with membership of the masons GAA or IFA. That should ALL declare membership0. Narcotocs anon or AA I do not see as a potential threat to the state or huge waste of taxpayers money.So you're saying that people 'involved in any public money' should have their membership of Freemasonry regulated in law?
to the extent that their membership is declared? - yes.What about membership of golf clubs? Or membership of churches? How is that different from the Nazis legally regulating the Jewish population? Or the Masons, come to think of it.
golf clubs or social "gentlemen's" clubs why not. If anyone is involved in any group getting any public money they should probably register their membership of any organisation. It is different from the Nazis because the state isn't oppressing members of any club it is just asking them to openly declare membership IF that are getting state moneyThank you very much for extending to us the same privilege as everyone else gets in a democracy, although I'm wondering are you against anyone spending taxpayers money on assembly? Or just people you don't like?
Even if i don't like something it is a democratic duty to tolerate it. The masons have buildings of architectural significance. It should be public knowledge if they get any money to maintain such buildings.Yet you've gotten quite irate about not being told what we do?
What you do is your own business unless it is not in the public interest.The Freemasons are not publicly funded.
so you are saying all the masonic properties are maintained by their own monies and NO PUBLIC MONEY whatsoever goes towards them?You obviously do, but to what end?
I only want to know WHO assembled. But it isn't just ME. PEOPLE want to know. Asking then WHY they want to know does not remove that fact.
Nope it isnt just being nosey. If it is ifor the public good then people should know.To satisfy your own curiosity? Hardly a worthy motive for infringing on someones (legal) privacy.So where is your legal imprimatur for knowing WHO is assembling when people assemble?
Well now you are getting into "what law says you can do that" when the discussion was that such laws should exist. But in any case i have shown some examples of some laws at different times in the past which required masons in the police for example to declare their membership.0 -
Advertisement
-
So, you want a register of all interests and connections of every public servant which will include their religious affliliation, social connections, family members, and decisions they've made? Who would maintain such a register? Who would have access to it? Who would pay for it?Yep. as long as EVERYONE KNOWS the commonalities. If they are in the same galf club or social club or same political party or both in the masons people should then know. If it happened that a THIRD man also got funding and also was a mason or in the same social club then that would be even more interesting.
So what? Even the Inquisition made a better case than 'So what?'. The Nazis made a better case.so what? If the masons didn't cause all the ills in history so what? Nor did Opus Dei cause all "The da Vinci code" claims. But if there were members of Opus Dei in the police force and they subverted justice not just once but twice using and conspiring with other members of the group to which they belonged then people would be demanding that such membership be declared..
No I said that Masonic parades used to be seen in Dublin, and I would like to see that again. That's quite different from walking in the St Patricks Day parade trying to persuade people of what we are not. Like I said, we have nothing to prove.You are the one who suggested that it would be great if Masons could march on the streets like the good old days aren't you? And you are the one who suggsted that the masons had nothing to hide aren't you? Well? Is that just a claim you can't prove?
I don't know what you mean by 'so what is new'. I didn't say Masons accept all religious beliefs, but I did say earlier in the thread that Freemasonry admits members from many religions and firmly believes in religious tolerance. Each individual Mason is free to accept such religious beliefs as he chooses. What do you have against homosexuals anarchists or communists which makes you think we wouldn't accept them? None of these are religious beliefs, so I guess you're trying a different argument here? I know Freemasons who are homosexuals, and some whom I think would be in favour of communism. I doubt many anarchists are inclined to join structured organisations, as that wouldn't be a very anarchic thing to do really would it?so you are just saying the masons accept all religious beliefs then. so what is new? How about homosexuals anarchists or communists do you accept them?
