Freemasons are evil

Freemasons = theist Ku Klux Klan

They are bigots and should not be tolerated by any member of enlightened society. Any "member" of enlightened society who tolerates these bigots should be shunned.
 
I could see this if the Freemasons were actively against Atheism, burned crosses in their yards, wouldn't hire them, did anything actively against them. But they don't. The requirement for membership comes from the Oath you take, they believe that swearing to God when you are an Atheist binds you to nothing. If you want to be a member real bad, become a Theravada Buddhist, they'll take you even though the "religion" has nothing to say about God (and I do mean nothing), Theravada Buddhism only covers this life, no Karma, no Universalism...
 
I could see this if the Freemasons were actively against Atheism, burned crosses in their yards, wouldn't hire them, did anything actively against them. But they don't. The requirement for membership comes from the Oath you take, they believe that swearing to God when you are an Atheist binds you to nothing. If you want to be a member real bad, become a Theravada Buddhist, they'll take you even though the "religion" has nothing to say about God (and I do mean nothing).

Plus atheists are no use in propagating their control matrix based on god delusions. of course all you offer is obnoxious apologia.
 
Plus atheists are no use in propagating their control matrix based on god delusions. of course all you offer is obnoxious apologia.
Whatever, as a member I just know that it isn't the basis of the fraternity. Some people need something to hate desperately, and fear things they don't understand. I joined, as a conspiracy buff, seeking these things, and instead found a bunch of people who help people in need.
 
Whatever, as a member I just know that it isn't the basis of the fraternity. Some people need something to hate desperately, and fear things they don't understand. I joined, as a conspiracy buff, seeking these things, and instead found a bunch of people who help people in need.

It's not the basis, but it's non-negotiable, sure, whatever, we don't have to call it a basis.

of course, you're only allowed to see what they want you to see, so you go babbling on about how innocent it all is. Surely you understand how your alleged 'inner view' is untrustworthy.
 
It's not the basis, but it's non-negotiable, sure, whatever, we don't have to call it a basis.

of course, you're only allowed to see what they want you to see, so you go babbling on about how innocent it all is. Surely you understand how your alleged 'inner view' is untrustworthy.
Only if you find me generally untrustworthy to begin with would I be suddenly untrustworthy on this topic. I tell you what I see, what I have found, what they do. You give me, "Well, I think there's others who are even more secretive and who together work towards some nefarious means, they hide from you but work from within the fraternity for no reason other than to hide among those most suspected."

Your outsiders view is at least as "untrustworthy" as you try to say my personal experience is.
 
Only if you find me generally untrustworthy to begin with would I be suddenly untrustworthy on this topic. I tell you what I see, what I have found, what they do. You give me, "Well, I think there's others who are even more secretive and who together work towards some nefarious means."

Your outsiders view is at least as "untrustworthy" as you try to say my personal experience is.



You are somewhat of a neocon liar, but aside from that, even according to the conspiracy theory, there are plenty of members who never see the full picture of the organization, to provide cover for the organization.
 
You are somewhat of a neocon liar, but aside from that, even according to the conspiracy theory, there are plenty of members who never see the full picture of the organization, to provide cover for the organization.
Right, but there is no logical basis for this. There would be no reason for these people to be Freemasons and use a suspected group as "cover". It would be far more logical for them to choose groups who were less suspected.

What I have are personal experiences that I openly speak about, what you have are conspiracy sites that you somehow find more "trustworthy" than a friend whom you have spoken to for years on one site or another. It's all good, but you make little sense.

Watermark's reason to dislike them at least has a basis in something that is very real, they require you to have some belief in a God (not any specific God, nor do they ask you to ever change your religion, they just believe that your oath to God won't bind you to anything if you are an Atheist.)
 
Right, but there is no logical basis for this. There would be no reason for these people to be Freemasons and use a suspected group as "cover". It would be far more logical for them to choose groups who were less suspected.

What I have are personal experiences that I openly speak about, what you have are conspiracy sites that you somehow find more "trustworthy" than a friend whom you have spoken to for years on one site or another. It's all good, but you make little sense.

Watermark's reason to dislike them at least has a basis in something that is very real, they require you to have some belief in a God (not any specific God, nor do they ask you to ever change your religion, they just believe that your oath to God won't bind you to anything if you are an Atheist.)

I think it takes longer to take over a group than you presume. Whatever group that global fascists elite chose to infiltrate with their theocratic globalism would become suspect. So masons are suspect precisely because they were infiltrated hundreds of year ago. It's just how it turned out.
 
I think it takes longer to take over a group than you presume. Whatever group that global fascists elite chose to infiltrate with their theocratic globalism would become suspect. So masons are suspect precisely because they were infiltrated hundreds of year ago. It's just how it turned out.
I think that they could just as easily simply form a different group without all the ceremony and suspicion. The whole Freemason thing is just an unnecessary and illogical step that puts them under an immediate suspicion.
 
I think that they could just as easily simply form a different group without all the ceremony and suspicion. The whole Freemason thing is just an unnecessary and illogical step that puts them under an immediate suspicion.

I don't. It's hard to infiltrate a group but still have the rank and file be ignorant apologists.
 
There is no Freemason contract, only an oath.


OMIGOD! You, Damocles The Great, belong to the secret underground evil faction of the Freemasons?

Dum-dee-dum-dum-DUUUUMMMM!!!

Villain.jpg
 
Wow. you have floored me with nitpicking.
It is what it is. A fraternity that takes forever to change even the simplest of things. Over time I believe the fraternity (some groups already do, but they are called "clandestine") will start allowing women, and will change their oaths to allow atheists. That step will be last.

The reality is the fraternity is dying, people don't often join things and the government has become the favored tool to force people to give rather than charity groups like the Masons. This will continue, and over time the fraternity will die, replaced with the, IMO, soulless government. Being a Freemason is a personal experience, you are directly involved in helping people in your community. People are moving away from that direct involvement.

Here is a book that covers this phenomena.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Bowling-Alone-Collapse-American-Community/dp/0743203046/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270130534&sr=8-1"]Amazon.com: Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (9780743203043): Robert D. Putnam: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Fl0JUkZiL.@@AMEPARAM@@51Fl0JUkZiL[/ame]
 
Back
Top