# Public knowledge



## widows son (Oct 30, 2012)

In Britain, any masons who are in government or law enforcement have to make it known that are masons. Do you believe this should also be the case in North America?


----------



## Brent Heilman (Oct 30, 2012)

No I don't like that idea. It gives too much fodder for the conspiracy theorists and if a person is in a position like a Senator or Representative being a Mason doesn't necessarily make them qualified for that position. Take the Presidential race, for instance, if Obama was a Mason I still would not vote for him. I don't adhere to his beliefs politically.


----------



## widows son (Oct 30, 2012)

Ya I agree also, but I think it's been done because some brothers there were using it as means to "scratch each others backs" so to say.


----------



## CajunTinMan (Oct 30, 2012)

Well back scratching goes on with every connection. They just believe that we are trying to take over the world. We can't get together on what to have at our next meal much less plan world domination.


----------



## widows son (Oct 30, 2012)

Ya and how we're taking over but membership is on decline and lodges have little to no money. Great foundation for a new world order


----------



## Brent Heilman (Oct 31, 2012)

Well, you know we have been at this stuff for centuries. I guess we are just trying to make sure the masses are brainwashed before we finally make our move and put the new world order in place. At least that is how it might appear if politicians were made to disclose their membership in the fraternity.


----------



## widows son (Oct 31, 2012)

Lol ya and don't forget in our meetings we set the price of oil, determine food shortage, and every tv show and movie must have our symbolism in it.


----------



## daddyrich (Oct 31, 2012)

Kudos, CajunTinMan....great answer.


----------



## Traveling Man (Oct 31, 2012)

We have this strange implied right called "freedom of association" guaranteed by our First Amendment. How lucky for us... But that hasn't stopped the excoriation of some candidates for Judges seats and Congress. Maybe it's a case of, if you don't use your constitutional rights we will surely lose them.


----------



## jwhoff (Oct 31, 2012)

widows son said:


> Lol ya and don't forget in our meetings we set the price of oil, determine food shortage, and every tv show and movie must have our symbolism in it.



Agreed ... but this is a given.  The next meal is hard to determine.


----------



## widows son (Oct 31, 2012)

Not of you check out the numerous Refreshment Recipe threads


----------



## CajunTinMan (Oct 31, 2012)

Yeah man.  I am wanting to put some in my monthly news letter.


----------



## widows son (Oct 31, 2012)

Ive been slackin Cajun, tomorrow I'll have something for you.


----------



## MarkR (Nov 1, 2012)

widows son said:


> In Britain, any masons who are in government or law enforcement have to make it known that are masons. Do you believe this should also be the case in North America?


It's my understanding that Great Britain dropped this requirement in reaction to a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights on a similar issue in Italy.  When I was in Glasgow Scotland a couple of years ago, I talked to a Strathclyde Police Sergeant about this issue.  After he told me that it was no longer a big deal, as we parted he gave me a Masonic grip.


----------



## widows son (Nov 1, 2012)

Cool. Wasn't aware they got rid of it


----------



## HKTidwell (Nov 2, 2012)

In the US it is not uncommon to find buried within a campaign website or information a list of organizations a person is a member.  And if you look within that list if a person is a Mason you can find it listed.  We tend to be very open in sharing that we are a member of our great fraternity.  

Having said that I think that if listed with other organizations it is perfectly fine.  If used for the sole purpose of saying they are a Mason I do not like now agree with it, and is against GLoTX law.  If there is a requirement forcing a person to reveal their membership in a organization I have an issue with that also.  But I tend to err on the side of personal freedom instead of being told to or not to.


----------



## widows son (Nov 2, 2012)

I agree I don't think you should have to state what organization you choose to affiliate with.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Nov 2, 2012)

widows son said:


> In Britain, any masons who are in government or law enforcement have to make it known that are masons. Do you believe this should also be the case in North America?



Now THAT is a very powerful anti-masonic policy. Do members of Rotary, International, have to disclose their membership.


----------



## Brent Heilman (Nov 2, 2012)

Our Sheriff who is running for reelection is a member of my Lodge. In the last campaign mailer sent out under organizations he is affiliated with is the Lodge, Scottish Rite, and Shrine. Also, along with a bunch of law enforcement groups.


----------



## THurse (Nov 3, 2012)

What is the point of being a Member, of a Sacred Secret Fraternity, if you have to explain yourself, in any kind of employment


----------



## Belcher (Dec 26, 2012)

This might be a little off topic but what is your take on the up coming gun ban set in to motion by the Obama administration. In relation to the 2nd amendment. Will it have any effect on the reduction in the crime rate. ( gun bans effect law abiding citizens not criminals) what are your thoughts.