Indeed I never inferred any intention to lay every part of Freemasonry open to public view, as you said yourselfthe fact that Masons were not under duress to reveal secrets does not remove the point i made about only PARTS being open to the public - which is the point you made when you mentioned parades and public notices in newspaperswhat you do in your private club is your own business
No Mason can tell another Mason to declare or not declare their membership, it's an individuals choice. And a Mason is as entitled as any other citizen to oppose an infringement of his legal privacy, whether it be by representation in the Dáil by his elected representative, or by going to court to do so. Should Masons not have the same recourses as everyone else in a democracy?Nope Im saying that the "some masons" who opposed the membership were senior masons who corresponded with their lodges and told them to oppose membership being openly declared and told them to tell any police members that it was okay for them to not declare membership of the masons. I'm saying that "expressing how i feel" is one thing. Getting MPs to back debates and taking a case to court is another.
The Freemasons are not funded by taxpayers money, nor can the Masonic order effect a change in any law, bylaw or public procedure. Members of the Freemasons, as citizens, might effect a change in any law, bylaw or public procedure, just as members of every single organisation in existance might, up to and including a group of five lads who have a standing agreement to meet up on Friday nights for a pint after football. So are you seriously proposing that every organisation be registered? Again, who would maintain such a register? Who would have access to it? Who would pay for it?Any members of any organisation who get taxpayers money or who may affect a change in any law, bylaw or public procedure..
But AA does get taxpayers money. And their members can effect a change in any law, bylaw or public procedure as much as anyone else.And i don't draw it with membership of the masons GAA or IFA. That should ALL declare membership0. Narcotocs anon or AA I do not see as a potential threat to the state or huge waste of taxpayers money.
That's different from legally regulating their membership, but equally insidious. Do you think they should be made to wear yellow stars too?to the extent that their membership is declared? - yes.
So if an organisation isn't publicly funded then members of the organisation don't have to declare their membership when working in public service? Do you seriously think that singling out people for 'registration' based on who they associate with is not oppressive?golf clubs or social "gentlemen's" clubs why not. If anyone is involved in any group getting any public money they should probably register their membership of any organisation. It is different from the Nazis because the state isn't oppressing members of any club it is just asking them to openly declare membership IF that are getting state money
Ah, we're moving to the thrust of your new argument here....Even if i don't like something it is a democratic duty to tolerate it. The masons have buildings of architectural significance. It should be public knowledge if they get any money to maintain such buildings.
Again a very similar argument to the Nazis. Since you don't know what we do, you can't know it's not in the public interest. So it must be in the public interest to know what we do, so that they can know whether or not it is in the public interest. And it would be so much easier to figure that out if we kept them all in camps whilst we figured it out....What you do is your own business unless it is not in the public interest.
You've really been working yourself up to this one haven't you? But no, what I said is 'The Freemasons are not publicly funded.' There are many fine buildings belonging to the Masonic Order, and the State has an interest through the Office of Public Works in the conservation and maintainance of historic buildings. So whilst I am not aware of the State putting any money into the conservation or maintainance of Masonic buildings, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did. And I'm sure (if you're entitled to it) the OPW would be able to provide you with a list of any Masonic buildings they might have spent money on.'The Freemasons are not publicly funded.'
so you are saying all the masonic properties are maintained by their own monies and NO PUBLIC MONEY whatsoever goes towards them?
Why someone wants to know something is a great help in understanding whether they are entitled to know it. For instance, if you (or PEOPLE) want to know private information about someone (such as who they spent last Friday night with), you can ask them. If you tell them why you want to know, they may be inclined to tell you. If they aren't, and you feel they must be obligated to tell everyone who they spent last Friday night with, you need to make a law, and a mechanism for disseminating the information. To make the law, you're going to have to have a really good reason for asking everyone who they were with last Friday night, and offering the opinion that people want to know probably isn't going to cut it.I only want to know WHO assembled. But it isn't just ME. PEOPLE want to know. Asking then WHY they want to know does not remove that fact
Right; how is it for the public good that you should know who assembled in a particular place at a particular time?Nope it isnt just being nosey. If it is ifor the public good then people should know.
