# Persecution of Christians--real persecution.



## BryanMaloney (Aug 15, 2013)

Someone I attended college with posted the following on her Facebook page today:

"I just got off the phone with my husband. Several hours ago the Muslim Brotherhood and pro-Morsi supporters swarmed in and set fire to several Christian-owned shops and restaurants that are in the building just below my family's apartment, and nearby buildings as well. The army came in and put out the fires and dispersed the "protesters". My family is inside and safe (thank you Lord!). The whole city is hiding out in their homes because of these people. During their recent "protests" they had marked many businesses and homes with crosses with a big 'X' through them. They also would draw their finger across their throats while marching through the Christian neighborhoods. There are no sit-ins or protest camps there in Assiut. They have not been provoked by the army. Clearly this was planned before the events of today in Cairo. They are targeting Christians in my family's city. Please pray for my family and the others there that need safety and peace. Please pray that I can get them out of there as soon as possible. No I don't have updates on how that's going. thanks for keeping them in your prayers."

Kathy and her family split their time between the USA and Egypt. You probably won't hear much about this aspect of the Egyptian violence, not because the victims are Christian, but because the victims are Coptic Christians. There are those in the USA who would dismiss the Copts as not being "proper" Christians. Indeed, I Copts and other types of Orthodox Christians are called "unreached" by groups such as the Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board. The Copts' history as a Church goes back to communities set up by the Apostles and the 70 in the Roman province of "Aegyptus", which is now the country of Egypt. Its founding members included the Theophilus mentioned in the New Testament. I am not, myself, a Copt, but however their practices might differ from my own or from yours if you are a Christian, they are still my brothers and sisters in Christ, and they are suffering persecution right now, persecution far beyond any mere inconvenience that we in the USA might have to undergo for our faith. But we will not hear much at all, if anything, about what is happening today to the Copts. It is not for a want of trying among Christian news outlets. CBN and others do cover their story, but it does not seem to get beyond that. Instead, we regale each other with tales of how we, in the USA, are somehow "persecuted", "restricted", or "warred upon". I have never had my workplace set ablaze. Nobody has marked my home for later violence.

I have no call for action. I just read what was posted and had things put into very sharp perspective for me.

PS: The Egyptians who drove the Muslim Brotherhood mob out were also Muslims--this is not an attack on Islam.


----------



## jvarnell (Aug 15, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> Someone I attended college with posted the following on her Facebook page today:
> 
> "I just got off the phone with my husband. Several hours ago the Muslim Brotherhood and pro-Morsi supporters swarmed in and set fire to several Christian-owned shops and restaurants that are in the building just below my family's apartment, and nearby buildings as well. The army came in and put out the fires and dispersed the "protesters". My family is inside and safe (thank you Lord!). The whole city is hiding out in their homes because of these people. During their recent "protests" they had marked many businesses and homes with crosses with a big 'X' through them. They also would draw their finger across their throats while marching through the Christian neighborhoods. There are no sit-ins or protest camps there in Assiut. They have not been provoked by the army. Clearly this was planned before the events of today in Cairo. They are targeting Christians in my family's city. Please pray for my family and the others there that need safety and peace. Please pray that I can get them out of there as soon as possible. No I don't have updates on how that's going. thanks for keeping them in your prayers."
> 
> ...



Because of the freedoms we have here in the USA we see this as a problem.  I see it as a problem of separation of the government and a government religion.  As long as single religion that dominates a government with no limits is around this will happen.  I will pray for your friends safety.  The media in my opinion by not reporting things like this have blood on there hands.  I have seen this coverage on Fox and CBN only.  MSNBC and ABC has stated in the past that they do not report stories that people are not interested in and any story that pits one religion against another is inflammatory and should not be reported.


----------



## widows son (Aug 15, 2013)

That's horrible. To think this goes on in modern society still. Would the freedom the Egyptian people desire include freedom of religion? If so they are doing a horrible job at supporting that freedom.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 15, 2013)

widows son said:


> That's horrible. To think this goes on in modern society still. Would the freedom the Egyptian people desire include freedom of religion? If so they are doing a horrible job at supporting that freedom.



Actually, the current Egyptian regime--the coup that arrested Morsi--is protecting the Christians. What strikes me about the whole thing is how Christians in the USA are so eager to scream "We are being persecuted!" when they have no experience, at all, with persecution. In Egypt and elsewhere, Christians still undergo trials that we Christians in the USA have never had to face (except, perhaps, for those who were in small minority Christian groups--and they suffered it at the hands of other Christians). Nevertheless, we tell ourselves that we are the ones persecuted and ignore the Copts and others around the world.


----------



## JJones (Aug 15, 2013)

What a mess...

I guess I don't follow the news very closely, why is there so much unrest in Egypt once again?  I thought they had just stabilized themselves.


----------



## Brennan (Aug 15, 2013)

A new president was elected and he is a member of the Muslim brotherhood. The military later arrested him and pretty much started a coup. The Muslim brotherhood are the ones protesting, and they have a history of Violence. They were apparently have some link with Hamas.