----------



## widows son (Dec 26, 2012)

It's stupid. It's only bandaid over the symptom, and not addressing the cause. It's just another excuse to strip one from their civil liberties. I'm canadian, but if I was an American id do everything in my power to prevent that from happening. Owning guns is the last line of defense a person has for protection. The original reason was for the protection against foreigners and from ones own government. If Americans lose the right to own a gun, God help us all.


----------



## crono782 (Dec 26, 2012)

> This might be a little off topic but what is your take on the up coming gun ban set in to motion by the Obama administration. In relation to the 2nd amendment. Will it have any effect on the reduction in the crime rate. ( gun bans effect law abiding citizens not criminals) what are your thoughts.



Statistics show that 3 US cities with the strictest gun control laws also have the highest murder rates (Chicago, DC, and NYC) and most officers killed by gunfire. Coincidence?

I would posit that stricter gun control keeps guns out of casual owners' hands. Criminals will certainly find a way to obtain guns by other means (and is almost a given that organized crime will seek out black market guns that cannot be traced to the owner anyway). Think of this in much the same analogy as door locks only keep honest people honest; locks are inherintly subject to fault and thus picking. A criminal WILL enter if they are determined enough.

EDIT: I would also posit that to "ban" guns is to repeal the 2nd amendment which seriously is very unlikely to happen in this country. I would suggest more likely is unfairly high cost on permits to carry or even requiring a permit to own, per round ammunition tax, etc effectively making it financially not feasable for the average joe to own a gun without losing face by directly attacking the 2nd amendment.


----------



## widows son (Dec 26, 2012)

Brutal


----------



## Belcher (Dec 26, 2012)

Gun don't kill poeple, stupid people kill people. Why don't thay ban cars drunk drivers use them every day to kill thousand. How about pencils for misspellings words. Why not ban MC Donald's for making America fat. Those are are careless choices that someone made. Why not blame the Dr.that give them the the happy pills or the judge that let him off with a slap on the wrist. Tired of the lawmakers punishing the hard working law abiding citizens. We need to stand-up and take back the America our for fathers fought and died for. Protect the constitution and bill of rights. This country was built on morals and pride and it seam we lost that somewhere along the way........


----------



## widows son (Dec 27, 2012)

Those people who taste power, tend become greedy with it.


----------



## THurse (Dec 27, 2012)

Life should be plain and simple and to be able to handle both the good and bad times.


----------



## CTx Mason (Dec 27, 2012)

If we allow these people to use their rights to vote our rights away, eventually no one will have any rights. 

History has shown us time and again what happens to a disarmed people. Not only would we be completely vulnerable to the criminal elements in society, we would also be completely under the boot of a tyrannical government.  
A gun ban will be ineffective in preventing crime, and it would destabilize those areas that are most restrictive. 

I will have to be killed before I give up my only means of defense.


----------



## CajunTinMan (Dec 27, 2012)

I read today That Obama is considering a petition to label the Westboro church as a hate group and to take away their tax exempt status.  I can't express enough how much I hate what these people stand for, how much I hate the message they're trying to send.  They are undoubtedly the worst kind of hate group.  I think most Christians would agree with this.  I wish these people would find the truth in their hearts and stop doing these horrendous acts in the name of God.  I don't support their actions in anyway and would be happy to stand between them and a funeral of one of our soldiers.  But calling on the government to take away their rights of free speech because it's unpopular is very dangerous ground.  If we start taking away peoples rights to free speech because we don't like the message where does it stop?  Where do we draw the line?  Who will decide what churches or individuals should be able to speak out against?  We already have the government considering denying constitutional rights to large segments of our population based on the actions of a few.  The government has taken away the right to a trial and decided that it can hold American citizens indefinitely in the name of Homeland defense.  They have already taken away our rights to protest around the White House and around other government or UN functions in the name of security.  Do we really want to ask the government to limit our rights any further?


----------



## THurse (Dec 28, 2012)

My mentor, has taught me that as much as their are commonalities, their are differences and the changes will always occur. This is why we are a strong fraternity.Their will always be difference of opinions, changes in laws and so forth. Remember this saying from a good movie. Life is like a box of chocolates you never know what your gonna get.


----------



## THurse (Dec 28, 2012)

When I first moved to Australia, their was a massive shooting and unfortunately their were thirty one fatalities, including children. The Prime Minister, at the time enforced the gun law. Their was a disagreement of the decision, but it did not escalate to something as horrible as the incident. Their is still violence in regards to other weapons, or hand to hand. This decision could be good or bad, but their will always be changes.


----------



## Belcher (Dec 28, 2012)

Well said brother  cajun


----------



## widows son (Dec 28, 2012)

Cajun I couldn't agree more.


----------



## CTx Mason (Dec 28, 2012)

Bro. Cajun: no, we should have drawn the line when they use the excuse of security or safety or "the Greater Good" to limit our rights and power as a free people.  

The question is: what do we do about it? Wait until the next election? Ignore voter suppression and outright fraud?