Not at all, I'm saying people are entitled to assemble, and no one has given you (or PEOPLE) the right to know who they are, so I'm interested in what argument you can put forward for this country giving you that right. As a citizen, you can ask your TD to bring it before the Daíl for debate. You can go to the European Court of Human Rights and make your case. I'm truly interested in knowing what compelling argument you can put forward for being given, or offering to others, the privilege of knowing who is assembling when a group of people exercises their right to assembly.Well now you are getting into "what law says you can do that" when the discussion was that such laws should exist. But in any case i have shown some examples of some laws at different times in the past which required masons in the police for example to declare their membership.0 -
This thread is going for nearly 8 years...that is impressive...surely it's entitled to some sort of award...0
-
On the question of the buildings/property that was raised. No, the Government does not fund our buildings. The lodge room in Skibereen was burned to a cinder by vandals setting fire to the building next door a few years back. There was fundraising to restore it, and the local community (non masons) actually chipped in to restore the room, providing stained glass, upholstery, carpentry. The whole village came together to rectify the damage.
In Cork, I've volunteered my skills to repair and upgrade our building. Its all done on a shoestring budget, and mostly using donated materials and time. We put down a wooden floor in our dining room which came from a school that had water damage in their gym. It's not perfect, but it looks brilliant. We maintain our buildings this way.
We even have trouble paying our water rates like any organisation. We've a tap installed only recently to shut off mains water into the building to stop things like urinals using up water when no one's in there, quite simply because we couldn't afford to leave them on all the time.
The buildings themselves were purchased a long long time ago. Some have been sold, some were only ever rented and not bought. The funds came from people like the Beamish family who were members, and their like. Wealthy people who donated money to the group they were part of, for the benefit of all who were members - even the poor ones. That's how it works, like a co-op. Same people also donated their money to charities around in case you think the money was kept for ill purposes.
Some buildings have been sold to pay for the continuation of the order. The Bewleys Hotel at the RDS was the Masonic Boys School. The money from that sale actually helps the children of deceased masons go to school and college.
These constant accusations are really becoming tiresome. So let's just make these points, and if you can't accept them, go somewhere else and annoy members of a car club, or of a doctors society, or a chess club.- There's nothing evil about Masons.
- There's no property portfolio funded by the Government, or any other organisation other than our own, which we can barely afford to keep as it is.
- An oath of every Mason is to not be involved in Conspiracies in the state in which you live.
- Another oath is to respect the laws of the state in which you live.
- Education that all men are equal regardless of creed, lack of creed, money, lack of money, skin colour is instilled from the get-go.
- There are no sinister higher orders where the lower levels don't know what's going on. There are higher levels, but they're the same as the lower ones, with different handshakes and different passwords, etc.
- Yes there's been the odd bad mason, but there's bad eggs in every group in society. Mostly, we're a good bunch.
- If you commit any crime, you're not allowed admittance.
- If you commit a crime after joining, you're turfed out.
- The chairs are very very comfy, and the coffee's not bad either.
If you can't accept that, then there must be something wrong with you mentally to keep coming up with deluded fantasies of control and power.0 -
What a load of dosh, Freemasons are a load of Protestant/Orangemen , its just another boys club. Judges, solictors.
A friend of mine got a really bad divorce deal in UK, her husband was a freemason, she then found out that her solicitor was a freemason and the judge aswell and all 3 went to same lodge. Make no mistake freemasons always look out for themselves and have an agenda. They tried to recuirt me in college in US,0 -
And here we go AGAIN!What a load of dosh, Freemasons are a load of Protestant/Orangemen , its just another boys club. Judges, solictors.
A friend of mine got a really bad divorce deal in UK, her husband was a freemason, she then found out that her solicitor was a freemason and the judge aswell and all 3 went to same lodge. Make no mistake freemasons always look out for themselves and have an agenda. They tried to recuirt me in college in US,0 -
Bigdeadlydave wrote: »And here we go AGAIN!
Well what did you expect. The thread title has only 2 options. I choose the evil one from the experiences I have had with the FM's.0 -
Utter rubbish.What a load of dosh, Freemasons are a load of Protestant/Orangemen
True I suppose..its just another boys club
I suppose some members are these but many others are carpenters etc...Judges, solictors.