Freemason Connect HD


----------



## otherstar (Aug 15, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> Actually, the current Egyptian regime--the coup that arrested Morsi--is protecting the Christians. What strikes me about the whole thing is how Christians in the USA are so eager to scream "We are being persecuted!" when they have no experience, at all, with persecution. In Egypt and elsewhere, Christians still undergo trials that we Christians in the USA have never had to face (except, perhaps, for those who were in small minority Christian groups--and they suffered it at the hands of other Christians). Nevertheless, we tell ourselves that we are the ones persecuted and ignore the Copts and others around the world.



Not to mention the real persecution, and even martyrdom, that occurs in other parts of Africa and other parts of the world.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 15, 2013)

This is the result of merging church and state.  The military would not fire on civilians to keep a dictator in power but once a government was voted in that merged church and state the military is now firing on civilians.  Plus as in this case the military is failing to intervene when civilians of one religion use violence against civilians of another religion.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 15, 2013)

If anything the military in Egypt is the most powerful group OPPOSING a merger of "church & state", since it is the government that the military overthrew that was theocratic. So, you have theocratic civilians being fired upon by secular military--so tell me again how Egypt's military is firing on civilians because Egypt's military is dominated by a merger of "church & state"?


----------



## jvarnell (Aug 15, 2013)

Brennan said:


> A new president was elected and he is a member of the Muslim brotherhood. The military later arrested him and pretty much started a coup. The Muslim brotherhood are the ones protesting, and they have a history of Violence. They were apparently have some link with Hamas.
> Freemason Connect HD


This is exactly why a true democracy doesn't work.  You have to have a human to look at the big picture and weigh everything.  This is because people give them self's what they want without regard to what they need.  They wanted Morice out  because they thought it was he that was rejecting liberty, enabled by propaganda of the Muslim Brotherhood.  But it was the Muslim Bro. forcing Morice to do some things they wanted.  Morice was a blance between the east and west.  He was neather good or bad but he was both.  The USA administration got what they wanted by saying they were staying out of it.  When you stand for nothing you don't stand long.


----------



## jvarnell (Aug 15, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> If anything the military in Egypt is the most powerful group OPPOSING a merger of "church & state", since it is the government that the military overthrew that was theocratic. So, you have theocratic civilians being fired upon by secular military--so tell me again how Egypt's military is firing on civilians because Egypt's military is dominated by a merger of "church & state"?



You said it right "IF" they were just throwing out the top dog without looking at how he will be replaced.  When people are irrational as they are in Egypt right now things like this happen.  If a Supper power would step in and help the write a constitution like we have here and follow it they would be in a better place.  But people like Ruth Vader Gensgurge tell them that the US constitutionis bad so they won't emulate it.


 The current US administration do understand unintended consequences.


----------



## jvarnell (Aug 15, 2013)

Sorry everybody in the pervious posts I said Moric and mint Mubaric.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 16, 2013)

jvarnell said:


> You said it right "IF" they were just throwing out the top dog without looking at how he will be replaced.  When people are irrational as they are in Egypt right now things like this happen.  If a Supper power would step in and help the write a constitution like we have here and follow it they would be in a better place.




That attitude is what got us the present-day Middle East--meddling by "super powers". First France and the UK, then the USSR and the USA. Religious extremism became the only outlet for people who had political grievances.

Now, please specifically quote wherein Justice Ginsburg stated that the US Constitution is bad.

I find it fascinating that the issue of the true persecution of Christians occurring in the present day in Egypt vs. the whining about play-pretend "persecution" of Christians in the USA has been very conveniently ignored.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 16, 2013)

jvarnell said:


> This is exactly why a true democracy doesn't work.




This is utterly irrelevant to Egypt. Egypt at no time even tried a "true democracy". What has your political rant to do with the contrast between true persecution of Christians, as is happening in Egypt vs. the little nothings that are whined about as "persecution" in the USA?


----------



## jvarnell (Aug 16, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> This is utterly irrelevant to Egypt. Egypt at no time even tried a "true democracy". What has your political rant to do with the contrast between true persecution of Christians, as is happening in Egypt vs. the little nothings that are whined about as "persecution" in the USA?


 Well besides it not being a rant the way the founding fathers founded the US based on masonry I will answer that.  When Moric was elected it was touted as a Democracy .  The US was started as a democratic republic and had a constitution that reflected that.  Moric then was told by Ginsburg in a speech to NOT look at the constitution of the US because it is NOT a true democracy.  The other elected official's started writing that constitution and not heading Ginsburg.  When Moric saw the constitution he tried to disband it.  That is just one of the reason the Army did what they did.  The words Democratic Republic is what give the checks and balances to democracy.  Read the federalist papers and you will see this.

The Army is the only secular (meaning with no religious preference but not without God) in the country at this time.

The reason most don't hear of it is they watch NBC, ABC and CBS for news.  If you would have been watching Fox they have had news about the percussions of Christians and Jews in Egypt from the time Moric was elected.  But since people think Fox is evil because they are conservative the people will not know what is going on.

I don't rant I try to put on paper/e-paper what the problem is and why.  Then I try to say how it was taken care of in the US constitution and how the Masonic principle helped form that. We as Masons should be aware of how much even though we don't talk politics in the lodge our influence of the morals of politics have and should be.  It is only called a rant when some one else doesn't like the message and then tries to shutdown that message.  Thank you Bro. Maloney for helping me to know how to explain my thoughts.


----------



## jvarnell (Aug 16, 2013)

On Ginsburg please look at this.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...yptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model/

Oh that was on Fox also so that is why you did not see it.


