My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Persecution of Christians--real persecution.

JohnnyFlotsam

Premium Member
God's law tells me that I am to forgive and forebear, not to seek out every petty advantage and legal loophole.
Your mistake is assuming that only your "God's law" is the source of such ethical guidelines. My atheist friends, whom I count as among the most ethical people I know, would strenuously disagree. That "golden rule" citation above should make it pretty clear that "the right thing" transcends any particular sectarian canon.

Are we "required" to seek out legal loopholes in order to be vindictive or otherwise do "the wrong thing"? Of course not, but we are allowed to try, and for that reason we have a system of justice that allows us to petition for redress, ultimately calling upon a "jury of our peers" to adjudicate. In other words, we trust that, when called upon to do so, collectively, people will do the right thing. I'll take that any day over some priest, mullah, or other religious "authority" telling me what is right and what is wrong.
 

JohnnyFlotsam

Premium Member
• forgive me for implying that. I should have phased that a bit better. The basic laws of human rights are founded on the acknowledgement of the inheritance Mankind has received as rulers of the Earth given to him by his creator, and with this comes unalienable rights. "Rights endowed by the creator to man, which cannot be removed or violated etc."

The document notes that we were given rights, not laws. Among those rights is the right to make our own laws. And yes, I'd say it's fair to assume that they figured we'd rely on our individual "rule and guide" to aid us in drafting those laws. That is most certainly not the same thing as enacting into law this or that religious stricture.

• very true but our own divine laws stem from the unalienable rights endowed by the creator. Our own created laws are legitimized by our special rights given to us by the creator. It is these laws that give us our freedom and in turn allow us to create laws to govern our material life.
No, our secular laws, or more precisely our right to draft those laws, stem from that right. Divine law is that which you or I believe was handed down from on high. Big difference, obvious cases of overlap notwithstanding.

• I'm not American nor an expert on the philosophy behind the American ideal, however I believe that the framers had the intention of having the principles of ones faith act as a moral guide rather than having their established faith as the ruling authority. The principles of the Church or faith effect the decisions of the state or people, rather than the Church or faith existing as the state and making decisions for the people. Again I believe it stems from our endowed rights given by the Deity.

You seem to be arguing that "If I believe that disrespectful daughters should be stoned to death, it's OK to make a law allowing, or requiring, us to do so."
That charge, among many other conveniently overlooked statutes, is a "divine law" for a large portion of the believers in the world. In many places, it is indeed "the law of the land". Over my dead body will such a thing be allowed to happen in my country.
 

BryanMaloney

Premium Member
Your mistake is assuming that only your "God's law" is the source of such ethical guidelines. My atheist friends, whom I count as among the most ethical people I know, would strenuously disagree. That "golden rule" citation above should make it pretty clear that "the right thing" transcends any particular sectarian canon.

Are we "required" to seek out legal loopholes in order to be vindictive or otherwise do "the wrong thing"? Of course not, but we are allowed to try, and for that reason we have a system of justice that allows us to petition for redress, ultimately calling upon a "jury of our peers" to adjudicate. In other words, we trust that, when called upon to do so, collectively, people will do the right thing. I'll take that any day over some priest, mullah, or other religious "authority" telling me what is right and what is wrong.

If we are to live only by the laws of secular society and none other, and we are to exclude God's law, then those of us who believe in God are required to. If I do something because it is God's law, and I am prohibited from allowing this God's law to enter in any way, whatsoever, no matter what, to secular society, then I am prohibited from any moral act that is also not required by secular law.

It's simple logic. If it is immoral to act according to God's law, then morality consists of flouting God's law. Since you claim it is immoral to act according to God's law when acting at all within "secular society", anyone who adheres to God's law, whatever the "God" in question might be, is required to not follow that God's law when acting in secular society. An atheist, who has arrived at a set of moral rules by purely non-divine means, would be bound by those rules, but a moral theist would be bound to not adhere to his own moral code when acting in secular society, since it would be wrong, according to you, to allow "God's law" to intrude in any way, shape, or form, into secular society.
 

Macbooktony

Registered User
The "Common Sense" podcast by Dan carlin this week was all about Egypt. He used the example of a 16 year old new driver to illustrate the fact that Egypt is new to the concept of representative democracy and will need time to make mistakes and learn. If you "take away the keys" too soon they won't build any confidence. Remember, the Egyptian people have never lived under this system in their entire history.

The argument can be made that Morsi, along with the muslim brotherhood majority, was becoming less and less popular among the voters and had a second election cycle been allowed to take place, the pendulum might have swung back in the right direction organically. That would have done wonders for the confidence of Egypt as a whole and possibly enabled them to gradually come together to effectively rule themselves.

Now that a military coup has taken place, Morsi supporters have the ability to play the victim and justify their actions as retaliation against force perpetrated upon them rather than accepting the fact that they were voted down by the will of the people. Please correct me if I am wrong here, but this round of slayings, burnings, and violent persecutions did not happen until after the coup.

The Egyptians (as well as other Middle East nations) have a long track record of only being able to live peacefully under military dictatorships. Why that is, I don't know. But it is true that Coptics and Muslims were not killing each other en masse during the reigns of Mubarak or Ghadaffi.

Is all of this just an exercise in "what if?" Yes. But I believe all atrocious acts of violence are worth looking at from various angles, if only to learn enough from them to avoid a repeat in the future. Please do not shoot the messenger here, as I am mostly paraphrasing Dan Carlin. He has another EXCELLENT podcast called Hardcore History which I cannot recommend highly enough.

All of that said, I have strong personal opinions regarding whether its wise for America to fan these flames in foreign nations by giving them tanks and jets but that I will save for a different forum...

The important thing to remember here, I think, is that freemasonry is one of, if not the only thing in history that has caused so many opposing sides to lay down their arms and come together in brotherly love. Brother Porter has mentioned examples of that happening in the most unexpected places recently and it's stories like that which most make me proud to be taken by the hand as a brother.
 

BryanMaloney

Premium Member
The Egyptians (as well as other Middle East nations) have a long track record of only being able to live peacefully under military dictatorships. Why that is, I don't know. But it is true that Coptics and Muslims were not killing each other en masse during the reigns of Mubarak or Ghadaffi.


First, there are no Copts in Libya, so Ghadaffi is irrelevant. Second, Copts are NOT KILLING MUSLIMS. It is a one-way thing going on, stop trying to invent a false moral equivalency. The Copts are the victims in this, not perpetrators. Third, Muslims WERE killing Copts under Mubarak. However, since that didn't make for "good press" at the time, it was not reported except for a few outlets, like Christianity Today. Therefore, your entire thesis is invalid, from the start.

There has never been "living peacefully" in that region since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, which, for all its flaws, was not a military dictatorship. What has existed is "lack of news coverage by USA outlets", which means, according to most Americans, there must have been no events of note.
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
No. They don't.

On the other hand, virtually every one that offers any "rules" at all, offers something that is eerily similar to what you probably call "The Golden Rule".
Just a few... http://www.unification.net/ws/theme015.htm

No. It won't. Saying to those of your fellow citizens "We're going to enshrine the passage out of my book, because more of us read my book, and besides, it means the same thing," is disrespectful in the extreme to those who revere some other book. Wars are fought over such things. People are dying every day, right now, over such things. The only way to prevent such conflict is to have enough respect for everyone's differing beliefs to avoid such conflicts while striving to find common ground. That should sound familiar.