Any verifiable evidence here? Sounds like more unsubstantiated accusations. God knows there have been enough in this thread.A friend of mine got a really bad divorce deal in UK, her husband was a freemason, she then found out that her solicitor was a freemason and the judge aswell and all 3 went to same lodge. Make no mistake freemasons always look out for themselves and have an agenda
You have to ask to join.They tried to recuirt me in college in US0 -
Well what did you expect. The thread title has only 2 options. I choose the evil one from the experiences I have had with the FM's.
Ah but Alex, the point is it wasn't your experience. It's what you heard about what someone else believed was their experience. And really, even in a small town, what are the odds that a persons husband, the counsel she selected, and the judge presiding over her divorce, should all belong to the same part of the same club? So slim that it would beggar belief... And even still, if it happened, how much leeway has a judge in the UK over awards in a divorce? It's set down in law, and if the judge deviates from normal practice he knows his decision will not only be overturned but questioned. He's oathboand to uphold the law, and a Masonic oath does not subvert that. The ladys' own counsel is oathbound to represent her to the best of his ability, and again a Masonic oath does not subvert that. Last but not least, if they were all three Masons, and they all appeared in the same courtroom at the same time, I think one would recuse himself, not least because they would be concerned that someone like ISAW would be waiting to register their presence and cry conspiracy to the world. That sort of thing has an effect on a chaps career, and in a town that small, if your friend knew all three were in the same Lodge, then a lot of other people did too, and no one is going to risk his career as a Judge or solicitor to help another Mason get a 'better' divorce. In fact, as Masons they are obliged NOT to help another Mason if it jeapordises themselves or their families.0 -
So, you want a register of all interests and connections of every public servant which will include their religious affliliation, social connections, family members, and decisions they've made? Who would maintain such a register? Who would have access to it? Who would pay for it?
People who make decisions affecting the public should have to declare any clubs or societies of which they are a member. they should have to do so once a year. they should also list any business interests of direct family. If the leave something out that isnt a problem. But lets say they are in the trainspotters society and five other people who have access to a heritage budget also are and their committee decides to give a million euro to the local train museum then I would have a problem with that. Likewise if the masons were supporting a local charity and masons who were on the local council also voted to give money to the same charity i would have a problem with transparency or bias there as well.So what? Even the Inquisition made a better case than 'So what?'. The Nazis made a better case.
the "so what" awas about "so what if the Masosn are not responsible for all the ills in history" They Masons were involved in corrupting Scotland Yard not one but twice! the whole detective branch had to be restructured! If Opus Dei or trainspotters did the same people would want their membership declared.No I said that Masonic parades used to be seen in Dublin, and I would like to see that again. That's quite different from walking in the St Patricks Day parade trying to persuade people of what we are not. Like I said, we have nothing to prove.
Oh so you want to have a day and a parade all to yourself so you can stop all the traffic of Dublin? who else has this in Dublin?
The underlying idea 9of the latter part) I think was that membership and progression suggest a filtering mechanism.I don't know what you mean by 'so what is new'. I didn't say Masons accept all religious beliefs, but I did say earlier in the thread that Freemasonry admits members from many religions and firmly believes in religious tolerance. Each individual Mason is free to accept such religious beliefs as he chooses. What do you have against homosexuals anarchists or communists which makes you think we wouldn't accept them? None of these are religious beliefs, so I guess you're trying a different argument here? I know Freemasons who are homosexuals, and some whom I think would be in favour of communism. I doubt many anarchists are inclined to join structured organisations, as that wouldn't be a very anarchic thing to do really would it?No Mason can tell another Mason to declare or not declare their membership, it's an individuals choice. And a Mason is as entitled as any other citizen to oppose an infringement of his legal privacy, whether it be by representation in the Dáil by his elected representative, or by going to court to do so. Should Masons not have the same recourses as everyone else in a democracy?
Yes but this was by letter sent out to Lodges and organised most people aren't so organised. And according to the law with respect to PSNI it isn't an individual choice.The Freemasons are not funded by taxpayers money, nor can the Masonic order effect a change in any law, bylaw or public procedure. Members of the Freemasons, as citizens, might effect a change in any law, bylaw or public procedure, just as members of every single organisation in existance might, up to and including a group of five lads who have a standing agreement to meet up on Friday nights for a pint after football. So are you seriously proposing that every organisation be registered?
