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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Freemasons: Evil secret society or misunderstood nice guys...
Comments
-
-
-
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 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Yes indeed Getz, Gordon Brown & Tony Blair are 33rd degree Masons, the Bilderbergers are part of the Masons, the Illuminati exist, lizardmen rule the world, and your name is Jim Corr. All these things must be true. But then, people like me exist only to deny the truth don't we
0 -
So every publicly funded body would be required to maintain a separate register of members interests, to pay for it, and to make that register available to the general public?
No, the bodies getting the money dont have to the bodies givine the money should. Any body responsible for giving out funds or making decisions on them e.g a council, a government department. Should have a register of all bodies to which they gave money and any employees of thees bodies should also put their membership of any clubs on that register.Do you have any concept of the cost of such an undertaking?
It would be minimal. any funding approvals and any new employees would add to the register as a matter of course and an annual poll of each employee would also add or remove any memberships. They could even update it themselves as they join or leave any clubs.How much extra tax would you personally be prepared to pay for it?
It could be part of the "information and data officer" in each councils job. It would involve a design of a single web form and the whole thing could br centralised by and catalogued department and council and activity and easily searched through. with modern data collection techniques the administration would be minimal. and a public register could even conceal personal data such as name and address but people would be able to see how many people in what clubs are in any department or council or the gardai.And do you imagine for a moment there would be any support from the electorate for such profligacy in government?
I do. I think if the names and addresses of people can be kept then no secrecy or invasion of privacy can be claimed. No more than people should know how many of each pay grade there are in each department and how much they get paid.You don't actually think an anti-Masonic website counts as an unbiased view of Freemasonry do you?
You deny the restructuring of scotland Yard due to these Masons activities happened?
You deny that they met in Lodges and their relationship was facilitated by their being masons?
It isn't a question of bias it is a question of whether the historical data is valid and accurate. You can go through the names and see for yourself. If you find any of them were not masons feel free to tell me.Sorry wasn't this you earlier in the thread?
Yes. But that was about knowing what level or degree a person was. Not about what rituals they conducted. I only want to know about who senoir masons are when they are involved in something but The other issue since then is that the public shuld be entitles to know about memberships and I duid say there is an argument even more about knowing particularly high ranking members.None of the above relates to people in public positions who may be Freemasons, it all relates to your own desperate paranoia that people are keeping things from you that you think you should know.
Yes and i read up on the subject since then and i got no help from any masons on finding that information. But I never claimed that knowing such secrets should be law. In fact I pointed out that like my personal curiosity that "what the public are interested in " about peoples personal life should not be law wheras "public interest" i.e. out of the public purse should be.Actually I didn't offer a view on anarchists, other than that by definition they're not inclined to join organisations, by virtue of being anarchists you understand, rather than being prevented by 'authoritarian elements'.
anarchists can be organised they just don't believe in leaders and authorities and telling people what to do. You know ? Like sending a letter to all lodges telling them it is okay by them not to mention you are a police man and they think it isn't against the law not to mention it and it is up to the individual?Should I do you a favour? You've attacked me, my friends, the organisation I enjoy. Should I then ask members of that organisation to humour you?
I'm not ding it for fun. It is a sincere attempt to point out a psychological profile common to masons.
And I haven't personally attacked you or anyone else here at all.
Care to show where I did and I am happy to withdraw it if true?How about we only get poor sick and handicapped Freemasons to protect our civil liberties?
Well this relates to my last point. This is basically drawing on the Idea that masons represent a broad swathe of society. I think if you did the 20 question quiz you would find most of you have a similar psychological profile.
Tell you what how about the anarchist freemasons protect your civil liberties?And if you're wondering where the poor, sick and handicapped can get support you might do well to look to the Freemasons, since one of our primary goals is to help the needy,
I respect that . But I did read that that isn't your primary goal.
"You speak of charity – yes, this is something we do, and it has been seen publicly in countries like the U.S. after 9/11. But this is not the main goal of Freemasonry. The main goal is to ‘polish the rough ashler’, which means yourself, and we are trying to improve ourselves by these Masonic works, and by helping each other mutually in a brotherly way. But the essence of Masonry is, I would say, a peculiar system of morality illustrated by symbols thanks to which you try to become a slightly better human being"
http://www.radio.cz/en/article/102012
"The primary goal of Freemasonry is therefore the improvement of the individual...Even though it is not primarily a charitable organization,"
http://www.glquebec.org/freemasonry.shtmland, whilst you won't find it on anti-Masonic websites, each Lodge takes great pride in the money it raises for charity each year.