----------



## widows son (Dec 28, 2012)

Westboro is a hate group period. Does your constitution say freedom for hate groups who claim they are a religion? Because that is exactly what they are. An excuse. An excuse to spread their outdated, nonsensical ideals which if we're enacted would cause so much suffering and brooding. It's a tough decision to make. But does free speech include hate? The idea of a free people represents among other things, the highest of moral standards, where does Westboro fit into this?


----------



## BryanMaloney (Dec 28, 2012)

"Hate groups" are still covered under the First Amendment in the USA so long as they do not violate the "fighting words" doctrine.


----------



## jwhoff (Dec 28, 2012)

THurse said:


> Remember this saying from a good movie. Life is like a box of chocolates you never know what your gonna get.



Cherries brother.  Cherries!  Still, I get your point.  :40:


----------



## jwhoff (Dec 28, 2012)

BryanMaloney said:


> "Hate groups" are still covered under the First Amendment in the USA so long as they do not violate the "fighting words" doctrine.




I'd like to say "Barely covered, but covered indeed."

I'd also like to say, from this corner, they are despicable!

_Me no gusto_!


----------



## CajunTinMan (Dec 28, 2012)

widows son said:


> Westboro is a hate group period. Does your constitution say freedom for hate groups who claim they are a religion? Because that is exactly what they are. An excuse. An excuse to spread their outdated, nonsensical ideals which if we're enacted would cause so much suffering and brooding. It's a tough decision to make. But does free speech include hate? The idea of a free people represents among other things, the highest of moral standards, where does Westboro fit into this?



Free speech is a tough pill to swallow. But sometimes you have to take the bad with the good. Lately bikers have been shutting them down at funerals. God bless those bikers.


----------



## jwhoff (Dec 28, 2012)

So Mote it Be!


----------



## widows son (Dec 30, 2012)

Yes indeed


----------



## Brother JC (Dec 30, 2012)

These groups can lose all those rights, but it takes crossing a certain line.

Many years ago, a similar group operated here. They were loud and numerous, especially at certain events. One year, one of them slipped up and swung a sign at a peaceful citizen. That was the end of it. Restraining orders, loss of the right to protest, gather in public spaces, or give public speeches. They had to fight hard to continue operating as a "church" within city limits.
Without the hate agenda, the congregation dissolved in a fairly short time.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Dec 30, 2012)

And that's the line, violence or active advocacy of violence. This has been established all the way back to the "Time Immemorial" of Common Law.


----------



## widows son (Dec 30, 2012)

But what's the difference between physical abuse and verbal? Verbal cam be just as damaging than physical. I also don't see how these people are doing this in the name of Jesus    I was under the impression Christianity taught love, not hate. I'm with Obama on taking away their tax exemption status, they are not a church.


----------



## CajunTinMan (Dec 30, 2012)

But if he does that then where would it stop?  What if they then decided that preaching against homosexuality is hate speech. Would they then be able to ban the bible?  It's a slippery slope.


----------



## CajunTinMan (Dec 30, 2012)

Everything has consequences.  If they got the crap beat out of them and I was the judge I would just have to say "Well you asked for it long enough you finally got what you deserve". Like my old daddy used to say "You better be ready to back those words up". But we all know that's not the way it would go.


----------



## Traveling Man (Dec 30, 2012)

widows son said:


> But what's the difference between physical abuse and verbal? Verbal cam be just as damaging than physical. I also don't see how these people are doing this in the name of Jesus    I was under the impression Christianity taught love, not hate. I'm with Obama on taking away their tax exemption status, they are not a church.



Verbal abuse only works if you let it, and there lies the difference. The whole tax exemption thing I agree with; unless a religious organization can prove the they give more in charity than they take in they should not be granted any tax exemption what-so ever. Our communities are suffering from the lack of tax base, but many churches own prime real estate that receive a 100% exemption, this is morally reprehensible! No matter what religion!


----------



## widows son (Dec 31, 2012)

You got a a good point Cajun. So what do we do then? It's obvious people dislike Westboro a lot, and there quite a bit of them that want something to be done. Protesting an innocent child's funeral, would be the line for me, and I agree that you can't just shut them down. But there's gotta be something that can be done.


----------



## jwhoff (Dec 31, 2012)

Expose them.  Let them talk and hang themselves.

It worked on "Tail-gunner Joe McCarthy" and it'll work on these zealots.

Remember the old saying:

You can fool all of the people some of the time
Some of the people all of the time
But you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

The pendulum is a beautiful instrument.


----------



## widows son (Dec 31, 2012)

Someone is going to get fed up with them and do something stupid.


----------



## CajunTinMan (Dec 31, 2012)

WS your are right about that. The problem with these types of people is they probably want that to happen so they can be mortared.  They represent the sickness of the world.


----------