Yes every membership should be declared. even in a football club.Again, who would maintain such a register? Who would have access to it? Who would pay for it?
It would be submitted each year . it would not matter if you havent declared membership unless it was found out that ther were a number of masons/IFA members/ SIPTU members on the same committee deciding on a particular issue.
It shoudl be public access up to a point. If you were in a charity offering advice to abused children for example what branch or where you meet might be kept out to avoid children being identified. similar for say serious crime.But AA does get taxpayers money. And their members can effect a change in any law, bylaw or public procedure as much as anyone else.
If members of AA all voted the same way on an issue like funding a local football pitch and everyone else didnt I would be concerned about collusion within AA.That's different from legally regulating their membership, but equally insidious. Do you think they should be made to wear yellow stars too?
Not necessary. just that they declare membership of the masons if they are in public life.So if an organisation isn't publicly funded then members of the organisation don't have to declare their membership when working in public service?
Yep. Isn't funded or affecting anything else in the public interest. The public interest usually means "out of the public purse".Do you seriously think that singling out people for 'registration' based on who they associate with is not oppressive?
No. if they associate with other people because they are all members of a political party then we should all know that. A fianna Fail person can associate with a sinn Feiner if he wants but both should be registered as members of their party.Ah, we're moving to the thrust of your new argument here....
No. If the masons get public money for anything even for their buildings they are getting public money .Again a very similar argument to the Nazis. Since you don't know what we do, you can't know it's not in the public interest. So it must be in the public interest to know what we do, so that they can know whether or not it is in the public interest.
What you do is your own business unless it is not in the public interest. People dont need to know what you do in private. all they need to know is WHO YOUR MEMBERS ARE who are engaged in making decisions about them or about public budgets. they can make up their own minds if they find several masons were involved in giving public money to get a masonic building refurbished. your allusions to nazism couldn't be further from reality.You've really been working yourself up to this one haven't you? But no, what I said is 'The Freemasons are not publicly funded.' There are many fine buildings belonging to the Masonic Order, and the State has an interest through the Office of Public Works in the conservation and maintainance of historic buildings. So whilst I am not aware of the State putting any money into the conservation or maintainance of Masonic buildings, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did. And I'm sure (if you're entitled to it) the OPW would be able to provide you with a list of any Masonic buildings they might have spent money on.
and if one of the people in the OPW responsible for this budget was a mason that is co incidence? The OPW wont tell me if that person is a mason will it?Why someone wants to know something is a great help in understanding whether they are entitled to know it. For instance, if you (or PEOPLE) want to know private information about someone (such as who they spent last Friday night with), you can ask them. If you tell them why you want to know, they may be inclined to tell you. If they aren't, and you feel they must be obligated to tell everyone who they spent last Friday night with, you need to make a law, and a mechanism for disseminating the information. To make the law, you're going to have to have a really good reason for asking everyone who they were with last Friday night, and offering the opinion that people want to know probably isn't going to cut it.
That is waffle! Im not asking for a law to say who people were with on friday night (unless that is the night masons meet). Im asking for transparency with public money and decisions. Bureaucratic managerial systems who in the past answered every request for information with "why do you want to know" are what led to the freedpom of information campaign. Again people don't need to know your private secrets. they need to know whether any members are involved in powerful cliques.Right; how is it for the public good that you should know who assembled in a particular place at a particular time?
Mostly only to know the membership not the necessarily place and time. If it is in the public good they should know it . Asking why or how isnt going to change that of it is in the public good and they have a right to know it. Bu for example if there was a regular meeting of senior police management every fifth Friday and there just happened to be
a meeting of masons always on the same day I would be interested in that. If one of the police men got sick and the meeting was postponed to the following Wednesday and the masons meeting was as well i would be even more interested.Not at all, I'm saying people are entitled to assemble, and no one has given you (or PEOPLE) the right to know who they are, so I'm interested in what argument you can put forward for this country giving you that right.
