To clarify, I am not a mason but I have done quite a bit of research on the topic. I think I know Freemasonry about as well as you can from the outside. In large part it's just a fraternity-a private club for men that you have to be invited into. Freemasonry definitely has a charter, specific goals they are working towards. The exact wording is confidential but you can get a pretty good idea from examining its roots.
How far back proto-freemasonry goes back is unknown. There is evidence that some form of it existed in the Middle Ages among stone masons who eventually started including the nobles they worked for. Modern Freemasonry traces its origins to the 1600s when local lodges opened up and was officially founded in London in 1717 with the first Grand Lodge of England. I think that we want to understand Freemasonry today the best thing to do is understand the climate it was born in. The 1600s was one of the worst centuries in Europe due to the Wars of Religion. Catholics and Protestants did not freaking get along. Off the top of my head you had the 30 Years War, the 80 Years War, the English Civil War, the Bishops War, the Three Kingdoms War and the Commonwealth, (technically the bit between wars and not an actual war not because there wasn't heavy religious persecution, but because it was one sided) and the persecution of the Huguenots (there was some fighting but mostly it was a one way blood bath.) Somewhere around half the population of Europe was killed fighting over religion.
The Enlightenment was also getting going about this time and people began to realize that we needed to stop using religion to divide us and use it to bring us together for the betterment of mankind. Out of this came concepts of democracy and freedom of religion that is reflected in our own Constitution. Both of those concepts are also very important to Masonry and are things they want to see spread around the world.
I became close friends with a Mason while working in Kentucky on oil rigs. Brother Jim was the baptist minister for some of my coworkers and I began to attend his sermons after I had finished my own meetings. Baptist services were run very differently than the LDS ones I grew with and the teachings were also different. The differences between the two theologies are to numerous to list but there was clear common ground. In the morning when I went to the LDS branch are heard of Jesus Christ's love and was encouraged to love my fellow man. When I went to the Baptist sermon I heard of Jesus's love and was encouraged to share that love with my fellow man. I was timid at first about talking to the minister because I have been warned about the counter-productivity of "bible bashing" with other faiths whole life. As I started to talk to Brother Jim we began to discuss a variety of religious topics and recognized that although we differed on most of the particulars we were both good Christian men trying our best to follow Him. I was shocked at how well we got along considering we both held some views the other considered wrong.
My employment in Kentucky ended abruptly when I found myself in the local ICU. It was about 10pm when I called my Bishop to ask for a Priesthood blessing. In addition to the late hour there was a tornado warning that caused every part of the hospital except the ICU to be relocated to shelter. I was 2000 miles from home, lucky to be alive but alone so I called Brother Jim for words of comfort. His words of comfort to me were "I am 45 minutes away so I'll be there in an hour." It was interesting because we had talked about the different notions of Priesthood our two faiths held. Most Christians believe in the "Priesthood of all believers" that originated with Martin Luther and I, as a Mormon, believe in a direct line of power and authority from Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith. I believe that the (Mormon) Melchizedek Priesthood has actual power to preform miracles. When Brother Jim got to me he frankly admitted that the best he could do was pray for me and ask Jesus Christ to use his power to heal me. Though not the same as the Priesthood blessing I would later receive I was truly grateful for Brother Jim's prayer. The last night we were together he told me he was a Mason and everything about him made sense. His attitude about focusing on similarities rather than differences was part of what he believed as a Mason.
But the greatest example of Freemasonry comes out of Nazi Germany. At a time when all Germany praised Hitler as the new Messiah (even though he despised Christianity) the Masons opposed him because they recognized his evil from the beginning. They stood against the persecution of the Jews and for their troubles were rounded up and sent to concentration camps alongside the Jews. When a nation cast aside its principals Masons stood firm.
There is a lot about the inner workings of Masonry I don't know (as it should be) but how bad can an organization that stood alone against Hitler be?
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Notes from our History Part 3: Avoiding Enslavement
Stripped of every civil tool the colonists turned to the one source of power the British had left them and began to outfit their militias with more firepower. Realizing what was about to happen the British sent an expeditionary force to seize the militia armories and disarm the colonists. Two lanterns in the tower of the Old North Church sent men like Paul Revere racing through the countryside shouting "The British are coming! The British are coming! To take your shot and powder!" On Lexington Green in the predawn hours of April 19th, 77 men used their last recourse to stand up to the best army in the world. The colonists saw disarmament as their last resort to ever resist the British being taken away. Other colonies realized they no longer had inalienable rights and that everything they had could be arbitrarily taken on the whim of the Crown.
I realize I have done a wholly inadequate job of conveying the panic the colonists felt in the lead up so I just want you try to look at this from their prospective. The actions of the British Government put them in such a state that they were desperately peering down the flash pans of their flintlocks looking for their last flickering glimmer of freedom. These were not destitute peasants rioting for bread to eat, like in the French Revolution for example, (Louis the XVI was arrested when a bread riot got out of hand and stormed the palace) but the upstanding and prosperous citizens of the colonies. If you think nothing like this could happen today in a constitutionally run country because now people have certain inalienable rights set forth in law, remember, so did the colonists. English law has recognised a bill of rights since the Middle Ages, longer than any other legal system.
How this applies today:
I can't stress enough that things only got violent after every other possible option was taken away. I also can't stress enough that every other option was taken away. We owe it to ourselves and to our posterity to exhaust every legal and peaceful means to rectify the sad state of affairs. That said, if what happened to the colonists ever happens to us we owe it to our posterity to not shrink from what must be done. I really really want to avoid that. Let the Government know this November that disregarding us will not be tolerated. If we don't we are risking enslavement not only for ourselves but our children.
To paraphrase Patton, "When you stick your hand into a pile of goo that a moment before was your children's children's liberty, you'll know what to do."
I realize I have done a wholly inadequate job of conveying the panic the colonists felt in the lead up so I just want you try to look at this from their prospective. The actions of the British Government put them in such a state that they were desperately peering down the flash pans of their flintlocks looking for their last flickering glimmer of freedom. These were not destitute peasants rioting for bread to eat, like in the French Revolution for example, (Louis the XVI was arrested when a bread riot got out of hand and stormed the palace) but the upstanding and prosperous citizens of the colonies. If you think nothing like this could happen today in a constitutionally run country because now people have certain inalienable rights set forth in law, remember, so did the colonists. English law has recognised a bill of rights since the Middle Ages, longer than any other legal system.
How this applies today:
I can't stress enough that things only got violent after every other possible option was taken away. I also can't stress enough that every other option was taken away. We owe it to ourselves and to our posterity to exhaust every legal and peaceful means to rectify the sad state of affairs. That said, if what happened to the colonists ever happens to us we owe it to our posterity to not shrink from what must be done. I really really want to avoid that. Let the Government know this November that disregarding us will not be tolerated. If we don't we are risking enslavement not only for ourselves but our children.
To paraphrase Patton, "When you stick your hand into a pile of goo that a moment before was your children's children's liberty, you'll know what to do."
Friday, March 26, 2010
Jacques-Louis David
I am going to take a break from history and politics to focus on something uplifting. Jacques-Louis David (1748-1825) had an amazing life. He is probably the only person to thrive under the four distinct regimes France went through in a few years. He was popular before the Revolution, was highly prominent during the initial republic and terror. Not only does get to claim the title of being one of the few friends Robespierre didn't kill but probably the only surviving friend of his not to be executed with him. He was Napoleon's court painter and after the monarchy was restored he was offered a job working for the new King, which he turned down for ideological reasons, preferring self imposed exile.
Enough with the bio, now its time for the Art. I like David's works on stories from mythology. They each exists to teach a moral lesson and as time goes on his beliefs shift so does the overall messages of the paintings. First he extolls the male virtue of selfless service to the Patri or state.
The Oath of the Horatii:
As related in Livy's Ab Urbe Condita during the early days of Rome triplets fought another set of triplets from Alba Longa to decide the outcome of the war. Two of the brothers are killed but the last one wins the fight and saves Rome from enslavement.
The Death of Socrates:
As related in Plato's Apology Socrates accepts his death sentence and ignores pleas from friends to escape and willingly drinks poison thinking that death will be an adventure because he's never died before. This is after he insulted the jury repeatedly during the trial.
The Lictors bring to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons:
According to Livy, Brutus was instrumental in overthrowing the last King of Rome and establishing the Republic. When he finds out his own sons are in collusion with the former King to overthrow the Republic Brutus chooses loyalty to the state and has them executed.
All of these are about male virtue and the glorification thereof. Two of them come from Livy, who though a historian, saw history's usefulness as to provide moral instruction, namely absolute loyalty to the state above personal obligations. These paintings are misogynist in that the women are all crying in a dark corner, lacking virtue.
Helen and Paris:
From Greek myth David depicts Helen, the woman that caused the destruction of Troy. Paris is depicted as an innocent boy and David does a wonderful job of depicting Helen as way more of a prostitute than even completely nude women.
Post-Robespierre David spent some time in jail with only his wife to visit him. His love for his wife and her womanly virtue grew considerably and when he got out and started painting he reversed his message. Women's status as peacemakers curbing men's destructive tendencies, even at personal risk, is depicted.
The Sabine Women:
Back to Livy, in the early days of Rome their were lots of men of warrior age but almost no women. Seeing a solution they attacked the Sabine tribe and took their women. A year later the Sabine men came to get their women back. As the battle heated up the women ran into the middle to stop their kinsmen and former husbands from killing their new husbands.
Mars disarmed by Venus:
This is my favorite painting and no, it has nothing to do with the fact that everyone is naked. I really like the sharp and crisp colors. The subject is what is most beautiful about it. Mars, God of War is handing over his weapons because of the love of Veneus, Goddess of Love. He doesn't surrender completely and keeps his spear but gives up his warring days to "make love, not war." This expresses the hope that eventually love will conquer war with virtuous women leading the way.
Should I keep my day job or become an art critic?
Notes from our History Part 2: Risking Enslavement
The Colonists described the status quo and their position in it as "Risking Enslavement." Before you roll your eyes at the colonists for being melodramatic remember this: many of them were slave owners, or, by a different name, engine of wealth owners. Engine of wealth owners made their living by driving their engines of wealth as efficiently as possible and not by making them happy.
The Stamp Act of 1765 and the Towneshend Acts of 1767 really can be seen as what the claimed to be, taxes. Any government is going to need some taxes and anyone who denies this is an idiot. There is debate about how much to tax as well as what to tax but their will be some taxes no matter what. The Tea Act of 1773 however, crossed the line.
The British East India Company wasn't entirely separate from the British government as both drew from the aristocracy for their top positions. Rampant nepotism at the British East India Company led to mismanagement and in 1773 they were hurting bad financially. The solution they came up with was to get rid of a bunch of tea that was sitting rotting in warehouses they couldn't sell on the open market by getting Parliament to bail them out by giving them a monopoly in the American tea market. The tea was to be sold cheap (the quality of the tea is disputed, some say it was better than the tea the colonists were already getting and others say it was crap since it had been rotting in warehouses. Since they couldn't sell it on the open market, even at a discount, I suspect the latter) and no other tea could be imported to satisfy the tea addiction of the colonists.
Although the Crown would get some money from import taxes it was quite clear the purpose of the Act was to separate the colonists from their money for the benefit of one of the world's first corporations. While not quite the same as a highway stick up the distinction between the two is thin at best. We all know that a few radicals threw some tea into Boston Harbor and this is where things start to come together.
The Crown then demanded the tea be paid for by the Colony of Massachusetts and to this end enacted the Coercive Acts (called the Intolerable Acts on this side of the pond) to punish the colony until they paid for the tea. The Acts closed the Port of Boston, (which the colony economy depended on for both business and shipping food so they didn't starve) dissolved the colony legislature and local legislatures and even the right to assemble. It made the Governorship directly appointed by the King and all important positions appointed by the governor. Any British officials accused of a crime would be tried in England to side step the colonial legal system and British troops were quartered in peoples homes (a punitive measure of the day.) In effect, Massachusetts had its democracy striped for the actions of a few individuals. The colonists lost all legal recourse in one fell swoop. Theoretical fears of "risking enslavement" had just become reality.
What this means for us today:
When the Government makes the paradigm shift and sees a populace of engines, political recourse for the people becomes a burden, they start looking for ways to limit or eliminate accountability. Without accountability the Government is free to run on fiat. Look at the healthcare bill, the politicians for it went on and on about how they were nobly giving the American people what they wanted. Only the majority was against it, only 40% of Americans supported the bill while 49% hated it. The majority started screaming at the top of their lunges and got bushed off with a "don't listen to them, they asked for it" mentality.
This is where the present departs from history, because unlike the colonists we still have democracy to rectify the situation. We need to send a strong message to the Government that disregarding us will not be tolerated. Because as long as they think they can get away with it they just keep pushing it, like Parliament did in 1774.
The Stamp Act of 1765 and the Towneshend Acts of 1767 really can be seen as what the claimed to be, taxes. Any government is going to need some taxes and anyone who denies this is an idiot. There is debate about how much to tax as well as what to tax but their will be some taxes no matter what. The Tea Act of 1773 however, crossed the line.
The British East India Company wasn't entirely separate from the British government as both drew from the aristocracy for their top positions. Rampant nepotism at the British East India Company led to mismanagement and in 1773 they were hurting bad financially. The solution they came up with was to get rid of a bunch of tea that was sitting rotting in warehouses they couldn't sell on the open market by getting Parliament to bail them out by giving them a monopoly in the American tea market. The tea was to be sold cheap (the quality of the tea is disputed, some say it was better than the tea the colonists were already getting and others say it was crap since it had been rotting in warehouses. Since they couldn't sell it on the open market, even at a discount, I suspect the latter) and no other tea could be imported to satisfy the tea addiction of the colonists.
Although the Crown would get some money from import taxes it was quite clear the purpose of the Act was to separate the colonists from their money for the benefit of one of the world's first corporations. While not quite the same as a highway stick up the distinction between the two is thin at best. We all know that a few radicals threw some tea into Boston Harbor and this is where things start to come together.
The Crown then demanded the tea be paid for by the Colony of Massachusetts and to this end enacted the Coercive Acts (called the Intolerable Acts on this side of the pond) to punish the colony until they paid for the tea. The Acts closed the Port of Boston, (which the colony economy depended on for both business and shipping food so they didn't starve) dissolved the colony legislature and local legislatures and even the right to assemble. It made the Governorship directly appointed by the King and all important positions appointed by the governor. Any British officials accused of a crime would be tried in England to side step the colonial legal system and British troops were quartered in peoples homes (a punitive measure of the day.) In effect, Massachusetts had its democracy striped for the actions of a few individuals. The colonists lost all legal recourse in one fell swoop. Theoretical fears of "risking enslavement" had just become reality.
What this means for us today:
When the Government makes the paradigm shift and sees a populace of engines, political recourse for the people becomes a burden, they start looking for ways to limit or eliminate accountability. Without accountability the Government is free to run on fiat. Look at the healthcare bill, the politicians for it went on and on about how they were nobly giving the American people what they wanted. Only the majority was against it, only 40% of Americans supported the bill while 49% hated it. The majority started screaming at the top of their lunges and got bushed off with a "don't listen to them, they asked for it" mentality.
This is where the present departs from history, because unlike the colonists we still have democracy to rectify the situation. We need to send a strong message to the Government that disregarding us will not be tolerated. Because as long as they think they can get away with it they just keep pushing it, like Parliament did in 1774.
Notes from our History Part 1: Engines of Wealth
"No taxation without representation!" This little gem from elementary school is a product of the sad reality that usually we overgeneralize history for the mass market to the point of inaccuracy. From this statement the logical conclusion is that the colonists were pissed off about the monetary ramifications of new taxes; which makes them look both greedy, and, since the taxes were not that high, unreasonable.