Again, incorrect. Secular means, quite literally "not pertaining to or connected with religion". And again, your confusion is as understandable as it is common. Certain political and social quarters want very much for you to believe "freedom of religion - not freedom from religion" lie, so the repeat it wherever they can. The fact is that the framers of our Constitution very carefully and pointedly, (and with no small amount of debate, I might add), excluded the citation of any religious text or precept as the authority from which government and law would be handed down. The text of that document makes it quite clear, a study of the other works of these men makes it clearer still; they were religious men who understood that the influence of any religion on the government they were designing was a threat to all the citizens who embraced any other religion. Indeed, it was the notion that a particular Christian sect might hold sway that galvanized the movement to ratify our very secular Constitution. They very clearly wanted a separation "between church and state" and yes, at least one of them has used those very words.

So yes, for our government to enshrine any sectarian dogma is "bad". That government was created to protect the right of every single one of it's citizens to embrace such dogma as he or she sees fit. It most certainly was not created to do so itself.

Yes all religions have some moral law set forth by the God of that religion. Just name one.
 

JohnnyFlotsam

Premium Member
Yes all religions have some moral law set forth by the God of that religion. Just name one.

Arguably, that is true. That, however, is not what you asserted when you said...
jvarnell said:
All religions have words like the ten commandments that say the same thing as the ten commandments
To suggest that all religions demand of their believers...

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.“You shall have no other gods before me."

or...


Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God."

...is just, well..., silly.
BTW, I am old enough to remember when one could not buy a nail or a baby bottle on Sunday in Texas. Like I said... silly.

To suggest, as you have, that such a passage from one collection of scripture ought to be acceptable to everyone, even to those who embrace another such collection, is patently absurd, not to mention insensitive and disrespectful. When it comes to spiritual beliefs, the world is far more diverse than you understand it to be, Brother.
 
Last edited:

JohnnyFlotsam

Premium Member
If we are to live only by the laws of secular society and none other, and we are to exclude God's law,
Who said such a thing? It was not me. I have said that no collection of "God's law" is suitable to be applied to a society's system of law and government. If you want to follow your chosen version of such a law, you are free to do so. That's one of the nicest things about our Constitution; it enshrines, in secular law, your right to do so insofar as that pursuit does not infringe on the fundamental rights (you know, those unalienable ones, granted by The Creator) of others. The problem with God's law (take your pick) is that it usually contains no such "...insofar as..." qualifier.
 

BryanMaloney

Premium Member
Who said such a thing? It was not me. I have said that no collection of "God's law" is suitable to be applied to a society's system of law and government. If you want to follow your chosen version of such a law, you are free to do so. That's one of the nicest things about our Constitution; it enshrines, in secular law, your right to do so insofar as that pursuit does not infringe on the fundamental rights (you know, those unalienable ones, granted by The Creator) of others. The problem with God's law (take your pick) is that it usually contains no such "...insofar as..." qualifier.

You specifically stated that God's law has no place in secular society. Therefore, since it has no place, then we are required to live without it in secular society. "No" does not mean "some" or "within reason". "No" means "no".
 

JohnnyFlotsam

Premium Member
You specifically stated that God's law has no place in secular society. Therefore, since it has no place, then we are required to live without it in secular society. "No" does not mean "some" or "within reason". "No" means "no".

Fair enough. Let me restate; "God's law" has no place as the authority for, nor statutes of, a secular system of law and government. No. That we consider the right to govern ourselves a "God-given" right is not the same thing as invoking "God's law".
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
Fair enough. Let me restate; "God's law" has no place as the authority for, nor statutes of, a secular system of law and government. No. That we consider the right to govern ourselves a "God-given" right is not the same thing as invoking "God's law".

"God's Law" the ten commandments and other religion moral law is are not in the secular law but influence the moral part of secular law. Secular Law defines how a civil society handles morals and are based on religion like "Thou shalt not murder" spawns the Murder/mansalter laws. The secular laws are not a freedom from Gods law but an extension of them. God's Law has just as much standing as secular law without the visible penalties.
 

JohnnyFlotsam

Premium Member
Secular Law defines how a civil society handles morals...
Yes. So far, so good.