Ironically the control freaks are trying to change irish Law to got people to declare any assemble of more than four people! Why? Because the control freaks in the police had such a hard time when the Lodge came to march in Dublin and a riot broke out!
i don't want any such laws against assembly or free speech. By the way the law is about PUBLIC assembly. In a private meeting many laws don't apply.As a citizen, you can ask your TD to bring it before the Daíl for debate. You can go to the European Court of Human Rights and make your case. I'm truly interested in knowing what compelling argument you can put forward for being given, or offering to others, the privilege of knowing who is assembling when a group of people exercises their right to assembly.
I don't want to know about all their names just the leaders or who is involved in public money or a public job where they might make decisions affecting the public.0 -
Advertisement
-
So, who would maintain such a register? Who would have access to it? Who would pay for it?People who make decisions affecting the public should have to declare any clubs or societies of which they are a member. they should have to do so once a year. they should also list any business interests of direct family. If the leave something out that isnt a problem. But lets say they are in the trainspotters society and five other people who have access to a heritage budget also are and their committee decides to give a million euro to the local train museum then I would have a problem with that. Likewise if the masons were supporting a local charity and masons who were on the local council also voted to give money to the same charity i would have a problem with transparency or bias there as well.
No a large number of people were involved in those scandals, some of whom were Masons. A belief that some of a group are responsible for some problems in society is not a good enough reason for oppression; back to the Nazi philosophy again.the "so what" awas about "so what if the Masosn are not responsible for all the ills in history" They Masons were involved in corrupting Scotland Yard not one but twice! the whole detective branch had to be restructured! If Opus Dei or trainspotters did the same people would want their membership declared.
You're the one who's demanding Freemasons be more 'open'.Oh so you want to have a day and a parade all to yourself so you can stop all the traffic of Dublin? who else has this in Dublin?
You're suggesting we filter homosexuals anarchists and communists, or all religious beliefs?The underlying idea 9of the latter part) I think was that membership and progression suggest a filtering mechanism.
Ah so you think people shouldn't organise themselves to protect their civil liberties? Or just Freemasons shouldn't?Yes but this was by letter sent out to Lodges and organised most people aren't so organised. And according to the law with respect to PSNI it isn't an individual choice.
Again, who would maintain such a register? Who would police it? Who would have access to it? Who would pay for it?Yes every membership should be declared. even in a football club.
If it would not matter if you havent declared membership,how could you then find out that their membership affected a decision? Since it didn't matter that they hadn't declared their membership, they probably wouldn't have done it. I'm talking about the guys in the IFA who are kind of easy going... obviously all the SIPTU guys would declare their membership... unless they didn't. Which as you said, wouldn't matter, unless SIPTU were caught all on the same committee. But if some of them hadn't declared it then they wouldn't be. Hmmm.It would be submitted each year . it would not matter if you havent declared membership unless it was found out that ther were a number of masons/IFA members/ SIPTU members on the same committee deciding on a particular issue. It shoudl be public access up to a point. If you were in a charity offering advice to abused children for example what branch or where you meet might be kept out to avoid children being identified. similar for say serious crime.
What if only half of them declared their membership because they were told it would not matter if you havent declared membership?If members of AA all voted the same way on an issue like funding a local football pitch and everyone else didnt I would be concerned about collusion within AA.
And every other organisation. And their family connections. Don't forget...Not necessary. just that they declare membership of the masons if they are in public life.
In the public interest is a remarkably ambiguous concept. Tabloids have a different definition entirely, and even wiki says 'at one extreme, an action has to benefit every single member of society in order to be truly in the public interest; at the other extreme, any action can be in the public interest as long as it benefits some of the population and harms none'. Let's say we accept your definition (I don't but anyway), does that mean that anyone who ever received the dole should provide a list of everyone who enters his house to the public, and tell everyone what they did whilst they were there?Yep. Isn't funded or affecting anything else in the public interest. The public interest usually means "out of the public purse" .
Why should we all know that? And who should be responsible for telling us?No. if they associate with other people because they are all members of a political party then we should all know that..
They are registered as members of their parties; that registration information is simply not open to the general public.A fianna Fail person can associate with a sinn Feiner if he wants but both should be registered as members of their party.
So not interesting to the public, or not paid for out of the public purse? Should I be entitled to know what that chap who's collecting the dole is spending the money on? Or what he's watching on tv?What you do is your own business unless it is not in the public interest.
Freemasonrys' members are not engaged in making decisions about 'them' (per your context) or public budgets. There are individuals who make decisions about 'them' and about public budgets, who may also be members of the Freemasons. Making the distinction is what makes the difference between democracy, and Nazism.People dont need to know what you do in private. all they need to know is WHO YOUR MEMBERS ARE who are engaged in making decisions about them or about public budgets. they can make up their own minds if they find several masons were involved in giving public money to get a masonic building refurbished. your allusions to nazism couldn't be further from reality.
No, but the OPW as a publicly accountable body is responsible for justifying its' spending decisions. Maybe you should ask for a list of all their members?and if one of the people in the OPW responsible for this budget was a mason that is co incidence? The OPW wont tell me if that person is a mason will it?
So it doesn't matter who met up on Friday night unless they were Masons. Bias? Victimisation maybe? Transparency with public money and decisions are the responsibility of the public bodies, not private clubs. The bueaucratic management systems who wouldn't tell you about their toilets are distinctly different from the Freemasons at a very fundamental level; they are part of a public organisation. Freemasonry is a private organisation. And people don't need to know whether any members are involved in powerful cliques, just some people want to believe members are involved in powerful cliques. There's a big difference, and regardless, it's not what Freemasonry is about. Seriously, just take a look at PaintDoctors post!That is waffle! Im not asking for a law to say who people were with on friday night (unless that is the night masons meet). Im asking for transparency with public money and decisions. Bureaucratic managerial systems who in the past answered every request for information with "why do you want to know" are what led to the freedpom of information campaign. Again people don't need to know your private secrets. they need to know whether any members are involved in powerful cliques
Saying that something 'is in the public good' doesn't make it so, which is why I asked how and why.Mostly only to know the membership not the necessarily place and time. If it is in the public good they should know it . Asking why or how isnt going to change that of it is in the public good and they have a right to know it. Bu for example if there was a regular meeting of senior police management every fifth Friday and there just happened to be a meeting of masons always on the same day I would be interested in that. If one of the police men got sick and the meeting was postponed to the following Wednesday and the masons meeting was as well i would be even more interested.
Saying that something 'is in the public good' doesn't mean the public have a right to know it either, since the right must be conferred by the State.
The fact that you're interested in something does not mean it is in the public good, nor that you have a right to know it.
So, how is it for the public good that you should know who assembled in a particular place at a particular time?
I shudder to think what you might consider a control freak given your posts, but for the sake of clarity I presume you are referring to the abortive Orange Lodge march in Dublin some years back, since there have never been riots when Masonic Lodges marched.Ironically the control freaks are trying to change irish Law to got people to declare any assemble of more than four people! Why? Because the control freaks in the police had such a hard time when the Lodge came to march in Dublin and a riot broke out!
Actually Article 40.6 of the Constitution gives 'The right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms'. It also gives 'The right of the citizens to form associations and unions'.i don't want any such laws against assembly or free speech. By the way the law is about PUBLIC assembly. In a private meeting many laws don't apply.
Worth noting that these are rights provided under the constitution. Unlike the 'right' to know who's in a club because you think it's in the public interest, which doesn't seem to be there.
So, you can ask your TD to bring it before the Daíl for debate. You can go to the European Court of Human Rights and make your case. I'm still interested in knowing what compelling argument you would put forward for being given the privilege of knowing the identities of leaders (ringleaders? terrorists?) when a group of people exercises their right to assembly.I don't want to know about all their names just the leaders or who is involved in public money or a public job where they might make decisions affecting the public.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement