jefferiah

"And yes, it does read something like and encyclopedia, but it actually gives a truthful account of history, unlike other encyclopedias. But it is a little hard to come by in the public domain." Thats an interesting quote. It gives a truthful account of history, unlike other encyclopedias. Hmmmmmmmm...........

You claimed (or at least inferred) it was an official mason site.....christ almighty, should intersted acolytes to christianity go and learn more a athiest.com? Thats a ridiculous comparison M Dancer and you know it. My site was a pro masonry site. Not anti-masonry. I am not directing people to a site which opposes masonry. Atheist.com would be directing someone to something in direct opposition to Christianity. A five year old could see the holes in that analogy. The site touts itself as a Magazine for Freemasons by Freemasons. Its not anti-masonic. So cut the crap. Now answer this question, do you think this site is a poser. Is it part of some elaborate conspiracy to make a Site which poses as a masonic website, only to lead people to questionable ideas about them? Do you think that?

I dont think saying that I feel that at its core it is heretical and that I would personally would not want any involvement with it can be classified as dissing it. If the ideas of a certain religion dont suit you are you dissing it. "Lucifer, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls? Doubt it not!" (Morals and Dogma, p.321) This is from another text. Morals and Dogma by Albert Pike. As for the encyclopedia of freemasonry By Albert G Mackey I believe it reads like an encyclopedia, with seperate topics. The point about that book is I believe (and it has been a few days since I read this) that was the one where I found a definition of masonry as a "religion". How much more do you have to read? The quote above. It doesnt need any special context for me. For me that is enough to say it is heretical to my faith. Read my initial post. I never accused free-masonry of any conspiracy. I never said they were a pagan cult. I said based on what I have read, I feel that they are. If you have a problem with my ideas, you are free not to subscribe to them. Once again for anyone interested in reading some of the texts I mentioned the website is www.freemasons-freemasonry.com. It is not a website that seeks to defame masonry. It touts itself as a Magazine for Freemasons by Freemasons, and says they are recognized by The United Grand Lodge of England. On this site there are links to freemasonic literature. And this is where I found my quotes. If M. Dancer doesnt like what I am saying that is fine. Perhaps someone will also find that there are questionable things about freemasonry and this would prevent them from joining. That is not dissing. I did not slander them for any crime. I didnt even accuse Pike of Satanism. I just posted the quoted. The first mention of Satanism was from M. Dancer I believe. His words, not mine.

BY what strange twisted logic can you compare surgeries that aid life with those which seek to terminate a life?

My website was not a conspiracy theory site M. Dancer. You fail to acknowledge that. It did not even describe the literature therein as bad. If you give that website an honest assessment you have to admit its not a conspiracy site. It describes itself as a Freemasonry Magazine for Freemasons. Are you suggesting that there is some conspiracy to make mock Freemasonry sites in order to slander the organization? That is a conspiracy theory (I never even formulated a conspiracy theory), and I think the tin foil hat would thus fit better on your head.

Does one have to read all books on Scientology from cover to cover to decide they are wierd?

I guess I was lucky, I learned of feminism in a first-year course from professors whose strongest belief was that feminism's biggest challenge is to not fall into the same dogma it fights to overcome. I remember hearing that the year before a couple of radical professors had taught that same first-year course, and needles to say they were no longer teaching that class when I started it. From what I hear, it put off a lot of the students. I remember wondering what I may have thought of feminism if such extreme views had been my first introduction to it. So don't worry, these women are the fringes of feminism - if they're not ridiculed by their peers, they're more likely to turn women OFF of feminism, than they are in "converting" anyone to such preposterousness. I concur with this BC_Chick, when I was in university, I was approached by feminists on campus to join their ranks. At that time, what some have labelled as radical feminism, held NO interest for me, nor does it now. And I did not self-idenify as a feminist, I considered myself more of a humanist seeking equality rights for women. Many women also felt that same way and set out to change it. Hence the new wave of feminist thought. Many do not understand this, nor do they seek to so so. However, the fundamental principal of the right to self determine has remained the foundation of feminists thought. In our free access to medical care system, there can be NO discrimination. If there is discrimination for one funded "elective" surgery, there will soon be attacks on all "elective" sugeries. That is the way of it. Am I correct in saying that you believe the legitimacy of abortion as a necessary operation is a a woman's issue to be decided upon by women?

Once again I reiterate. Do your own research? I never said freemasons were all bad people, and I never said people couldn't become one. All I said was, if you look at my initial post, that I feel it is bad and I would not want to be involved with it. If you dont agree thats fine. If someone here sees what I have written and comes to the same conclusions I have for the same reasons or whatever reasons, then my post was not wasted.

sorry thats www.freemasons-freemasonry.com

As for M. Dancer's assertion that the site where I found online Masonic texts may not be a masonic site, I challenge him to view the site for himself and see if he thinks it is not legitimate. www.freemason-freemasonry.com. If you dont believe in the myths about Templars and connections to the occult and think that is all hokum, apparently the "great literati" of the upper echelons do though since they even trace themselves to the Templars and to mystery cults of earlier civilizations. If this is hokum then it can at least be said that at the core there is a belief in this Hokum. If it is speculation, it is a speculation that they themselves endorse in their own writings. Look and see for yourself. It is there as plain as day. They themselves suggest it is a pity so few masons read to find the meaning of masonry.

I have no doubt that most masons are not bad people, or are not Satanic or pagan. But nonetheless the writings I have posted from are not from outsiders speculating about Masonry, they are Masonic writings. I should also mention that they are not from former Masons seeking to expose masonry as a bad thing. If you dont believe me research it yourself.

Lolol "I believe every resident of an Atlantic province who is not elected PM should sue." Will you be my lawyer JBG?

Fair enough, BC Chick, but even though you have seen this side of feminism which I am sure is the greater side (no doubt about it), where would you say Catch Me stands in this regard. In another thread she has referred to me as a mysogynist because I dont support subsidized abortion. Any argument I propose to the contrary is meaningless to her since abortion falls under the heading of feminism, it is a non-male issue. Case closed. And then she turns around and applies this to the public funding, which is not an issue exclusive to women. She says that men shouldnt tell her how to be feminist. Thats not the intent here, what happens when an issue or a proposed solution to an issue which affects not only women but the whole of the public is monopolized by a feminist because it happens to also fall under her jurisdiction. Is it mysogyny as she says to have an opinion? To express outrage. I am sure that you are a very fair woman. What happens when a woman is not fair? You assure me that no woman would ever think like that. Well, I am telling you some do. Just because you say you know a lot of feminists and they are quite reasonable, does that mean its impossible for a feminist group to nonetheless enact an unfair policy. Are they infallible? And if they are not, is a man allowed to stand against that. To Catch Me a man has no business, since he is not a woman. I am not trying to boss women around here. I am saying look, is it ridiculous to say that a man has every right to assert an argument on certain feminist issues since some of them affect more than females. Is this mysogyny? The Head of the Advisory Council on The Status of Women in NB calls Pro-lifers, "anti-choice" as if the intentions behind the movement were an attempt to stop women from choosing. Do you think that is fair? Is it fair for her to assert that lack of public funded abortion is discrimination? This is not some feminist of 30 years ago. Is it fair for her to say that lack of public funded abortion is an infringement on the rights to conscience and belief of the individual when abortion is actually legal? Since when do rights to belief and conscience entitle not only being able to do the thing you want but to take tax money to do so. Where is the right to conscience of the people who would not fund this?

Well, I want to thank Kimmy, since I forgot to do it. Thanks alot for making that post. I am sorry again for what I said about the Jesus Camp thread. What you did is very important for me, though you may think it is trivial.

And overall I think the moral objection to abortion is so common and really such a sensitive issue that asking people to pay for it is kind of brass.

For the record there are a great deal of psychiatric studies which point to link between abortion and suicide. If you want to bring a very very theoretical science in you had better be prepared from alot more argument.

Norman you are causing me great psychiatric distress. But nobody will let me get rid of you.