...are based on religion like "Thou shalt not murder" spawns the Murder/mansalter laws. The secular laws are not a freedom from Gods law but an extension of them.
Nope. The US Constitution embodies the very Masonic notion that there is a "moral code" that transcends any particular collection of "God's law". Woven through it's words is the fundamental idea that people can and should be able to agree on such things without having to cite this or that collection of scripture.

It requires no religious faith whatsoever to understand that murder is fundamentally wrong. On the other hand, an order to keep a weekly Sabbath, or a proscription against the consumption of certain foodstuffs, or the instruction to stone to death a disrespectful daughter (all of which are examples of various collections of "God's law") have no place in secular law.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
Let me restate; "God's law" has no place as the authority for, nor statutes of, a secular system of law and government.

When it's quoted maybe it should be called "Church law" or the more touchy name "Sharia". Church law has no place in a secular state that has formalized separation of church and state. Yet those laws do come across like keeping businesses closed on Sunday.

In a very real sense "God's law" is the laws of nature of the sort gradually puzzled out by science. They are the laws that can't be broken because the universe does not allow them to be broken.

There is overlap - Cause and effect expanded in context leads to ethics. Ethics narrowed to a cultural context leads to morality. Religions must teach morality or their followers leave so they all do teach morality. Some religions even claim to be the author of morality. Many laws forbid acts that are immoral in any culture. More laws forbid acts that are immoral in the local culture but not elsewhere (Prohibition is the most famous example). More laws forbid acts that are moral but risky (speed limits are an example). Yet more laws are none of the above but leaked across the separation from church law (blue laws closing businesses on Sunday).

Many want increased power by churches. Some of them even think they are pushing God's law. "Speed limit C. It's not just a good idea it's the law".
 

otherstar

Registered User
Yes. So far, so good.


Nope. The US Constitution embodies the very Masonic notion that there is a "moral code" that transcends any particular collection of "God's law". Woven through it's words is the fundamental idea that people can and should be able to agree on such things without having to cite this or that collection of scripture.

It requires no religious faith whatsoever to understand that murder is fundamentally wrong.

The term everyone is looking for, and I haven't seen mentioned here is "natural law," which is a Medieval term used to describe those laws written by God in nature and capable of being discovered by the assistance of reason alone (and hence a law upon which all could agree). "God's law" as being used in this thread to refer to the same thing is actually an erroneous equivocation of the term "Divine Law" which is knowable only via revelation.
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
Yes. So far, so good.


Nope. The US Constitution embodies the very Masonic notion that there is a "moral code" that transcends any particular collection of "God's law". Woven through it's words is the fundamental idea that people can and should be able to agree on such things without having to cite this or that collection of scripture.

It requires no religious faith whatsoever to understand that murder is fundamentally wrong. On the other hand, an order to keep a weekly Sabbath, or a proscription against the consumption of certain foodstuffs, or the instruction to stone to death a disrespectful daughter (all of which are examples of various collections of "God's law") have no place in secular law.

Bro's dfreybur and otherstar see what I have been saying. The problem a lot of the time we get the word God mixed up with one religion or another but if we look at the Webster dictionary before 1934 you will see it is not of one certain religion or type of thing you hold dear to your hart. I really like natural law for this discussion.

The problem with the topic of persecution of Christians is that in the Islamic world thinks there should be only one group of laws and that the word God is not the same as Allah.
 

JohnnyFlotsam

Premium Member
The problem with the topic of persecution of Christians is that in the Islamic world thinks there should be only one group of laws and that the word God is not the same as Allah.
<sigh...>
Well, yes... and no. Allah is the "proper noun" referring to the Islamic deity. That deity is the "God of Abraham", and he has been known by many names, but even a cursory review of the holy scriptures of all three of the Abrahamic religions clearly shows that they are all talking about the same entity. The big dispute between those three is over who gets to speak for Him, a fundamental problem with revealed religions in general.

As for laws and persecution, saying that "the Islamic world thinks..." is as absurd as saying that "the Christian world thinks..." Such overly broad generalizations don't contribute to an honest dialog.
 
Top