The primary goal is not charity but "trying to improve ourselves by Masonic works, and helping each other mutually in a brotherly way"That's simply naive; what you've proposed would cost billions.
Nope the technology involved less than 5,000 and the admin done as a matter of course.I'd suggest you charge every one who wants to see it, and see how long it takes to get your money back.
Oh I think the hits on such a website would be quite large. But so what it it wasn't.
Actaully it would be interesting to crosstabulate masons political parties GAA IFA Gentlemens clubs etc.
Oh what a tangled web we weave.But if they didn't all declare which party they were in (you said 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) you'd never know if the parties influenced the vote or not. Short of asking the parties directly of course. Which would seem sensible.
And if you asked the sic councillors voting on an issue "are you a mason" and they said "I dont have to tell you that" or they were a mason and lied what recourse has any person since ther is no law saying they have to tell?
It does not matter if a law exists against robbery if nobody is robbing anyone else. It is only when people rob someone else that the victim can should "I think he is a robber" If no law exists at that time the robber can say "so what there is no law against robbery" likewise if it is found out all of the people behind state investment in NAMA were masons and all the people appointed to boards or on the old bank boards were masons or all TD voting on the issue were masons if there is no law about that then nothing can be done about them breaking such law.So registration only becomes a requirement once someone becomes suspicious about something?
Nope it would always be required . It is just that nobody is going to prosecute you for being a trainspotter. Unless of course the local train meuseum gets a fat grant and ther are five councillors all members of the local trainspotting club voting for it. then their legal oversight in neglecting to put "trainspotter club" on the form becomes important.
I suspect this is exactly what will happen with the PSNI if and when a group of Masons are identified as colluding.Like a conspiracy theorist? Effectively nobody is required to register, but if investigated having failed to register makes you immediately guilty of not registering. Genius.
No more like hey are ALL REQUIRED to register all interests. But if they neglect one it will never be noticed and if it ever is noticed it will not cause much of a fuss unless a connection can be sen with others in the same organisation.So along with managing registration and dissemination, you'll be needing some statistical analysts. Those billions are going to run dry pretty quickly...
It is done quite cheaply and very easily there are many powerfull stats packages available so i wont promote brandnames
for a minor sample of the Trying looking up the cain site and the sutton database of deaths in northern ireland. You can croisstabulate they religion of those killed and see for example if the UDA killed a significant number of Catholics compared to the provisional IRA killing Protestants. thus accusations of how "sectarian" some group was is evident.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.htmlSo non declaration is a sacking office not collusion?
the penalty would depend on the crime. If they didn't declare trainspotters club the penalty might be a reminder to declare it next time. If they didnt declare masons and five masons were involved in awarding a half million to a local charity then yes they could be sacked. But even if not sacked it might lead to something else like how many cases for example a group of five policemen dropped and it later be found out the accused was a mason as well.You only have to be suspected, and by virtue of not declaring yourself a Jew Mason you can be sacked?
No I didn't say that. It would depend on what monies were given over or what decisions made by the person who didn't declare.I think you really mean that what interests you is what is in the public interest. And it annoys you that people don't feel obligated to tell you wahtever you demand simply because you demand it.
No i was quite clear- out of the public purse! That would be the vast majority
But a policeman not taking a case might not be out of the public purse or a the other cases I mentioned so I wouldn't exclude other measures which affect the public - whether or not the public are interested in them. for example a mason may actually SAVE the public money by awarding a safety contract for a football stadium to another mason.So if someone is a Mason and spends public money they must declare it, but anyone else is fine.
NO! they all must declare any clubs but if the mason does not declare and never awards money or favour to another mason then nobody will ever ask him. If someone eventually does ask him then the worst he can expect is "well you should really have registered"
unless of course it is found out that other masons did benefit from him.But you're not holding the public bodies responsible for what you think they should give you; you're trying to make private bodies responsible.
No Transparency. We should know whether any money or authority of any public official is linked to any other activities he has outside work. If he doesn't say it then the private body can maybe have the money taken back off them. But it is the individuals workplace that he has to declare for a register. If someone is not involved in public life or public service or is retired from either and is a mason he would not have to register. If he is ever appointed to a public body he WOULD have to register that with them and it would go into the database.But not from him; the State is responsible for justifying its' spending decisions to the public.
I think you seem not to understand what I am saying. I am not saying every lodge has to make public all their members. I am saying anyone who is a member of a lodge who works for the public should have to declare their membership to that public body.So your argument is with the democracy in which you reside, not the Masonic Order.
