Freemasons

Whether you like the idea of the masons or you don't (I don't), membership should be prohibited in sensitive areas such as local and national government and the judiary. In fact if masons can secretly favour other masons in any area of public life, how can this be defensible?

So basically, Claremont, you don’t like the masons. That’s OK. Lots of people don’t like/disapprove of lots of things. It’s allowed, even on GN.

erenow.org/common/the-brotherhood-the-secret-world-of-the-freemasons/21.php

Police and Judiciary should be definitely banned from being Masons as Masonic rules require of them to protect members above anything else (like The Law).

And one should be able to ask for professional advice, in any field, including medical, which would be based on excellence and not membership of Masonry. Same for appointments in public domains and professions- the best should be chosen, and not for his or her membership to a Lodge.

Link to this article will be posted in next post.

''My masonic contact among the senior executives of the Lord Chancellor's Department told me, 'When a barrister joins the right Bar Lodge he can be certain of getting on intimate terms with scores of influential judges, big names many of them, and with large numbers of my colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department. And this is right and correct, a right and proper method for men of integrity to come to the Bench. Being a judge is an important, exacting task. Strength of character, personal probity, courage, are all qualities a good judge should have in full measure. And compassion. Where better to find out if a man has these qualities than in Lodge? Can you tell me? This is why most judges are Freemasons. Because Freemasons make the best judges.'

I asked him in whose opinion it was that the best people to be judges were Masons. He replied, 'By those whose job it is to select and recommend. By those who are judged the best people to know.'

Which, of course, was a way of saying, 'Freemasons'.

I asked him about the Lord Chancellor's position in all this, about how Lord Hailsham's not being a member of the Brotherhood affected the procedure. Surprisingly, he had not known whether Hailsham was a Mason or not. But it seemed a matter of indifference to him. 'The Lord Chancellor is in a very peculiar position,' he said. 'Hailsham is good. Absolutely brilliant, whether he's a Mason or not. I hope you don't think I'm saying that only Freemasons make good judges. Of course, the Lord Chancellor has the final say in the appointment of puisne judges, but as he should and is only right, he takes note of the recommendations of existing judges and of the Department. I am sure Hailsham doesn't care whether a man's a Mason or not.'

The fact is, Hailsham as a non-Mason does not know who among the judges he appoints are Freemasons or otherwise. By his own admission, he does not think the issue worth considering. Without knowing it he is fed recommendations of Freemasons by Freemasons. Perhaps there is no great ill in this. Perhaps Masons do make the best judges, although men like Lord Denning and the few women judges such as the Hon Mrs Justice Heilbron in the Family Division of the High Court indicate the calibre of some of the non-Masons in the law.

There is surely something more admirable in a woman or man who has proven her or his ability and reached the Bench of the High Court without having to resort to the secret ladder of Freemasonry. In this sense, it could be argued with some force that it is non-Masons who make the best judges.''

Here is a link to just one of the many articles exposing the issues with Freemasons within the Police and the Met.

www.nickdavies.net/1997/01/29/freemasons-in-the-police/

GrannyGravy13

Claremont fairy tales again.

That is not Freemasonry in the 21st century in the UK.

How rude, yet again. It certainly was very late 20th Century in the UK. Not very long ago at all. I see no reason or evidence that it has changed. Nothing has changed about the rituals and ceremonies, and oaths taken. And members are still very much recruited, to serve the needs of Masonry and business and professional links- refusal to join still has real professional and business consequences. And Police, Judiciary and senior Judges, are still members, and have to swear to put the needs of Masonry above all (therefore above the Law).

RoundTable, Lions, Rotary, are totally different. Lots of money raised, mutual support of members, but much more in the open.

I dont think there is too much secretive about Taliban they have become powerful by intimidation

As for Freemasonry in the past they did influence policy, decisions and business deals a great deal, helping brother masons was all part of their ethos.

Interrupted. Sorry for the errors.

I didn’t mention the Taliban, but is the Taliban secret society? There doesn’t appear to be anything too secret about it.