The colonists themselves used the term "Engines of Wealth" to describe how they thought the Crown was starting to view them. Since both Parliament and the King largely ignored their opinion and just passed new taxes they came to the conclusion that they were seen only as workers who needed to produce money for the Crown. The difference between a citizen and an engine of wealth is huge. One is served by the government and the other serves the government. One needs freedom and the other needs more taxes.
What this means for us today:
Where this starts to apply is when we consider the results when the Government over-commits to social programs and has to fight to stay in the black by desperately taxing everything that moves with a motion tax and everything that doesn't with a parking ticket. It's a known fact that the British National Healthcare System (NHS) is horribly broke and needs new sources of income. See the above two examples, they are a few of many.
Next time the long term consequences of the engine of wealth mentality.
The colonists themselves used the term "Engines of Wealth" to describe how they thought the Crown was starting to view them. Since both Parliament and the King largely ignored their opinion and just passed new taxes they came to the conclusion that they were seen only as workers who needed to produce money for the Crown. The difference between a citizen and an engine of wealth is huge. One is served by the government and the other serves the government. One needs freedom and the other needs more taxes.
What this means for us today:
Where this starts to apply is when we consider the results when the Government over-commits to social programs and has to fight to stay in the black by desperately taxing everything that moves with a motion tax and everything that doesn't with a parking ticket. It's a known fact that the British National Healthcare System (NHS) is horribly broke and needs new sources of income. See the above two examples, they are a few of many.
Next time the long term consequences of the engine of wealth mentality.
Notes from our History, the mini-series.
America is undergoing a huge transformation. There is no denying this but what the end result will be remains unclear. I can't even say if its going to the right or to the left at this point. Clearly the Democrats in power have switched from the old American Democrat platform to the Social Democrat platform that dominates Europe today. The Social Democrat ideology is to bring sweeping social programs to the populace through legislative reform, (As opposed to its cousins Communism and National Socialism which seek to bring sweeping social change through violent revolution.) As a result we are seeing for the first time mass grassroots mobilization of the normally passive Conservative movement. In the coming years we may see a backlash against the (Social) Democrats so severe as to send America careening to the right. It's just too soon to tell.
In times of uncertainty I look back to history for guidance from a similar situation. While I am a very tiny cog in society (really more like a nanocog) and have no more ability to change the flow of history than a pine needle can alter the tides I want to share with you what I got from my field trip to the past.
From 1765-1775 America stood at a crossroads as well. The new changes didn't begin to solidify really until 1783-1789. Starting in 1765 the British government started reversing their long-stand policy of salutary neglect of the American Colonies by adding taxes and taking more control. Up until that fateful morning of April 19th 1775 all indicators were that the North American colonies (including Canada) were about to be brought under the firm control of the Crown. We all know this was reversed when the colonists started shooting but the lead up is the interesting part.
Next time: Notes from our History Part 1: Engines of Wealth
In times of uncertainty I look back to history for guidance from a similar situation. While I am a very tiny cog in society (really more like a nanocog) and have no more ability to change the flow of history than a pine needle can alter the tides I want to share with you what I got from my field trip to the past.
From 1765-1775 America stood at a crossroads as well. The new changes didn't begin to solidify really until 1783-1789. Starting in 1765 the British government started reversing their long-stand policy of salutary neglect of the American Colonies by adding taxes and taking more control. Up until that fateful morning of April 19th 1775 all indicators were that the North American colonies (including Canada) were about to be brought under the firm control of the Crown. We all know this was reversed when the colonists started shooting but the lead up is the interesting part.
Next time: Notes from our History Part 1: Engines of Wealth
Back
After a long absence I am retuning to blogging. I have been working on other things including my novel but I am not 100% I will ever refine it enough so that I can put it into the public domain and admit to writing it. If I can help one person with my writing it'll all be worth it. The trick now is to get one person to read it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