If the masonic order do not have members involved in collusion then yes i have no problem with them. But people can only know that when the members who are involved in making decisions for the public are declared.Because it's a public, and publicly accountable, body. Not a private one.
and the accountability of the members of a public ally accountability body should extend to them declaring and other memberships orf any body public or private. That is what I am saying.Indeed, you could have plainly said from the outset that your purpose is to victimise people.
Asking people to declare their membership of a body isn't victimising them.Nor is it up to YOU to decide someone should be victimised.
No it is up to the law to regulate public administration and I am saying such laws should be introduced. People in state institutions should not have to keep secret their membership.Luckily most modern democracies won't marginalise a group just because someone believes that members of the group might be involved in powerful cliques.
Oh indeed they will. Membership of the IRA is proscribed, membership of Sinn Fein was gagged in the media under law, members of the Orange order are prevented from marching in certain places, etc.Cricket is a public sport; are you saying it would be different if cricket were played in private?
all i can say to that is you have never been at one of our famous club dinners.
what goes on tour stays on tourAnd even though I'm repeating myself again, our membership isn't secret. Just private for those members who wish it to be.
If those members were in public service I have an argument against that . Otherwise I dont.Actually, the powers of the State derive from the people. That doesn't mean that if some, or even most, of the people desire a right, that the State will, or should, confer it.
Yes. so what? I wan't argueing about a tyranny of the majority. If most people want a law that isn't repugnant to he constitution (and regulating public bodies to declare all membership isn't. In fact such happens in N Ireland and has happened elsewhere in the past -including regulating the freemasons. ) then the State WILL bring in that law!They're different things; and whilst it's certainly in the public interest to be aware of collusion, subversion and misappropriation of funds in the State apparatus, there is no indication that such an awareness would be facilitated by stomping on peoples civil liberties as you suggest.
Asking all people in public life to declare what clubs they are in is not stomping on liberty!
It is done in Norther n Ireland and it is done for TDs in the Republic.
they also recently changed the reporting of expenses. It is for the good of democracy and transparency.So SIPTU must make its' membership list public, or it's a 'secret' union?
NO NO NO! Siptu members on state boards or making decisions relating to unions should declare their membership!The state apparatus makes decisions both in its' favour and against it, but again, it's up to the State to justify its' spending decisions to the public, not SIPTU.
Anyway, the constitution does not prohibit 'secret' unions.
Wrong again! Article 40 iii Laws, however, may be enacted for the regulation and control in the public interest of the exercise of the foregoing right.
the foregoing right being that of forming unions.Indeed the people in final appeal decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good. The means is a referendum or plebistice. Do you think you could carry a referendum to amend civil rights based on your arguments here? I'm quite certain you couldn't.
You would not need a referendum to bring in such law. It isn't repugnant tot he constitution! YOU are the one claiming it is! If such a law was brought in ti would be for you to prove it is unconstitutional. I don not believe you could based on the arguments given here.Because one is the action of a civil servant and the other is the action of a private citizen. Are you now proposing that the contents of all emails should be available to everyone? Or is it just the contents of all emails by Freemasons?
I'm not proposing anything about emails. I'm showing how the principle of "working for the state" isn't restricted only to the place of work.Yes. Those people are called conspiracy theorists.
Some are conspiracy theorists. and some conspiracies also happen. Thats why "conspiracy" is an actual crime.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
So just to clarify; the UK government rowed back on legislation singling out Freemasons for 'declaration' when they were presented with the prospect of being taken before the European Court of Human Rights. They didn't do anything in spite of a ruling, they knew if a case was brought they would lose it because the Italian government had already lost a similar case before the ECHR. The legislation in NI and Wales is broader in scope and doesn't single out Freemasons, but no one has yet sought to test it before the ECHR.It was brought to them after the UK singled out the masons. But the UK government decided to changed back in spite of any ruling binding on them to do so. It still stands for a narrower group in northern Ireland and Wales and if it was broader would probably hold in the UK.
Presumably you'll be hoping when you bring your bill before the Dail that it will be so incredibly broad in scope that no one will feel it infringes their freedom of association, but that would be better debated on the politics forum.
In the meantime I still maintain: Freemasons: misunderstood nice guys 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Similarly, many of the people I discuss it with are surprised at first; it seems a very anachronistic hobby to people and I work in a very techy industry. The first reaction of many colleagues is 'oh the Stonecutters!'. Other people are often surprised because they think it's a Protestant organisation, and I'm not Protestant. I've been a Mason for 20 years, and in all that time the biggest criticism I've had levelled from 'real world' people is that regular Freemasonry doesn't accept female members, and it's a fair criticism from many points of view.
The internet, however, is the haven of free expression so it's always going to be the haunt of extreme opinions. I wouldn't have it any other way 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement