|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 29, 2012 6:58:44 GMT 10
Every person has a right to his own religious convictions and opinions. Each is responsible to the Supreme Power for his soul and to the People for his actions. Each is judged by his own acts and character. Masonry unties men of every country, sect and opinion and conciliates true friendship among those who might otherwise have remained at a perpetual distance.”
"Masonry interferes with no Man’s religion or beliefs. He is left entirely free from creeds or sectarian restrictions. He must believe in the existence of God and proclaim his trust in Him. Each Mason is not only free in the exercise of his own religious rights and opinions but he is strictly enjoined not to interfere with the religious views of others.” Carve these words in stone.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 29, 2012 7:20:07 GMT 10
Why do you suppose a person's private religious beliefs, beyond an enabling profession of belief in a Supreme Being, to be relevant to their participation as Freemasons? ... Because of the particulars and commandments of the religion.Please give examples of these “particulars and commandments” and explain how they are incompatible with the practice of Freemasonry. ... Just because the GL of California has also gone down this path does not mean it is a masonically sound policy. BTW, I note Anderson's statement encompasses ALL men. Then you are ignoring the statement itself and picking words out of context . ... ALL men is all men of 'that religion'. That religion is singular which excludes all other religions and 'all men agree' excludes those who disagree.Wrong, “that religion in which all men agree” excludes none bar those it specifically excludes elsewhere in the text (arguably the “stupid atheist” and “irreligious libertine”). That religion in which all men agree will necessarily be stripped bare of all specific, sectarian tenents and dogmas (upon which men disagree) and stand as a singular, stark, generic belief, not even in “God,” as such, but in an unspecified “Supreme Being.”
|
|
|
Post by edwmax on Dec 29, 2012 7:48:06 GMT 10
... Then you are ignoring the statement itself and picking words out of context . ... ALL men is all men of 'that religion'. That religion is singular which excludes all other religions and 'all men agree' excludes those who disagree. Wrong, “that religion in which all men agree” excludes none bar those it specifically excludes elsewhere in the text (arguably the “stupid atheist” and “irreligious libertine”). That religion in which all men agree will necessarily be stripped bare of all specific, sectarian tenents and dogmas (upon which men disagree) and stand as a singular, stark, generic belief, not even in “God,” as such, but in an unspecified “Supreme Being.” Not hardly! ... I'm sure Desauglier & Anderson (both minsters) would not do something which would be against their religion & Church to do. Next if Desauglier & Anderson intended the Constitutions to include ALL religions and ALL men, they would have wrote "all or any religion' instead of 'that religion' (which is singular). ... Further, no such religion exist in which ALL men agree. If there was, we wouldn't be discussing this now and there would be only ONE religion in the world. As I already stated 'that religion' is specific and excludes all other religions and 'all men agree' refers to the men of 'that religion'. That religion was named by Rev. James Anderson in the 1738 edition of the Constitutions. It is quite obvious you don't agree with my comment. So there is no need to continue this. You have your opinion and I have mine!
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 29, 2012 8:05:37 GMT 10
Further, no such religion exist in which ALL men agree. Odd that your argument for, "that religion in which all men agree," being one specific religion, depends on there being no such religion!?
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Dec 29, 2012 10:17:50 GMT 10
As I already stated 'that religion' is specific and excludes all other religions and 'all men agree' refers to the men of 'that religion'. That religion was named by Rev. James Anderson in the 1738 edition of the Constitutions. Can you give examples of religions you think are excluded by your Noachide "religion"?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 29, 2012 13:43:20 GMT 10
By 1738, FreeMasonry had come to India. Where Freemasons practiced racial inclusion and celebrated its diversity, in contrast to the wider community. Clearly it was then an enthusiastic example of that spirit which, "... unites men of every country, sect, and opinion, and conciliates true friendship among those who might otherwise have remained at a perpetual distance." The Mother-Lodge By Rudyard Kipling
There was Rundle, Station Master, An' Beazeley of the Rail, An' 'Ackman, Commissariat, An' Donkin' o' the Jail; An' Blake, Conductor-Sargent, Our Master twice was 'e, With 'im that kept the Europe-shop, Old Framjee Eduljee.
Outside — "Sergeant! Sir! Salute! Salaam!" Inside — "Brother", an' it doesn't do no 'arm. We met upon the Level an' we parted on the Square, An' I was Junior Deacon in my Mother-Lodge out there!
We'd Bola Nath, Accountant, An' Saul the Aden Jew, An' Din Mohammed, draughtsman Of the Survey Office too; There was Babu Chuckerbutty, An' Amir Singh the Sikh, An' Castro from the fittin'-sheds, The Roman Catholick!
We 'adn't good regalia, An' our Lodge was old an' bare, But we knew the Ancient Landmarks, An' we kep' 'em to a hair; An' lookin' on it backwards It often strikes me thus, There ain't such things as infidels, Excep', per'aps, it's us.
For monthly, after Labour, We'd all sit down and smoke (We dursn't give no banquits, Lest a Brother's caste were broke), An' man on man got talkin' Religion an' the rest, An' every man comparin' Of the God 'e knew the best.
So man on man got talkin', An' not a Brother stirred Till mornin' waked the parrots An' that dam' brain-fever-bird; We'd say 'twas 'ighly curious, An' we'd all ride 'ome to bed, With Mo'ammed, God, an' Shiva Changin' pickets in our 'ead.
Full oft on Guv'ment service This rovin' foot 'ath pressed, An' bore fraternal greetin's To the Lodges east an' west, Accordin' as commanded From Kohat to Singapore, But I wish that I might see them In my Mother-Lodge once more!
I wish that I might see them, My Brethren black an' brown, With the trichies smellin' pleasant An' the hog-darn passin' down; An' the old khansamah snorin' On the bottle-khana floor, Like a Master in good standing With my Mother-Lodge once more!
Outside — "Sergeant! Sir! Salute! Salaam!" Inside — "Brother", an' it doesn't do no 'arm. We met upon the Level an' we parted on the Square, An' I was Junior Deacon in my Mother-Lodge out there!
|
|
|
Post by edwmax on Dec 29, 2012 23:15:42 GMT 10
Further, no such religion exist in which ALL men agree. Odd that your argument for, "that religion in which all men agree," being one specific religion, depends on there being no such religion!? No, my argument do not depend on that. That statement was a rebuttal to your statement (suggested, supposed, or implied) that such a religion does exist. ... [/color=red]that religion in which all men agree[/b]”[/color] excludes none bar those it specifically excludes elsewhere in the text (arguably the “stupid atheist” and “irreligious libertine”). That religion in which all men agree[/color] will necessarily be stripped bare of all specific, sectarian tenents and dogmas (upon which men disagree) and stand as a singular, stark, generic belief, not even in “God,” as such, but in an unspecified “Supreme Being.”[/quote] ... [/quote] Comment edit for color & boldness ...
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 30, 2012 8:01:27 GMT 10
Odd that your argument for, "that religion in which all men agree," being one specific religion, depends on there being no such religion!? No, my argument do not depend on that. That statement was a rebuttal to your statement (suggested, supposed, or implied) that such a religion does exist. ...Are you now saying there is a religion in which ALL men agree? If so, I agree. But it is necessarily a generic religion, requiring no more that a belief in a Supreme Being.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 30, 2012 9:49:24 GMT 10
Please note that Masonry is meant to unite men of EVERY sect and opinion: "... unites men of every country, sect, and opinion, and conciliates true friendship among those who might otherwise have remained at a perpetual distance." One cannot be more specific or concise than that.
|
|
|
Post by Torence on Dec 30, 2012 10:17:28 GMT 10
The road to failure is paved upon by good intentions.
Torence Evans Ake Secretary - Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois Chaplain - Triluminar Lodge No. 767 - Lansing, Illinois MIGS - Illinois Lodge of Research PM - Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lansing, Illinois City and Country Steward torenceake@aol.com
|
|