I didn’t mention the Taliban, but is the Taliban secret society? I don’t appear to be anything too secret about it gorgeous.

GrannyGravy13

Blimey, likening Freemasonry to the Taliban, really?

Just secretive societies, does not mean that they act the same, but power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Blimey, likening Freemasonry to the Taliban, really?

Mollygo

David49

There are “secretive” societies in many countries, most try to uphold some form of traditional belief or advantage. Often they are very obstructive of progress or change.

And there are countries like Afghanistan where they don’t even bother to have a secret society that is obstructive of progress and change, particularly for women

Or is the Taliban a secretive society. Is this an example of when a secretive society gets too much power. They may claim they do charitable work and I am sure they would be able to find one example where they helped someone but that does not justify the harm they have caused.

My DH was invited to join in the 1990s when he had a business but declined. I think its mainly for business owners and wealthy men. They do raise a lot of money for charity.

David49

There are “secretive” societies in many countries, most try to uphold some form of traditional belief or advantage. Often they are very obstructive of progress or change.

And there are countries like Afghanistan where they don’t even bother to have a secret society that is obstructive of progress and change, particularly for women

There are “secretive” societies in many countries, most try to uphold some form of traditional belief or advantage. Often they are very obstructive of progress or change.

mulberry7

The Catholic alternative is, I believe, the Knights of Malta.

I think the Knights of St Columba are much closer to the Masons than the Knights of Malta.

The K of M are mainly an international organisation working at a diplomatic level and in itnernational aid.

The K oSt C are a gathering of men who meet to support each other in their faith but also look after their members, as do the Masons, and aagain like the Masons undertake a lot of charitable work.

Forgot to mention that there is a quite a lengthy Aspirancy period and an investiture ceremony. There is some mention of a fee of around £1500, but that may or may not be true.
As with the mentions about Freemasons on this thread, some KoM have been known for their piety and service, while others have engaged in questionable actions, including violence, wealth accumulation, and even criminal activity.

mulberry7

The Catholic alternative is, I believe, the Knights of Malta.

I don’t know about alternative but the Order of Malta is certainly a Catholic group and older than the Freemasons.
Today, although some members of the Order are professed knights (having taken the three vows of poverty, chastity and obedience), others have pronounced only the promise of obedience.

They are devoted to exercising charity, and developing their spirituality within the Church and to care for those in need.
Like other organisations, membership is by invitation only.

The Catholic alternative is, I believe, the Knights of Malta.

Mollygo 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Such fun.
😂😂😂

GrannyGravy13

Claremont fairy tales again.

That is not Freemasonry in the 21st century in the UK.

You’re right, GG13.
That hasn’t been freemasonry for quite a long time, but the difference is that you and I and others know that, but some don’t.

People have their own opinions, to which they’re entitled.
Sometimes based on dislike of anyone being allowed to have secret rituals which aren’t secret since you can Google it.
Sometimes based on the dislike of anyone joining clubs, so maybe Scouts, Guides, Lions, Rotary should all take note.

Sometimes to do with the requirements for joining, e.g. this one.
While membership is by invitation, prospective members can express their interest to a local club, which may involve an application and sponsorship from an existing member.

Sometimes based on anything to do with the Church , which can be full rituals, and some of those rituals are 😱😱 old fashioned which is yet another reason for some to dislike them.
In all walks of life, whether in societies, clubs or not, there are good and bad people.

Condemning a whole group because you know/have heard of a few bad apples or because you of things you have heard but don’t really know . . . ?

Such fun.

Claremont

Rotary, Lions and others also raise huge sums of money, and of course they do support each other professionally- but it is much more in the open- meeting times and venues are also clear to all.

All available regarding the Masons.

Claremont fairy tales again.

That is not Freemasonry in the 21st century in the UK.

Rotary, Lions and others also raise huge sums of money, and of course they do support each other professionally- but it is much more in the open- meeting times and venues are also clear to all.