See you accused Mike and I of mysogyny for not supporting the idea of subsidized abortion. Now, look, you say feminist issues are about females and men should stay out. But what happens when an issue which goes under the umbrella of feminism affects other people as well. Subsidized abortion is not merely a woman's issue since women are not the only people who pay taxes, and I think a lot of women would also disagree with it. Do you think it is unreasonable and intruding for someone to speak up when taxes are concerned? But to use your own methodology I could also say that abortion falls under other umbrellas as well. Such as the belief in equality for unborn children and their right to life. Since you are not a supporter of this movement then I could say well this is an issue to be discussed among right-to-lifers and you are not welcome. Would that be reasonable? And the issue is not even what to do with a womans body, its a right-to-lifers freedom t abstain from the financial support of something he or she does not believe in. You used general medicare as an example to say why should I support someone with a medical problem. Well, I dont really think that argument even applies to you at all, since you probably would never support removing the medicare system. Medicare is something that is transcendent of sex, race, age, or creed. We all need it. Abortion is a very questionable issue. You dont even acknowledge this or express any sensitivity to it at all. The fact that you are allowed to get one is not enough, you feel that people have a right to get a free one while people who would otherwise. On the one hand you make pro-choice about allowing people to exercise their own self-determination, to exercise their own stance on the issue of abortion, and then you claim that you have the right to override their own self-determination and acquire funding from them for abortion. Its doublespeak.

Plus what moral objection can you have to provding health care that could be necessary to improving a person's over all health (a heart transplant) that could compare to a person's objection to funding abortion, which are largely done out out of no medical need whatsoever.

People dont go around drinking and driving so they can have a horrible accident, either.

You are taking that out of context, and mirepresenting those words. I had quite clearly stated before NO feminist that I know would support the unequal hours worked scenario given, and in particular, I was saying with those words that: 1. That a man cannot tell a woman that her view of feminism is wrong. Keeping in mind femiinism does not support the notion of equal wages for unequal time worked strawman argument. 2. A man has no right to tell a feminist how to determine her body or place in the world, or even how she should approach it. 3. The fight for equality is done by women on their individual terms not from male input. You took a narrow comment based upon this discussion thread and made it broad in application. You did not read the links given, explaining 1st wave 2nd wave etc, you have NO idea what feminism is, you won't be bothered to find out and yet you think you have a right to make commentary and pass judgement, I say that is misogyny. I never said feminism was any one thing. And what happens if a womans view of what is equal is unjust? Since we are not allowed to intrude in the feminist view point nothing can be done about it.

Those were your words. And they are not misrepresented. "That a man cannot tell a woman that her view of feminism is wrong." Why the hell not? What if she is being unreasonable? Or you dont think it is impossible for a woman to be unreasonable?

Now look if it were as simple as saying all womens issues did not have an affect on overall fairness for all individuals I would agree that it is not a man's business to intrude. But not all issues are that exclusive. Affirmative action policies. The movement toward's enforcing gender parity in parliament. There are very reasonable arguments against this, because it would undoubtebly affect democracy. The fact that you believe in freedom of determination over your own body---thats your view. You say that pro-choice covers everyone's view because it allows people who dont want to have abortions to not have them. But you go the extra mile and say it is your God given right to have free abortions paid for by everyone, including people who given the power of self-determination would not choose to fund it. And one someone points out this is unfair, you call them a mysogynist. You did this on another thread. And you made the ridiculous comparison to feudalism. If a woman cant get a free abortion we might as well go back to feudalism and serfdom. That sort of thing. I dont think its unreasonable to suggest that if we could ruscitate a serf and ask him or her if the refusal of government to provide women with free abortions is comparable to serfdom...I think he or she would quite reasonably say thats a bit of an immature and whiney comparison.

"Look this is NOT about men, and yes if it is a man thinking a feminist is wrong, then it is misogyny." This is your quote, not mine Catch Me. You didnt say that not believing in equality is mysogyny you said not agreeing with a feminist is mysogyny. This implies that feminists always have an infallible view of what equality is.

You said if I dont agree with a feminist I am a mysogynist. If the feminist has an unreasonable view regarding feminism, that is not really equal, then what does it have to do with equality. If you admit that you are human, than you admit you can be wrong. If a feminist is a human then she can be wrong, and then when she is wrong is it mysogyny to point out that she can be.