----------



## jvarnell (Aug 16, 2013)

Also this online and cable/satilite Tv station http://www.theblaze.com/tv/


----------



## Aeelorty (Aug 16, 2013)

Elected governments need a certain level or respect for the system to work properly. The problem with revolutions is that they ok the use of violence and that is a hard to for people to let the use of violence go when they think the government isn't doing what it should. Some people fought for a religious state and are still willing to fight for it. Fox isn't the only station to cover the issue of violence against Coptics. Also I don't understand the Ginsburg thing, she suggested the using the south african constitution as a model, which focuses on universal rights for all types of people and healing the fractions between groups in the population. I would hope that in two centuries humanity might be able to produce a work that surpasses works from the past, otherwise we would be going in the wrong direction.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 16, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> I find it fascinating that the issue of the true persecution of Christians occurring in the present day in Egypt vs. the whining about play-pretend "persecution" of Christians in the USA has been very conveniently ignored.



Crusades bad.  Doesn't matter which religion is the one currently doing the crusade.  Persecuting anyone using religion as a basis is terrible.

Should the US pull foreign aid over it?  I'm glad I don't have any control over such issues.  I'd screw it up worse than any administration I've ever lived under.


----------



## Frater Cliff Porter (Aug 16, 2013)

Yes the situation with the Coptics is grave...any situation wherein humans are persecuted because of their philosophical, religious or political opinions is horrible.  I will meditate/pray for them.  I feel blessed to be in in the U.S. wherein even our prejudices seem paled by comparison.


----------



## jcortez78 (Aug 17, 2013)

I would like to say that being a mason is something we did and we are few and far between you KNOCK on that door you were from free will have hart like you said be a leader no a follower your a master lodge 90



Freemason Connect HD


----------



## jcortez78 (Aug 17, 2013)

Temples are there to make masons. What have you done for your temple to bring in brothers ..


Freemason Connect HD


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 17, 2013)

jvarnell said:


> Well besides it not being a rant the way the founding fathers founded the US based on masonry I will answer that.  When Moric was elected it was touted as a Democracy.


 

And? People "tout" margarine as butter and "tout" bisons as buffalo. The USA has been "touted" as a democracy since the beginning of the 20th century, if not earlier. The United Kingdom is "touted" as a democracy. The People's Republic of China is "touted" as both being democratic and a republic. Just ask them. Does that make it a democratic republic.

Who is "Moric"?



> The words Democratic Republic is what give the checks and balances to democracy.



No, the institutions of constitutional limits to the power of government give checks and balances. You could use the words "Igglebiggle Fabookiepoo" to get the exact same practical effect as hurling about "Democratic Republic" like some kind of magic spell.[/QUOTE]



> The reason most don't hear of it is they watch NBC, ABC and CBS for news.  If you would have been watching Fox they have had news about the percussions of Christians and Jews in Egypt from the time Moric was elected.  But since people think Fox is evil because they are conservative the people will not know what is going on.



And that is also the reason that American Christians sit on our well-padded butts and whine about how WE are "persecuted" when we have to put up with nothing approaching the Copts' ordeal? Oh, and NPR is also reporting on this matter and doing so sympathetically to the Egyptian Christians--so I guess that means you now consider NPR to be "conservative".

So, then, what about American Christians whining about being "persecuted" in the face of what is happening elsewhere? What does that say about those of us who are American Christians and indulge in this whining?


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 17, 2013)

dfreybur said:


> Crusades bad.  Doesn't matter which religion is the one currently doing the crusade.  Persecuting anyone using religion as a basis is terrible.



Agreed. Does that mean we are "persecuted" in the USA with the little nothings we have to put up with?


----------



## Brother JC (Aug 17, 2013)

Not getting your own way is not equal to persecution. From what I've seen, the "whiners" are generally intolerant, small-minded people who believe their way is the only way and would prefer to force-feed all of into believing the same thing.

My prayers go out to the Copts of Egypt. My prayers go out to all peoples who are forbidden the right to worship as they please, especially if they suffer violence in the attempt.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 17, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> Does that mean we are "persecuted" in the USA with the little nothings we have to put up with?



It does not.  Actual persecution as is happening in Egypt as well as the riots against Muslims in a Buddhist majority country several months ago and other parallel examples across history is to be opposed.  It's not that it's Christians in specific who are being persecuted it's that anyone is anywhere.

I wonder what influence I can have and if any influence I wield might make things worse in Egypt.  Signing petitions to be sent to Congress here hasn't helped in Darfur other than raising awareness and expanding the efforts to other ethnic violence in the world.  As I learned in the former Yugoslavia the word "ethnic" is so broad as to include religious membership and is thus nearly meaningless.  The violence against Copts in Egypt is ethnic violence.

The problem of the Egyptian military - Their wages are literally paid by the US.  Some of them know this some do not.  In the past the money on the surface has been to hold peace with Israel.  Should it not be paid to prevent ethnic violence of any sort?  Paying the bills puts US Congress in their chain of command.  Congress has veto power over any of their activity to the extent that Congress hold veto power over their paychecks.  Is it time to flex that particular muscle?  What I know is if I were in charge I would screw it up very badly.


----------



## widows son (Aug 17, 2013)

"Not getting your own way is not equal to persecution. From what I've seen, the "whiners" are generally intolerant, small-minded people who believe their way is the only way and would prefer to force-feed all of into believing the same thing."

• I agree with this. There would seem to be a majority of Christian sects that condemn other groups religious or non religious which ties into they're "whining". You shouldn't expect tolerance, when you yourself are intolerant.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 19, 2013)

widows son said:


> You shouldn't expect tolerance, when you yourself are intolerant.



I suggest "symmetrical tolerance" as a policy.  Start out tolerating.  When presented intolerance by intolerant of that.

Tolerance is not a long list if stuff.  Not acceptance, not approval, not agreement and so on.  Tolerance is mutual peace and respect.  It tends to be a stretch to learn how to be at peace with what we do not accept (Serenity Prayer) and to respect what we do not agree with or approve of.  Tolerance is yet another mind expanding event of the "We make good men better" sort.


----------



## Brother JC (Aug 19, 2013)

Tolerance is one of the great lessons found in Freemasonry. While I have always considered myself a tolerant person, I discovered I could apply it to my daily life far more often, and that it improved both my demeanor, and my outlook.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Aug 20, 2013)

Brennan said:


> A new president was elected and he is a member of the Muslim brotherhood. The military later arrested him and pretty much started a coup. The Muslim brotherhood are the ones protesting, and they have a history of Violence. They were apparently have some link with Hamas.


You are leaving out the part where the Mursi camp unilaterally rewrote the constitution, giving unprecedented powers to their newly elected president.

Most Egyptians were, to say the least, alarmed at this turn of events and would have tossed these extremists out on their asses had they been given the opportunity in a fair and open election.  Of course, such a thing was never going to happen, so the military has stepped into a bad situation and is trying to to reboot the whole process. I say good luck with that. 

Egypt is headed for civil war. Same Middle East story, different day. Radical Islam wants a theocracy where "God's Law" reigns supreme, other religious minorities (including Christians) want just about anything _but _that, and the notion that a secular system of law and government  would be a better idea dies in a hail of bullets, fire-bombs, and ignorance. Think about that the next time someone argues that "The Ten Commandments" belong on court house walls.


----------



## widows son (Aug 21, 2013)

IMO, The problem lies in the inability to balance God's law(s) with Mans law(s). Both are important to our daily lives, and both can be in harmony with each other. We just don't allow it to happen.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 21, 2013)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> You are leaving out the part where the Mursi camp unilaterally rewrote the constitution, giving unprecedented powers to their newly elected president.
> 
> Most Egyptians were, to say the least, alarmed at this turn of events and would have tossed these extremists out on their asses had they been given the opportunity in a fair and open election.  Of course, such a thing was never going to happen, so the military has stepped into a bad situation and is trying to to reboot the whole process. I say good luck with that.
> 
> Egypt is headed for civil war. Same Middle East story, different day. Radical Islam was a theocracy where "God's Law" reigns supreme, other religious minorities (including Christians) want just about anything _but _that, and the notion that a secular system of law and government  would be a better idea dies in a hail of bullets, fire-bombs, and ignorance. Think about that the next time someone argues that "The Ten Commandments" belong on court house walls.




It's amazing how much the world still suffers from the imperial ambitions of the UK and France.


----------



## jvarnell (Aug 21, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> It's amazing how much the world still suffers from the imperial ambitions of the UK and France.



And Roman, Greece, Purshian, Automan and All the Islamic empires.   We should not be so selective of which empires we pick to put blame on.  There should be no blame on this but how do we work through the problems to fix the future.  As long as some one or group of people can blame there problems on anyone but there self's this will happen.  No one made anyone do something they did not want to do.  Useful idiots will always follow someone and do the bidding  of that person or group.  Please read your Quran and see the Muslim Brotherhood is doing what they are told to do in 5 passages.  I pray for the Christians and Jews to be safe.  I also say the Christians and Jews should defend them self's. 

All religions have words like the ten commandments that say the same thing as the ten commandments so I think we could put the Buddhist or what ever version in the court house and it will work. being secular is only having the state not make a state religion not a freedom from religion. As Masons we are secular so we can better work together.  It means that all religions have one thing in common the we believe that there is a GAOTU.  In the court house the art or text on the wall are there to show history and ideals.  Just because it is a Christian quote and not the one you want doesn't mean it is bad to be there.  Is it what the ten commandments say that makes someone mad about it because they violated them or is it the morals that they represent.

Secular = freedom of religion not from religion


----------



## jvarnell (Aug 21, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> And? People "tout" margarine as butter and "tout" bisons as buffalo. The USA has been "touted" as a democracy since the beginning of the 20th century, if not earlier. The United Kingdom is "touted" as a democracy. The People's Republic of China is "touted" as both being democratic and a republic. Just ask them. Does that make it a democratic republic.
> 
> Who is "Moric"?
> 
> ...



I disagree with all you have to say on the subject of a democratic republic because if you look at the definition of Republic and Democracy separate before combining them you will see what I am saying.  The constitution defines how the division happens not what it is.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Aug 22, 2013)

widows son said:


> IMO, The problem lies in the inability to balance God's law(s) with Mans law(s). Both are important to our daily lives, and both can be in harmony with each other. We just don't allow it to happen.


With respect, "God's law" has no place in secular society. None. Your "God's law" is not mine, and neither of ours is the same as our neighbors'. As Masons, we are charged to keep within the bounds provided by our own chosen VoSL. What's more, we are charged to seek and to celebrate where our own chosen "Divine laws" overlap. It is in those areas that "right" or "moral" transcends any particular canon, _and it is that truth_ that the framers of our Constitution understood and so brilliantly codified. For the first time, _ever_, a government's authority was established as flowing from something other than some Divine authority. That was, to understate it, huge. Let us never forget that, and let us pray that the people in Egypt (and everywhere such light has yet to reach) find their way to such understanding.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 22, 2013)

jvarnell said:


> I disagree with all you have to say on the subject of a democratic republic because if you look at the definition of Republic and Democracy separate before combining them you will see what I am saying.  The constitution defines how the division happens not what it is.




We can call the USA by whatever magical incantation you like, it will not change what its government actually is. How many legs does a mule have if you call the tail a leg? Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't turn it into a leg. The USA is not a democratic republic merely because we call it a democratic republic. People call it a democratic republic because, as far as they can tell, it appears to be a democratic republic. However, more people currently call the USA a "democracy", flatly and without limit. If calling something by a specific name creates reality, the fact that the majority of people no longer use "republic" would mean that the USA would no longer be a republic.

Words only determine reality in childrens' games and magical incantations. Otherwise, the best they can do is describe.

You say that the USA is a democratic republic merely because it is "touted" or called one. If enough people stop calling it a republic, does that mean it is no longer a republic, no matter how it actually works? If enough people call a mule's tail a leg, does the mule start walking on it?


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 22, 2013)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> With respect, "God's law" has no place in secular society. None.



God's law tells me that I am to forgive and forebear, not to seek out every petty advantage and legal loophole. Since the laws of our "secular society" do not tell us to forgive, do not tell us to forebear, and do not make it illegal to seek out loopholes and petty advantages in and of themselves, can we conclude, then, that when we operate in secular society, we are required to be vindictive and seek out loopholes? After all, if God's law has no place in secular society, then forgiveness and playing a straight game have no place in secular society, since it is God's law that enjoins such things, not secular law. If we must exclude God's law, then we must also exclude what God's law requires of us on every personal level. Otherwise, we might accidentally pollute secular society with God's law, which has no place for God's law.

God's law is not the same as theocracy. Secular law, by and large, has very little inherent moral content. It might be legal to find loopholes, but it could also be immoral. Unfortunately, an outlook determined exclusively by secular law sees no problem in this--if it's legal, it's acceptable.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 22, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> We can call the USA by whatever magical incantation you like ...



Like a spoof of the opening scene of MacBeth!  A lot of people would flip out.  Let loose the staff of Mystery Science Threater 3000 on the scene and hilarity would ensue.  (After I talk them into spoofing 2001 A Space Odyssey, though, please!).


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Aug 22, 2013)

jvarnell said:


> All religions have words like the ten commandments that say the same thing as the ten commandments...


No. They don't. 

On the other hand, virtually every one that offers any "rules" at all, offers something that is eerily similar to what you probably call "The Golden Rule". 
Just a few... http://www.unification.net/ws/theme015.htm


> ...so I think we could put the Buddhist or what ever version in the court house and it will work.


No. It won't. Saying to those of your fellow citizens "We're going to enshrine the passage out of my book, because more of us read my book, and besides, it means the same thing," is disrespectful in the extreme to those who revere some other book. Wars are fought over such things. People are dying every day, right now, over such things. The _only _way to prevent such conflict is to have enough respect for everyone's differing beliefs to avoid such conflicts while striving to find common ground. That should sound familiar.



> being secular is only having the state not make a state religion not a freedom from religion. As Masons we are secular so we can better work together.  It means that all religions have one thing in common the we believe that there is a GAOTU.  In the court house the art or text on the wall are there to show history and ideals.  Just because it is a Christian quote and not the one you want doesn't mean it is bad to be there.  Is it what the ten commandments say that makes someone mad about it because they violated them or is it the morals that they represent.
> 
> Secular = freedom of religion not from religion



Again, incorrect. Secular means, quite literally "not pertaining to or connected with religion". And again, your confusion is as understandable as it is common. Certain political and social quarters want very much for you to believe "freedom of religion - not freedom from religion" lie, so the repeat it wherever they can. The fact is that the framers of our Constitution very carefully and pointedly, (and with no small amount of debate, I might add),  excluded the citation of any religious text or precept as the authority from which government and law would be handed down. The text of that document makes it quite clear, a study of the other works of these men makes it clearer still; they were religious men who understood that the influence of any religion on the government they were designing was a threat to all the citizens who embraced any other religion. Indeed, it was the notion that a particular Christian sect might hold sway that galvanized the movement to ratify our very secular Constitution. They very clearly wanted a separation "between church and state" and yes, at least one of them has used those very words. 

So yes, for our government to enshrine _any_ sectarian dogma is "bad". That government was created to protect the right of every single one of it's citizens to embrace such dogma as he or she sees fit. It most certainly was not created to do so itself.


----------



## widows son (Aug 22, 2013)

"With respect, "God's law" has no place in secular society. None. Your "God's law" is not mine, and neither of ours is the same as our neighbors'. "

• forgive me for implying that. I should have phased that a bit better.  The basic laws of human rights are founded on the acknowledgement of the inheritance Mankind has received as rulers of the Earth given to him by his creator, and with this comes unalienable rights. "Rights endowed by the creator to man, which cannot be removed or  violated etc." Call it Gods Law, YHWH Law, Allahs Law, or any other deity you like. These laws are supposed to help us conduct ourselves when creating our own laws. This does not mean that a theocracy should be put in place, we have done good in ruling ourselves, but with out the simple, easy guide that is Gods Law, we can see how our world can be a worse place to live. 

"As Masons, we are charged to keep within the bounds provided by our own chosen VoSL. What's more, we are charged to seek and to celebrate where our own chosen "Divine laws" overlap."

• very true but our own divine laws stem from the  unalienable rights endowed by the creator. Our own created laws are legitimized by our special rights given to us by the creator. It is these laws that give us our freedom and in turn allow us to create laws to govern our material life. 

" It is in those areas that "right" or "moral" transcends any particular canon, and it is that truth that the framers of our Constitution understood and so brilliantly codified. For the first time, ever, a government's authority was established as flowing from something other than some Divine authority. That was, to understate it, huge."

• I'm not American nor an expert on the philosophy behind the American ideal, however I believe that the framers had the intention of having the principles of ones faith act as a moral guide rather than having their established faith as the ruling authority.  The principles of the Church or faith effect the decisions of the state or people, rather than the Church or faith existing as the state and making decisions for the people. Again I believe it stems from our endowed rights given by the Deity. 

"let us pray that the people in Egypt (and everywhere such light has yet to reach) find their way to such understanding."

• Amen to that.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Aug 22, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> God's law tells me that I am to forgive and forebear, not to seek out every petty advantage and legal loophole.


Your mistake is assuming that only your "God's law" is the source of such ethical guidelines. My atheist friends, whom I count as among the most ethical people I know, would strenuously disagree. That "golden rule" citation above should make it pretty clear that "the right thing" transcends any particular sectarian canon. 

Are we "required" to seek out legal loopholes in order to be vindictive or otherwise do "the wrong thing"? Of course not, but we are allowed to try, and for that reason we have a system of justice that allows us to petition for redress, ultimately calling upon a "jury of our peers" to adjudicate. In other words, we trust that, when called upon to do so, collectively, people _will_ do the right thing.  I'll take that any day over some priest, mullah, or other religious "authority" telling me what is right and what is wrong.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Aug 22, 2013)

widows son said:


> • forgive me for implying that. I should have phased that a bit better.  The basic laws of human rights are founded on the acknowledgement of the inheritance Mankind has received as rulers of the Earth given to him by his creator, and with this comes unalienable rights. "Rights endowed by the creator to man, which cannot be removed or  violated etc."



The document notes that we were given rights, not laws. Among those rights is the right to make our own laws. And yes, I'd say it's fair to assume that they figured we'd rely on our individual "rule and guide" to aid us in drafting those laws. That is most certainly not the same thing as enacting into law this or that religious stricture. 



> • very true but our own divine laws stem from the  unalienable rights endowed by the creator. Our own created laws are legitimized by our special rights given to us by the creator. It is these laws that give us our freedom and in turn allow us to create laws to govern our material life.


No, our secular laws, or more precisely our right to draft those laws, stem from that right. Divine law is that which you or I believe was handed down from on high. Big difference, obvious cases of overlap notwithstanding.



> • I'm not American nor an expert on the philosophy behind the American ideal, however I believe that the framers had the intention of having the principles of ones faith act as a moral guide rather than having their established faith as the ruling authority.  The principles of the Church or faith effect the decisions of the state or people, rather than the Church or faith existing as the state and making decisions for the people. Again I believe it stems from our endowed rights given by the Deity.



You seem to be arguing that "If I believe that disrespectful daughters should be stoned to death, it's OK to make a law allowing, or requiring, us to do so." 
That charge, among many other conveniently overlooked statutes, is a "divine law" for a large portion of the believers in the world. In many places, it is indeed "the law of the land". Over my dead body will such a thing be allowed to happen in my country.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 22, 2013)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Your mistake is assuming that only your "God's law" is the source of such ethical guidelines. My atheist friends, whom I count as among the most ethical people I know, would strenuously disagree. That "golden rule" citation above should make it pretty clear that "the right thing" transcends any particular sectarian canon.
> 
> Are we "required" to seek out legal loopholes in order to be vindictive or otherwise do "the wrong thing"? Of course not, but we are allowed to try, and for that reason we have a system of justice that allows us to petition for redress, ultimately calling upon a "jury of our peers" to adjudicate. In other words, we trust that, when called upon to do so, collectively, people _will_ do the right thing.  I'll take that any day over some priest, mullah, or other religious "authority" telling me what is right and what is wrong.



If we are to live only by the laws of secular society and none other, and we are to exclude God's law, then those of us who believe in God are required to. If I do something because it is God's law, and I am prohibited from allowing this God's law to enter in any way, whatsoever, no matter what, to secular society, then I am prohibited from any moral act that is also not required by secular law.

It's simple logic. If it is immoral to act according to God's law, then morality consists of flouting God's law. Since you claim it is immoral to act according to God's law when acting at all within "secular society", anyone who adheres to God's law, whatever the "God" in question might be, is required to not follow that God's law when acting in secular society. An atheist, who has arrived at a set of moral rules by purely non-divine means, would be bound by those rules, but a moral theist would be bound to not adhere to his own moral code when acting in secular society, since it would be wrong, according to you, to allow "God's law" to intrude in any way, shape, or form, into secular society.


----------



## Macbooktony (Aug 23, 2013)

The "Common Sense" podcast by Dan carlin this week was all about Egypt. He used the example of a 16 year old new driver to illustrate the fact that Egypt is new to the concept of representative democracy and will need time to make mistakes and learn. If you "take away the keys" too soon they won't build any confidence. Remember, the Egyptian people have never lived under this system in their entire history. 

The argument can be made that Morsi, along with the muslim brotherhood majority, was becoming less and less popular among the voters and had a second election cycle been allowed to take place, the pendulum might have swung back in the right direction organically. That would have done wonders for the confidence of Egypt as a whole and possibly enabled them to gradually come together to effectively rule themselves. 

Now that a military coup has taken place, Morsi supporters have the ability to play the victim and justify their actions as retaliation against force perpetrated upon them rather than accepting the fact that they were voted down by the will of the people.  Please correct me if I am wrong here, but this round of slayings, burnings, and violent persecutions did not happen until after the coup.

The Egyptians (as well as other Middle East nations) have a long track record of only being able to live peacefully under military dictatorships. Why that is, I don't know. But it is true that Coptics and Muslims were not killing each other en masse during the reigns of Mubarak or Ghadaffi. 

Is all of this just an exercise in "what if?" Yes. But I believe all atrocious acts of violence are worth looking at from various angles, if only to learn enough from them to avoid a repeat in the future.  Please do not shoot the messenger here, as I am mostly paraphrasing Dan Carlin. He has another EXCELLENT podcast called Hardcore History which I cannot recommend highly enough. 

All of that said, I have strong personal opinions regarding whether its wise for America to fan these flames in foreign nations by giving them tanks and jets but that I will save for a different forum... 

The important thing to remember here, I think, is that freemasonry is one of, if not the only thing in history that has caused so many opposing sides to lay down their arms and come together in brotherly love. Brother Porter has mentioned examples of that happening in the most unexpected places recently and it's stories like that which most make me proud to be taken by the hand as a brother.


----------



## hoyxyoh (Aug 23, 2013)

how can i join?


Freemason Connect HD


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 23, 2013)

Macbooktony said:


> The Egyptians (as well as other Middle East nations) have a long track record of only being able to live peacefully under military dictatorships. Why that is, I don't know. But it is true that Coptics and Muslims were not killing each other en masse during the reigns of Mubarak or Ghadaffi.




First, there are no Copts in Libya, so Ghadaffi is irrelevant. Second, Copts are NOT KILLING MUSLIMS. It is a one-way thing going on, stop trying to invent a false moral equivalency. The Copts are the victims in this, not perpetrators. Third, Muslims WERE killing Copts under Mubarak. However, since that didn't make for "good press" at the time, it was not reported except for a few outlets, like Christianity Today. Therefore, your entire thesis is invalid, from the start.

There has never been "living peacefully" in that region since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, which, for all its flaws, was not a military dictatorship. What has existed is "lack of news coverage by USA outlets", which means, according to most Americans, there must have been no events of note.


----------



## jvarnell (Aug 23, 2013)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> No. They don't.
> 
> On the other hand, virtually every one that offers any "rules" at all, offers something that is eerily similar to what you probably call "The Golden Rule".
> Just a few... http://www.unification.net/ws/theme015.htm
> ...



Yes all religions have some moral law set forth by the God of that religion. Just name one.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Aug 23, 2013)

jvarnell said:


> Yes all religions have some moral law set forth by the God of that religion. Just name one.



Arguably, that is true. That, however, is not what you asserted when you said...


			
				jvarnell said:
			
		

> All religions have words like the ten commandments that say the same thing as the ten commandments


To suggest that all religions demand of their believers...

“_I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.__“You shall have no other gods before me._"

or...


“_Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.__ Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God."_

...is just, well..., silly. 
BTW, I am old enough to remember when one could not buy a nail or a baby bottle on Sunday in Texas. Like I said... silly.

 To suggest, as you have, that such a passage from one collection of scripture ought to be acceptable to everyone, even to those who embrace another such collection, is patently absurd, not to mention insensitive and disrespectful. When it comes to spiritual beliefs, the world is far more diverse than you understand it to be, Brother.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Aug 23, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> If we are to live only by the laws of secular society and none other, and we are to exclude God's law,


Who said such a thing? It was not me. I _have_ said that no collection of "God's law" is suitable to be applied to a society's system of law and government. If you want to follow your chosen version of such a law, you are free to do so. That's one of the nicest things about our Constitution; it enshrines, _in secular law, _your right to do so insofar as that pursuit does not infringe on the fundamental rights (you know, those unalienable ones, granted by The Creator) of others. The problem with God's law (take your pick) is that it usually contains no such "...insofar as..." qualifier.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 26, 2013)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Who said such a thing? It was not me. I _have_ said that no collection of "God's law" is suitable to be applied to a society's system of law and government. If you want to follow your chosen version of such a law, you are free to do so. That's one of the nicest things about our Constitution; it enshrines, _in secular law, _your right to do so insofar as that pursuit does not infringe on the fundamental rights (you know, those unalienable ones, granted by The Creator) of others. The problem with God's law (take your pick) is that it usually contains no such "...insofar as..." qualifier.



