"Lying is like alcoholism. You are
There's really no way to categorize some of the things anti-Masons say or write. They regularly exhibit such a clear lack of understanding of the principles of logic and common sense that it defies imagination to think that anyone could make some of these arguments with a straight face. Below are some examples of the fallacious positions put forth....
The "Religious Intolerant" will argue vehemently that the Bible speaks against Freemasonry. They will even find others who will agree with them on this point. We then ask, "Which version of the Bible?" and are told that it doesn't matter. However, when we ask, "Which version of the Bible is the inerrant word of God?", we're frequently told that it's the King James Version (written in 1611) and that all others are inaccurate.
So which is it? One Bible is purportedly right while the other is wrong but yet they both say the same thing! How can this be???
When Masons point to men of distinction who have been proud to acknowledge their membership in the Fraternity, the anti-Mason argues that Masons live in the past - and that these men whose deaths occurred long ago (ignoring, of course, famous Freemasons of today) don't count for a thing.
Interestingly, though, you'll immediately find them then quoting the work of an Albert Pike who died over 100 years ago as a source for their knowledge of Masonry.
Which is it: Masons of yesterday represent Freemasonry or not? Can't have it both ways....
Using nothing that could be described as 'logic', the anti-Mason will now take the section immediately preceding this and boldly claim, "See: they do listen to dead Masons so I'm right about Pike."
Of course, what they're then ignoring is a principle which has guided the fraternity for some three hundred years, to wit: no one man speaks for Freemasonry.
Which is it: does every Mason speak for Freemasonry or none of them?
Circling right around, we can then come to the issue of whether Masonry is a religion. Anti-Masons claim that it is - and they'll point to the writings of a couple of Masons who found some 'religious message' in Freemasonry's teachings. Despite the fact that no single person speaks for Freemasonry, the anti-Masons argue the truthfulness of certain Masonic authors - and insist that their writings are correct.
Since someone who's not part of the organization really isn't in a position to know what it's all about, we wonder how one decides which Masonic author is correct. Is it the one who says Freemasonry is religious or the rest of them who say that it isn't?
Which is it: are all Masonic Authors right or none of them? Perhaps it's only the ones the anti-Mason has chosen and is then selectively quoting!
Just click on "Prince, the Search Dog" to find things on our site. He's on every page and he'll take you directly to our search form where you can see if we've written about whatever it is you're interested in. Prince has a great memory; he always remembers where things are!
This site and its contents are � (copyright) 1998-2014 by Edward L. King (Ed King). All rights reserved. All comments and opinions are mine personally.
Got some thoughts or reactions?
We'd be interested in your comments - within reason of