# Obey Your Government???



## owls84 (Apr 8, 2009)

Ok, I have seen several postings on here about the government and what horrible shape we are in as far as a country so I have to ask, as Masons when does it become ok to speak out and lead to oust "corrupt" politicians? We have several postings on the site that say we should "storm" Washington and make demands however are we as Masons obligated to be good citizens and mind our government (EA Charge)? I would love to see some in depth discussion on this topic. 

So when is it ok to be verbal and when does it cross the line, as Masons?


----------



## TCShelton (Apr 8, 2009)

Our government gives us ways to oust politicians.  Politicians and Government aren't necessarily the same thing.  I see our gov't as being the system, not the people in it.


----------



## Wingnut (Apr 8, 2009)

... and how do our forefathers reconcile the Revolution with their obligations?


----------



## LRG (Apr 8, 2009)

I think by exposing our politicians ie. the way they vote,how much money they make , how many hours they work, who gets and what they get from big companies as "gifts" and how they pay for their vacations.
IMHO


----------



## Blake Bowden (Apr 8, 2009)

LRG said:


> I think by exposing our politicians ie. the way they vote,how much money they make , how many hours they work, who gets and what they get from big companies as "gifts" and how they pay for their vacations.
> IMHO



I agree, but a significant portion of the general public simply do not care. They're easily led around like sheep.


----------



## LRG (Apr 8, 2009)

Very true and sad 
When We The People will wake is when this world will be of peace


----------



## rhitland (Apr 9, 2009)

blake said:


> I agree, but a significant portion of the general public simply do not care. They're easily led around like sheep.



Yes but Masons are shepards and if we are true to our trust these sheep will follow us and not them. Long ago we had that kind of respect but we will have to reearn it.


----------



## JTM (Apr 10, 2009)

TCShelton said:


> Our government gives us ways to oust politicians.  Politicians and Government aren't necessarily the same thing.  I see our gov't as being the system, not the people in it.



if that were true, it wouldn't matter which politicians were in office.  as it is now, it matters.


----------



## eagle1966 (Apr 10, 2009)

until the american public wakes up the the reality of what is happening and stop wanting everything given to them we will continue to be led like lambs to the slaugher. if you don't vote then you have no room to express your dis satisfaction about how things are because you did nothing to change the status quo 

just one mans opinion


----------



## TCShelton (Apr 17, 2009)

I've gotten pretty involved in that stuff.  I get notices all the time from my Libertarian party about the current goings-on.  It is a hassle, but worth it.


----------



## RedTemplar (Jul 30, 2009)

Protest is a true form of patriotism


----------



## TCShelton (Jul 30, 2009)

RedTemplar said:


> Protest is a true form of patriotism



+1.


----------



## Sirius (Jul 31, 2009)

The American Revolution is ongoing. Historically, Freemasons have always been at the vanguard of our national progress. Most notable is the fact that these Brothers represented both left and right, and they still do. 

As Masons we support the proposition that all men are created free and equal in the eyes of the law. Now we may differ on how that is best achieved. But each of us can take action (vote, write a letter, attend govt meetings among others) and be part of a rational dialog about public policy. Thus we can be peaceable citizens, adhere to our obligations,  and stand up for what we believe to be right.


----------



## owls84 (Jul 31, 2009)

I found this the other day in TX's Charge of a Freemason that may be pertinent here. 

_So that if a Brother be a rebel against the State, he is not to
be countenanced in his rebellion, however, he may be pitied as an
unhappy man; and, if convicted of no other crime, though the loyal
brotherhood must and ought to disown his rebellion, and give no
umbrage or ground of political jealousy to the government for the
time being, they cannot expel him from the Lodge, and his relation
to it remains indefeasible._


----------



## Blake Bowden (Jan 22, 2010)

RedTemplar said:


> Protest is a true form of patriotism


 
Absolutely!


----------



## HKTidwell (Jan 22, 2010)

My take on it,  it is the charge of every citizen to be active in the government.  The act of Free speech on both sides could be termed in some parts of the world as Rebellion however in the USA it is one of our established rights.  The writings of our founding fathers were often curt and to the point and would probably make our current media scream.  If you doubt this then look at the writings of Brother Ben Franklin under pseudo names.  His work was often great but in current day and age if somebody of national image did it they would be ascounded.  

Now if we are talking about taking up arms and forcibly changing the government then that is a different thing entirely.  You must first weigh what you have done to change things as is.  Then is there any method to resolve things to their rightful state, if there are no options left then we must look at massive changes.  Our founding fathers had spent enormous time and effort trying to gain concessions, change, and representation from the English.  In the end they were left no options and proceeded with open rebellion, to gain possession of the principle tenants that all man kind are entitled to.  The right to bear arms, free speech, the ability to serve the god you choose without a government infringing upon that right, etc....  

The name calling, and labeling of people for their comments is nothing new.  Unfortunately we have become a weak kneed country that is to focused on political correctness, and does not allow equal discourse upon subjects.  If a person cracks a joke or goes against the policy of another who happens to be of a different race you are labeled Racist, prejudice, or otherwise, I need point no further then Scott Baios for an example.  Satire, humor, and frank discussions has been a basic free speech that needs to be returned.  While I may not agree with somebody, does it mean that I have the right to destroy that person for using his or hers rights?  I have the right to turn the TV off/change channels, type in a different website, or be friends with who I choose,  instead of destroying a person.  Now blatant disregard for humanity, threats, and like things should be addressed by a case by case situation.  

I propose that if people are not happy with the current status quo on both sides of the aisle then get involved, make a difference, speak out to your neighbors, friends, and associates.  Read the constitution, bill of rights, watch C-span, read federalist/anti-federalist documents, and otherwise educate yourself and others about the past, present, and future.  _I'm openly consider myself a radical_, *I believe in the founding principles!* 

All over the world Freemasons have been known for their ability to calmly speak with open discourse.  Yes, we have had our radicals but for the most part we have had thinkers, philosophers, debaters, etc. but in all of that most have spoken with conviction and the greater good of mankind in mind.


----------



## HKTidwell (Jan 22, 2010)

TCShelton said:


> I've gotten pretty involved in that stuff.  I get notices all the time from my Libertarian party about the current goings-on.  It is a hassle, but worth it.


 
I love the libertarian party for the basic principles, but they tend to have duds, who are single issue that run.  Every time they have a candidate who is credible I try to vote for them unless somebody else is running that I support and needs the vote. I truly think a three party system would be best.


----------



## owls84 (Jan 22, 2010)

How great would it be if there were no party's but just a candidate with a view point? Oh how wonderful it would be. Just the face a person can fill one box and elect a whole buch of politicians is wrong to me. I think you should at least have to pick each one.


----------



## drapetomaniac (Jan 22, 2010)

My most vivid memory of voting for the first time was seeing the "Straight ticket" lever - and I thought how asinine.

I actually think states should have that just to encourage actual thinking.  The Dominican Republic has a holiday preceding election day (and election day) so that people can think about their elections.


----------



## HKTidwell (Jan 22, 2010)

drapetomaniac said:


> My most vivid memory of voting for the first time was seeing the "Straight ticket" lever - and I thought how asinine.


 

The sad thing is yellow dogs(typically older people) do that, and there are republicans that do it too.  When I was younger I would work the elections and people would blow my mind.  People write in everything from daffy duck to Mickey Mouse.  "What in the world are you thinking?" you want to scream.  While with some of the politicians we would be better off with either of those two, but take the friggin time and write in somebody that is an actual person that you think would be good.  Voting is something that we should all be taking immense time in deliberating and deciding before going to vote.  Do I study every race no but If I'm going to cast a vote I do research on each person?

There will always be parties, even as people we tend to build relationships based around common themes.  While it may not be Ideology there is some thread that tends to connect us.  One of the reason I could never run for office is I'd get upset at people who said one thing and did another.  I'd be likely to say what I really think about liars, cheats, and thieves and that wouldn't be good for somebody running for an office.


----------



## TexMass (Jan 22, 2010)

Robin Williams says that politicians should wear suits like NASCAR showing all the companies they represent.  I like that.


----------



## drapetomaniac (Jan 22, 2010)

I was thinking of airport body scanners with all of the images facing the street as the entrance to Congress.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jan 23, 2010)

drapetomaniac said:


> My most vivid memory of voting for the first time was seeing the "Straight ticket" lever - and I thought how asinine.


 
I think "straight ticket" voting should be eliminated. Make 'em at least work their way through the ballot.


----------



## Hippie19950 (Jan 23, 2010)

TexMass said:


> Robin Williams says that politicians should wear suits like NASCAR showing all the companies they represent.  I like that.


 
With the latest offering from the court, this should be easy to do. Now, if a company, or a very rich individual wants someone in office, they can buy it for the person of choice... No longer will we have to wonder who voted someone in office, all we'll need to do is look at the financial statement, and see who bought it for them. This has got to be the biggest public blunder yet... As for wheteher or not it is proper for Mason's to have any dealings with the Government (based on the original question), perhaps we should check the minutes of the meeting just before the Boston Tea Party started...


----------



## HKTidwell (Jan 24, 2010)

Hippie19950 said:


> With the latest offering from the court, this should be easy to do. Now, if a company, or a very rich individual wants someone in office, they can buy it for the person of choice... No longer will we have to wonder who voted someone in office, all we'll need to do is look at the financial statement, and see who bought it for them. This has got to be the biggest public blunder yet... As for wheteher or not it is proper for Mason's to have any dealings with the Government (based on the original question), perhaps we should check the minutes of the meeting just before the Boston Tea Party started...


 
Corporations will still not be allowed to donate to an individual. They will be able to pay for their own ads, and it will have to say who is paying for it.  I support this, and here is why.  Two years ago I wanted to support a candidate through the company and could not.  Personally I can donate, but to allow for a company to run ads, defining why the current policies of X person is harmful to local business is a good thing.  This opens up the door for good and bad,  but in the end our company pays tremendous tax why should we not be able to take sides and have the same opportunity that is provided to others?  The supreme court ruling took a different attitude when the Federal government wanted to say that it had the power to stop the publishing of books if they were politically motivated.  The McCain - Fiengold bill had already been sent to the Supreme Court twice and was upheld.  There has to be checks and balances on everything.

These are my thoughts and opinions.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jan 24, 2010)

HKTidwell said:


> Corporations will still not be allowed to donate to an individual. They will be able to pay for their own ads, and it will have to say who is paying for it.  I support this, and here is why.  Two years ago I wanted to support a candidate through the company and could not.  Personally I can donate, but to allow for a company to run ads, defining why the current policies of X person is harmful to local business is a good thing.  This opens up the door for good and bad,  but in the end our company pays tremendous tax why should we not be able to take sides and have the same opportunity that is provided to others?  The supreme court ruling took a different attitude when the Federal government wanted to say that it had the power to stop the publishing of books if they were politically motivated.  The McCain - Fiengold bill had already been sent to the Supreme Court twice and was upheld.  There has to be checks and balances on everything.
> 
> These are my thoughts and opinions.


 
I'm Bill Lins and I approve this message! :12:


----------



## Dragon (Feb 8, 2010)

I have hesitated responding to this thread because I am a very passionate and quite outspoken man. This is especially true when it comes to my political views. I am neither a Democrat, nor a Republican, or as I like to call them Demoncrats and Repubicones, I consider myself a Nationist, I believe in what is best for this nation and her people. 

This country was founded on the belief that the Government is of the people, FOR the people, and BY the people. Nowhere in those words does it say that it is for the highest bidder. Politicians today have forgotten that they work for us, the people, they are only concerned with padding their pockets. Until the people of this nation wake up and do their job in the polling places and vote out the dead weight, the changes needed in this Nation will not take place. 

It is the job of all of us to vote in the 2010 mid-term elections to correct these errors by voting out those representatives that are NOT serving this Nations best interest. We, The People of these United States must remind these politicians that they are in those positions to serve US, not the other way around. It is not the job of the government to provide healthcare for the nation, it is not the job of the government to pay off our mortgages or credit card debt. It IS the job of this government to protect this nation and her constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. That includes securing our borders, deporting those here illegally, and ensuring there is no chance of another attack of the same proportions as what happened at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.


----------



## RedTemplar (Feb 10, 2010)

If the Tea Party Bunch were here, I wonder what would be on their minds?


----------



## Blake Bowden (Sep 28, 2010)

RedTemplar said:


> If the Tea Party Bunch were here, I wonder what would be on their minds?


 
Bill?


----------



## Dave in Waco (Sep 29, 2010)

IMHO I think campaigns should be publicly funded only by set amounts depending on the level of the office.  It would put all the candidates on a level playing field for their funding and cut out big backers with an agenda and not leave the candidate open to having return "favors".  It would make them work to best spend their budget wisely, a usual requirement for a public offiicial.  

Any thoughts or opinions on that?


----------



## MacFie (Sep 29, 2010)

That'd be great.  Along with making lobbyists illegal, and a number of anything.  It's quite the situations we're in at this point.


----------



## Bill Lins (Sep 29, 2010)

Blake Bowden said:


> Bill?


 
Yes?


----------



## Bill Lins (Sep 29, 2010)

Just kidding, Blake! 

I've been asked many times how we are to obey that part of the EA Charge, not to mention the WM installation. It is _my opinion_ that we are charged to work within our system of government to effect change, & not to foment insurrections or other _unlawful_ activities. I do not agree that we are not to be involved in politics- indeed, I believe that we _should_ be involved, for the purpose of improving our system of government.

All that said, none of our political activities should be announced or discussed in Lodge.

The above is purely my own opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the position of the Grand Lodge of Texas or any officer thereof.

Take Out The Trash on Nov. 2nd!  :wink:


----------



## peace out (Sep 30, 2010)

Since when is it considered unruly to speak out against government.  The EA obligation does not prevent this.  How about not permitting wrongdoing if within our power?  Our forefather's set up our government to respect the outcries of the citizens, not to subdue citizens into some misled oathful obedience.  

Folks, you MUST speak out.  Our government requires it.  One can be peaceful, patriotic, and masonic as one is calling out politicians.  Just don't go out joining an unlawful militia in effort of looking for real trouble.  Our forefather's use to hang effigies of politicians and burn them in efforts of being heard.  That may be crossing the line as we see, but it certainly sets the tone doesn't it?

My advice, be heard.


----------



## Bill Lins (Sep 30, 2010)

I would add- remember that you are a Mason & represent us all. It is perfectly OK to criticize an elected official's or candidate's actions or positions, but NOT OK to become personal in your remarks. In addition, do NOT make accusations unless you have proof. Make sure of your facts before speaking up.

Other than that, go get 'em, Tiger!


----------



## MacFie (Sep 30, 2010)

Well said Bill.  How much better the world would be in general if people did just that.


----------



## Dave in Waco (Sep 30, 2010)

I agree with the brethern that criticizing our government does not violate our obligation as Masons.  In fact, Thomas Jefferson would argue that it is our duty to criticize the government and as citizens to keep our government in check.  IMHO, I believe the government is to rule and govern the people much the same way as the WM of a Lodge.  But just like the WM of a Lodge, the government is only there at the will of the people or Lodge.  So just like a WM, the government rules and governs at our pleasure.


----------



## cemab4y (Oct 1, 2010)

Thomas Jefferson (not a mason) said that the people have not only a right, but an obligation to challenge and overthrow any government that is oppressive or unjust. George Washington (a Mason), said "Government is like fire, a dangerous servant, and a terrible master".


----------



## Ben Rodriguez (Oct 1, 2010)

Politics should be an honor, not a career. Former presidents should go back to work like the rest of us after having the honor to serve the nation as presidents! Protesting is patriotic in my book.


----------



## Traveling Man (Oct 1, 2010)

Patriot or Traitor...

American Revolution:

Depends on your point of view. Treason is defined as acting against the king which is exactly what they did. But since they won the war for American independence we consider them as patriots. The winners decide who is a traitor and who is a patriot.


----------



## Dave in Waco (Oct 1, 2010)

Ben Rodriguez said:


> Politics should be an honor, not a career. Former presidents should go back to work like the rest of us after having the honor to serve the nation as presidents! Protesting is patriotic in my book.



A lot of times they are called back into services as special envoys or ambassadors by the current President.  And many past Presidents did.  It's only within the last 60 years they started going on book and lecture tours.  Thurman was the one who started the long line of Presidents writing books afterward.  Of course, Thurman did it because when he left office he had no pension and wasn't a rich man to begin with.  So he had no other income when he went back to private life and he refused to be on a corporate payroll just for being a former President.  A couple other quick facts: first that Thurman was our 33rd President and also a 33 degree Mason.  Second, Thurman had the lowest approval rating when leaving office at 22%, but he is always ranked no less then 9th among our greatest Presidents and as high as 5th.  He was also the last President to be eligible to run for a 3rd term, which like George Washington, he refused.


----------



## cemab4y (Oct 1, 2010)

When Harry Truman left the Presidency, he had only his Army pension of about $150 per month. The congress decided to award pensions to ex-presidents beginning with Dwight Eisenhower. HST completed the final term of Franklin D. Roosevelt, which ended in 1949. HST ran for president only once, in 1948.


----------