You specifically stated that God's law has no place in secular society. Therefore, since it has no place, then we are required to live without it in secular society. "No" does not mean "some" or "within reason". "No" means "no".


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Aug 26, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> You specifically stated that God's law has no place in secular society. Therefore, since it has no place, then we are required to live without it in secular society. "No" does not mean "some" or "within reason". "No" means "no".



Fair enough. Let me restate; "God's law" has no place as the authority for, nor statutes of, a secular system of law and government. No. That we consider the right _to govern ourselves_ a "God-given" right is not the same thing as invoking "God's law".


----------



## jvarnell (Aug 26, 2013)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Fair enough. Let me restate; "God's law" has no place as the authority for, nor statutes of, a secular system of law and government. No. That we consider the right _to govern ourselves_ a "God-given" right is not the same thing as invoking "God's law".



"God's Law" the ten commandments and other religion moral law is are not in the secular law but influence the moral part of secular law.  Secular Law defines how a civil society handles morals and are based on religion like "Thou shalt not murder" spawns the Murder/mansalter laws.  The secular laws are not a freedom from Gods law but an extension of them.  God's Law has just as much standing as secular law without the visible penalties.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Aug 26, 2013)

jvarnell said:


> Secular Law defines how a civil society handles morals...


Yes. So far, so good. 



jvarnell said:


> ...are based on religion like "Thou shalt not murder" spawns the  Murder/mansalter laws.  The secular laws are not a freedom from Gods law  but an extension of them.


Nope. The US Constitution embodies the very Masonic notion that there is a "moral code" that transcends any particular collection of "God's law". Woven through it's words is the fundamental idea that people can and should be able to agree on such things without having to cite this or that collection of scripture. 

It requires no religious faith whatsoever to understand that murder is fundamentally wrong. On the other hand, an order to keep a weekly Sabbath, or a proscription against the consumption of certain foodstuffs, or the instruction to stone to death a disrespectful daughter (all of which are examples of various collections of "God's law") have no place in secular law.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 26, 2013)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Let me restate; "God's law" has no place as the authority for, nor statutes of, a secular system of law and government.



When it's quoted maybe it should be called "Church law" or the more touchy name "Sharia".  Church law has no place in a secular state that has formalized separation of church and state.  Yet those laws do come across like keeping businesses closed on Sunday.

In a very real sense "God's law" is the laws of nature of the sort gradually puzzled out by science.  They are the laws that can't be broken because the universe does not allow them to be broken.

There is overlap - Cause and effect expanded in context leads to ethics.  Ethics narrowed to a cultural context leads to morality.  Religions must teach morality or their followers leave so they all do teach morality.  Some religions even claim to be the author of morality.  Many laws forbid acts that are immoral in any culture. More laws forbid acts that are immoral in the local culture but not elsewhere (Prohibition is the most famous example).  More laws forbid acts that are moral but risky (speed limits are an example).  Yet more laws are none of the above but leaked across the separation from church law (blue laws closing businesses on Sunday).

Many want increased power by churches.  Some of them even think they are pushing God's law.  "Speed limit C.  It's not just a good idea it's the law".


----------



## otherstar (Aug 26, 2013)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Yes. So far, so good.
> 
> 
> Nope. The US Constitution embodies the very Masonic notion that there is a "moral code" that transcends any particular collection of "God's law". Woven through it's words is the fundamental idea that people can and should be able to agree on such things without having to cite this or that collection of scripture.
> ...



The term everyone is looking for, and I haven't seen mentioned here is "natural law," which is a Medieval term used to describe those laws written by God in nature and capable of being discovered by the assistance of reason alone (and hence a law upon which all could agree). "God's law" as being used in this thread to refer to the same thing is actually an erroneous equivocation of the term "Divine Law" which is knowable only via revelation.


----------



## jvarnell (Aug 27, 2013)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Yes. So far, so good.
> 
> 
> Nope. The US Constitution embodies the very Masonic notion that there is a "moral code" that transcends any particular collection of "God's law". Woven through it's words is the fundamental idea that people can and should be able to agree on such things without having to cite this or that collection of scripture.
> ...



Bro's dfreybur and otherstar see what I have been saying.  The problem a lot of the time we get the word God mixed up with one religion or another but if we look at the Webster dictionary before 1934 you will see it is not of one certain religion or type of thing you hold dear to your hart.  I really like natural law for this discussion.  

The problem with the topic of persecution of Christians is that in the Islamic world thinks there should be only one group of laws and that the word God is not the same as Allah.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Aug 27, 2013)

jvarnell said:


> The problem with the topic of persecution of Christians is that in the Islamic world thinks there should be only one group of laws and that the word God is not the same as Allah.


<sigh...>
Well, yes... and no. Allah is the "proper noun" referring to the Islamic deity. That deity is the "God of Abraham", and he has been known by many names, but even a cursory review of the holy scriptures of all three of the Abrahamic religions clearly shows that they are all talking about the same entity. The big dispute between those three is over who gets to speak for Him, a fundamental problem with revealed religions in general. 

As for laws and persecution, saying that "the Islamic world thinks..." is as absurd as saying that "the Christian world thinks..." Such overly broad generalizations don't contribute to an honest dialog.


----------

