Talk:Anti-Masonry/Archive 6

Far Right Opposition
I added a section to this article about how the extreme right-wing and conspiracy theorists opposed Masonry and cited as examples Pat Robertson, David Icke, and Alex Jones. All of those examples were accurate. So why was that edit considered vandalism?--198.51.130.244 (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think your edit is vandalism... but there are already sections that discuss religious and/or conspiracy oriented anti-masonry. The only difference is that the article does not give specific examples. I think listing examples gives the specific conspiracy theorists undue weight. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be well prejusticed, so just go away with weigh "reasoning", okay? --Gvy (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Alex Jones and David Icke are infiltrators in the truth movement and maybe Pat Robertson is phony, too. And David Icke is not far right, he is far left, and promotes the New Age which is code for the New World Order.

Also, the idea that conspiracies can't happen is lame to say the least since conspiracy is part of the criminal code and it takes only 2 to make a conspiracy. Sometimes it is a question of what kind of conspiracy. In 9/11, for exampple, it is either an Arab conspiracy or an American one. In Roswell, it is a conspiracy to perpetrate a hoax, to cover up an experimental prototype, a weather balloon, or a UFO.

The anti-truth movement would have us believe the Gunpowder Plot never happened, that the co-conspirators in the Lincoln assassination were an optical illusion, and that the Watergate break-in was done by only 1 person. In Numbers that idiot Charley Epps doesn't believe in conspiracy theories yet he works with them all the time. I'm not sure if there was even 1 case that didn't involve a conspiracy on that show. It is not whether or not there is a conspiracy that is the point, it is whether or not the claim is true. Also, a theory is a fact.

As for fringe theories, geocentricity and the round earth were of this kind for 2000 years. A fring theory is often a truth not accepted by orthodoxy. --BlueRider12 16:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell (talk • contribs)


 * Did we forget to wear our tin-foil hat today? Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, you didn't since you maintain conspiracies can't happen and that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it.--BlueRider12 17:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I do? where?  Blueboar (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And should I construe this as being a personal attack? Nah... Blueboar (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of Satanism
In the Anti-Religious section it says the accusation of devil-worship is an extreme so this is a subjective statement. And the accusation is not made only by religious people. The Satanic nature of Freemasonry, at least at the top levels, is well-establishe.

There is a close connection between Freemasonry, Egypt, and Satanism as evidenced from The Egyptian Masonic-Satanic Connection by David and Donna Carrico. Topics covered include mystery religions,  Freemasonry and human sacrifice, Aliester Crowley, and ritual abuse. The section on Egyptian Satanism documents and lists the practices of the ancient Egyptian religion making readily apparent their Satanic nature. The rites are taken mostly from the Book of the Dead and are compared to pictures drawn by survivors of ritual child abuse. Along with other documentation the book establishes the Egyptian influence on modern Satanism. The authors remind us of the words of Manly Hall, 33rd degree Freemason, “the Book of the Dead is the open sesame of symbolic Masonry.”

Albert Pike, who set up the KKK, addressing the 23 Supreme Councils of the world on July 14, 1889, stated:- "To you, Sovereign Grand Instructors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees: 'the Masonic Religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees,  maintained in the purity of the Luciferian Doctrine. . ."--BlueRider12 16:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell (talk • contribs)


 * Um... no... May I suggest you read: Christianity and Freemasonry. In short, everything your rant discusses is based on proven hoax, misrepresentation of the facts, misquoting sources out of context, etc. etc. etc.  You should also read up on the notorious Taxil hoax so you learn where all this bull shit originated.  Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For what exactly value of "proven", if you please? Did you read e.g. Paul Copin-Albancelli's works?  Blunt statements like "you all liars" is just what masons are widely known for.  Mind you, I've met a few of those bastards. --Gvy (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You're using obscenities which is against Wikipedia policy. Also, you haven't proven all the evidence is a hoax, only a small part of it. Your claim is not based on facts, only on subjective belief. --BlueRider12 17:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry if my language shocked you. As it turns out, Wikipedia does not actually have a 'No obscenities' policy (but it does have an article on Bullshit).  As for the evidence... I am confident that the facts support what I say.  But feel free to rant on. Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You respond with a personal attack which indicates that you don't think conspiracies are possible. You define rants as anything you disagree with. And your comments are uncivil, including a personal attack, and include a personal point of view, all of which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. If you do not delete them or change them appropriately I will take the matter to Wikiquette alerts.--BlueRider12 16:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are free to report me where ever you wish. I am not worried. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppression?
British Political Anti-Masonry (1990s-current) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.57.5 (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

''Since 1997, several members of the British Government have attempted to pass laws requiring Freemasons who join the police or judiciary[4] to declare their membership publicly to the government amid accusations of Freemasons performing acts of mutual advancement and favour-swapping. This movement was initially led by Jack Straw, Home Secretary from 1997 until 2001.[4] In 1999, the Welsh Assembly became the only body in the United Kingdom to place a legal requirement on membership declaration for Freemasons.[5] Currently, existing members of the police and judiciary in England are asked to voluntarily admit to being Freemasons.[6] However, all first time successful judiciary candidates "must declare their freemasonry status" before appointment.[6] Conversely, new members of the police are not required to declare their status.[6] In 2004, Rhodri Morgan, the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly, said that he blocked Gerard Elias' appointment to counsel general because of links to hunting and freemasonry,[7] although it was claimed by non-Labour politicians that the real reason was in order to have a Labour supporter, Malcolm Bishop, in the role.[8]''

This is supposed to be a ANTI-freemasonry page. I don't see how requiring people to list their masonic status can be seen as oppression. Masons may not like it but they are not being asked to stop being part of their organisation or even being asked to not apply to a post in the police or work as a judge. It's anti-officials having the appearance of showing favoritism to people who belong to a elite club or at worst anti-secrecy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.57.5 (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You might have a point if this law applied to all organisations, societies or "elete" clubs in general (or even to a selected group of organisations and clubs) ... but given that it only applies to Freemasonry, it seems appropriate to say that it is anti-Masonic and oppressive. Oppression occurs when you single out one group and make them do something that no one else has to do.  Whether it be forcing Jews to wear a yellow star, or forcing the members of a specific organization to register with the government... it is a form of oppression. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with your assertion that declaring something that could be seen as a conflict of interest to the function or fidelity of the working of the law both in the eyes of the public and I would imagine to at least some of the people who work in those same institutions too is that the perception of possible favoritism between certain people in our judicial or law enforcement bodies and putting certain safeguards in check is something most people would not see as in the exact same realm as "forcing Jews to wear a yellow star" also "forcing the members of a specific organization to register with the government" isn't the exact same thing as a declaration of membership to an organisation if you choose to apply to certain position particularly if you decide to work in the public sector, to most people I think that would be more akin to a prospective government official listing their private employment with companies/institutions that could be seen as a conflict of interest to that persons role in government. With these type of checks and balances the first priority has to be the law and how it is administered with anything that is anti-masonic at most being secondary. The primary focus of Nazis in labeling Jew's with a yellow star is something directly against a certain group of people first, It's impossible to gleam that kind of focus with these kind of measures. It doesn't take an expert to realize that there just has to be so many more better examples in uk history of anti-masonry.
 * Better, maybe, but so well-documented publicly? This is by far the best.  Actually, since modern Freemasonry began in London, and since the UK is not predominantly Catholic, there's a lot more UK-based positive material than negative, whether it be cultural references or otherwise.  Aside from this legal item, the most I have found documented is early exposures in the 1730s.
 * Also, I think we're talking about a matter of degrees (no pun intended). The yellow star is of a caliber higher than legal action, perhaps, but it is still action taken based on a perception of a group (which is the word you yourself use) - the Nazis perceived that the Jews had to be set apart and labelled for some sort of greater good, and a similar situation occurred here.  There is no proof of Masonic favoritism in legal circles; it is merely that people thought there was, and the legislation was directed particularly towards Freemasons, as opposed to the Oddfellows, or members of motorcycle clubs, or the local gardening society, etc.  Had it been sweeping, I would agree that it was not "oppression", but as it was a legal act targeting one group, there's no other way to classify it. MSJapan (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"the Nazis perceived that the Jews had to be set apart and labelled for some sort of greater good, and a similar situation occurred here" I think most level headed historians if they were trying to find a similar occurance would not choose this instance. I imagine it would be at the bottom of their list. Also I think most survivors of the holocaust would at best find it laughable to compare their situation to a judge or senior police man applying for a job. Are people looking at the number of contracts Halliburton got in Iraq and noticing that dick cheney used to be at a high level in that organisation and not feeling good about that or any Government organisation attempting to stop conflict of interest of its perspective employies guilty of "anti-capiltalism" or is it something else?

"The secrets of freemasonry are concerned with its traditional modes of recognition. It is not a secret society, since all members are free to acknowledge their membership and will do so in response to inquiries for respectable reasons," Quote from a lodge in Great Brittan

However people in government and Law do not feel 100% at ease with the presence of a possible "sub culture" within their ranks that whilst you could try to characterize that as "bigoted" it might not express the whole of what is going on here.

Barrister Elizabeth Woodcraft

'''The troubling thing about the masonic movement or organisation is that we don't know very much about it. But what we do know is that organisation requires loyalty and adherence to a set of values that may be in conflict with the values and the requirements of justice,'''

Home Affairs Select Committee

 We believe that nothing so much undermines public confidence in public institutions as the knowledge that some public servants are members of a secret society, one of whose aims is mutual self-advancement.

source: BBC

Masonic bias' in police job move The tribunal ruled Masonic Order membership was a religious belief A police officer was discriminated against because he was not a Mason, an employment tribunal has ruled. Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve Constable Joseph Gibson was moved from the motor transport depot in 1999 during staff cutbacks.

Another reservist who was retained was not as well trained as Mr Gibson but was a member of the Masonic Order.

The Fair Employment Tribunal held Mr Gibson was unlawfully discriminated against on grounds of religious belief.

It also held that the constable retained was a member of the Masonic Order, as was at least one other person involved in the selection process.

In a ruling the tribunal declared: "The respondents did not provide a neutral working environment.

"As a result, those officers who did not belong to the Masonic Order felt uncomfortable and excluded because of the actions of those who did."

The tribunal will reconvene to decide upon the appropriate remedy.

The tribunal said membership of the Masonic Order is a religious belief for the purposes of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.

The tribunal concluded "the decision to transfer the claimant from the RUC Motor Transport Depot was unlawful discrimination on grounds of religious belief".

Mr Gibson brought the case before the tribunal, with the assistance of the Equality Commission.

Judgement studied

Eileen Lavery, head of legal services in the Equality Commission, said people could not be discriminated against because they were not Masons.

"The ruling of the tribunal is clear - that in the workplace it is unlawful to discriminate against someone because they are not a Mason," she said.

"It does not say that membership of the Masonic Order is incompatible with any particular employment, but rather that taking decisions in the workplace which favour one person to the detriment of another, based on Masonic membership, is unlawful."

Mr Gibson, now 67, originally from Belfast, took the case against the RUC - which has since become the Police Service of Northern Ireland - and the now defunct NI Police Authority after being among the officers selected for transfer.

The staff reduction followed a decision to switch prisoner escort duties to the Prison Service.

A spokeswoman for the Police Service of Northern Ireland said the force was studying the judgement closely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.57.5 (talk) 12:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)