|
Post by middlepillar on May 5, 2010 21:14:08 GMT
If those in the know can insert messages in everyday adverts, why would anyone think that any Artist worth thier salt couldnt insert meaningful symbols into thier music videos?
Goat Rider you have taken this topic far off course, please keep on topic in future.
Afterthought your responses have made for very interesting reading.
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on May 6, 2010 15:18:12 GMT
Goat Rider, this is the deltrix www.flickr.com/photos/40901651@N05/4298322240/I agree, it does look pretty rad. Though what it's supposed to be, I do not claim to know. Afterthought, Since when is the square and compass the sole domain of Freemasonry? I never said they were. But you will admit, those entwined emblems are very closely associated in the public mind with Freemasonry, are they not? And any group which professes not to be Masonic but still insists on using those symbols - well, you could forgive the public for being confused by it. It certainly confuses me. What confuses me even more is that we in Regular Freemasonry are still in Amity with such a group, or set of related groups, when many another non-Masonic group has been reckoned pseudo-Masonic and hence Irregular or Clandestine, for no other reason than of looking a bit Masonic.
|
|
afterthought
Member
A true initiation never ends. -Robert Anton Wilson
Posts: 242
|
Post by afterthought on May 6, 2010 17:35:47 GMT
Goat Rider, this is the deltrix www.flickr.com/photos/40901651@N05/4298322240/I agree, it does look pretty rad. Though what it's supposed to be, I do not claim to know. Afterthought, Since when is the square and compass the sole domain of Freemasonry? I never said they were. But you will admit, those entwined emblems are very closely associated in the public mind with Freemasonry, are they not? And any group which professes not to be Masonic but still insists on using those symbols - well, you could forgive the public for being confused by it. It certainly confuses me. What confuses me even more is that we in Regular Freemasonry are still in Amity with such a group, or set of related groups, when many another non-Masonic group has been reckoned pseudo-Masonic and hence Irregular or Clandestine, for no other reason than of looking a bit Masonic. I don't understand Amity with a group that is not Masonic and does not claim to be or make Masons. This is the case with the Orange Order , even the most basic amount of research will show this to be true. If you could please explain this phenomena I would appreciate it.
|
|
|
Post by droche on May 6, 2010 23:11:52 GMT
Question:
Perhaps when Ruffashler states we are in Amity with the Orange Order he means that we do not condemn or repudiate them. I don't know, perhaps I shouldn't speak for him. In any event, the issue here seems to be that some feel that the Orange Order is anti-Roman Catholic and thus inconsistent with Masonic principles, which, if true, I would agree.
Now, granted, I do not know much about the Order save for knowing a few individuals who were members whom I found to be good people. I also know that the order is pro-Protestant, but does that make them automatically anti-Roman Catholic? I know many members of the Knights of Columbus and noone would deny that they are pro-Roman Catholic, nor do I think any reasonable person would deny them their right to promote their religion, but I would not call them anti-Protestant Should we not apply the same standards to Orange?
Has the order ever (let's say over the last 50 years or so) made any official pronouncements or taken any other actions that were explicitly anti-Roman Catholic?
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on May 13, 2010 18:26:51 GMT
No, I'm not being misrepresented. That's exactly what I mean. In any event, the issue here seems to be that some feel that the Orange Order is anti-Roman Catholic and thus inconsistent with Masonic principles, which, if true, I would agree. I refer to the Wikipedia page for this subject:- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Institution#Requirements_for_entryMembers are required to be Protestant.[35] Most jurisdictions require both the spouse and parents of potential applicants to be Protestant, although the Grand Lodge can be appealed to make exceptions for converts. Members have been expelled for attending Catholic religious ceremonies. In the period from 1964 to 2002, 11% of those expelled from the order were expelled for their presence at a Catholic religious event such as a baptism, service or funeral.[36]
The Laws and Constitutions of the Loyal Orange Institution of Scotland of 1986 state, "No ex-Roman Catholic will be admitted into the Institution unless he is a Communicant in a Protestant Church for a reasonable period." Likewise, the "Constitution, Laws and Ordinances of the Loyal Orange Institution of Ireland" (1967) state, "No person who at any time has been a Roman Catholic … shall be admitted into the Institution, except after permission given by a vote of seventy five per cent of the members present founded on testimonials of good character …"droche continues:- Now, granted, I do not know much about the Order save for knowing a few individuals who were members whom I found to be good people. I also know that the order is pro-Protestant, but does that make them automatically anti-Roman Catholic?No, indeed. But I think you'll find that they are. Not personally, at least not all of them, or even most of them. But some of them, certainly. The problem isn't so much with the Institution itself as with the idiots who look to it for guidance. I know many members of the Knights of Columbus and noone would deny that they are pro-Roman Catholic, nor do I think any reasonable person would deny them their right to promote their religion, but I would not call them anti-Protestant. Should we not apply the same standards to Orange? But the society only exists in negative and defensive opposition to Catholicism as a religion and to Catholics individually. If Catholicism did not exist, the Orange would have no raison d'être. Additionally, The basis of the modern Orange Order is the promotion and propagation of "biblical Protestantism", and it has advanced the ideas of British Israelism, which essentially makes it a form of Christian Identity. Has the order ever (let's say over the last 50 years or so) made any official pronouncements or taken any other actions that were explicitly anti-Roman Catholic?As I say, the problem isn't so much with the Institution itself or even its more enlightened members; but with those who inhabit its sphere of influence. For we in Scotland inhabit a polity in which as a Catholic you are between five and eight times more likely to be a victim of a sectarian attack than a Protestant. And there is no doubt that the anti-Catholicism which the Orange is seen to represent is the chief and most visible fount of continuing sectarian hatred in Scotland. The QC Donald Finlay, a Director of Rangers FC, has earned notoriety for singing the offensive Orangeist anthem The Sash, that song which has produced more beatings and kickings and general bloodshed than I have space to write. And I know of several occasions, widely reported in the Press, when individual Orange members have unwisely voiced their own blunt and idiot sectarian views; often admittedly paying the price by being disciplined or sine- die'd by their governing body. You do wonder whether they incurred such wrath actually for holding their views or simply for being overheard airing them.
|
|
|
Post by droche on May 13, 2010 19:00:09 GMT
Well that is interesting. Guess I'll never join Orange. My exposure to the Orange Order is in Canada, and one does not see the kind of polarity and inflammatory behaviour you describe there. It is too bad, that kind of behaviour does not seem to be very Christian to me.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on May 17, 2010 2:06:45 GMT
I doubt there are any local Orange orders, though I am always in support of the existences of any gathering of individuals with integrity, even, or actually especially, those with whom I disagree. As long as they are not violating the freedom of others, they ought to be allowed to say and do what they wish. This does not exclude them from disagreement by others, as that is part of the Freedom of Speech. Everyone is allowed to speak freely and disagree with or ignore the words of others as they choose.
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on May 24, 2010 15:32:39 GMT
That's a very fine attitude, KNOs1s, and one that I feel a majority of your countrymen would have to disagree with, if the peaceful, non-combatant group in question were an al-Qaeda-sympathetic party of self-styled mujahideen.
|
|
|
Post by irishmason on May 31, 2010 17:31:49 GMT
Comments removed for being in violation of the forum's policy regarding attacks on individuals.
Leo.
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Jun 2, 2010 14:27:49 GMT
My! Temper, temper...
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Jun 6, 2010 19:02:32 GMT
That's a very fine attitude, KNOs1s, and one that I feel a majority of your countrymen would have to disagree with, if the peaceful, non-combatant group in question were an al-Qaeda-sympathetic party of self-styled mujahideen. If they were not-combative, peaceful, and not stepping on others' rights, I think that their opinion would be allowed. Not saying the opinions would be welcomed, but they would allowed. At different times in our history (the McCarthy era for an example), differences of opinions have not been allowed. Something I consider a grave mistake. Everyone should have a right to their voice. Assent or freedom from dissent does not automatically accompany that right.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jun 6, 2010 20:11:36 GMT
The Orange aren't Masons and don't claim to be. I don't see the issue.
IN LVX,
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Jun 6, 2010 20:34:30 GMT
Yeah, me neither.
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Jun 6, 2010 20:50:18 GMT
The Orange aren't Masons and don't claim to be. I don't see the issue. IN LVX, That's right, the orange order is not Masonic, though it appears many within their ranks are Masons.
|
|
|
Post by irishmason on Jun 10, 2010 12:03:40 GMT
The Orange aren't Masons and don't claim to be. I don't see the issue. IN LVX, That's right, the orange order is not Masonic, though it appears many within their ranks are Masons. Just a simple question for my own understanding: The Orange order is a Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland (see their website under the Grand Masonic Lodge of Ireland. They wear the same regalia, they call their meeting places LODGES, they have lodge banners, the titles WM, SW JW etc are the same, the ritual is nearly the same, the high grade are purple CHAPTER and black PRECEPTORY etc etc. Now they are not Masons as you write, what are they then a bicylce club for the active retired, a rabbit breeder club, a tourism promoting association? Please enlighten me. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Jun 10, 2010 12:21:56 GMT
I think only those blind to the similarities would fail to see the many Masonic influences found in the Orange order. But that aside they do not refer to themselves as Masons and more importantly they are not seen as Masonic by any GL I am aware of. Moreover, if they thought themselves Masons without such validation, then those actual Masons who are also members of this order would be breaking their Masonic obligations.
|
|
|
Post by letterorhalveit3 on Jun 10, 2010 12:45:51 GMT
Its very tempting to step in here, but Ive stuck my head in this particular cable-tow on a previous occasion and believe I will not do so again, suffice it to say that the Orange Order is the Orange Order...not The Ancient Free and Accepted Order of Freemasons.
(curtsies and exits stage left).
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Jun 10, 2010 12:58:24 GMT
Its very tempting to step in here, but Ive stuck my head in this particular cable-tow on a previous occasion and believe I will not do so again, suffice it to say that the Orange Order is the Orange Order...not The Ancient Free and Accepted Order of Freemasons. Precisely.
|
|
|
Post by irishmason on Jun 10, 2010 13:05:14 GMT
I think only those blind to the similarities would fail to see the many Masonic influences found in the Orange order. But that aside they do not refer to themselves as Masons and more importantly they are not seen as Masonic by any GL I am aware of. Moreover, if they thought themselves Masons without such validation, then those actual Masons who are also members of this order would be breaking their Masonic obligations. I have here a news paper article from the Irish Times where the former Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Ireland clearly confirms that a double membership is no problem at all at all. i am of your opinion those who are members of the OO and at the same time FMs break their Masonic obligation.
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Jun 10, 2010 13:14:52 GMT
These are your opinions to hold but if the GL in question though the OO to be Masonic they would not feel it OK for duel membership to be the norm.
I understand where you're coming from but as things stand these orders are considered different enough for there not to be a problem.
|
|