Thanks Bloke, you have a point. I agree with you regarding employment, etc. because there are reputation and financial liabilities etc... to be considered; however, even that employers can always replace that individual regardless nothing wrong has done. However, we are not comparing to that because here is my point for example when a man dates a woman he would not do a background check on her especially on her sexual health before you know or even would consider ask her if she has any you know before he defrosts her. My point is that this is “relationship” concern and interest like with Freemasonry. Another point, I have never done a background check on my friends because this is considered a friendship and relationship concern and interest. Another point, when a group of religious men and women knock at my door and provide me pamphlets. Do you think they would ask me to first do a petition and then do a background check before allowing me to do for example a bible study or be a member a church? What I tried to explain is that we both have a point. Neither good or bad.
BTW, I don’t think it is the media but rather the “political opposition” that does the digging and extrapolate certain information into scandals. Still there are more post election scandals than pre-election. Anyway, I am not political opposition to Freemasonry. I would think anti-Masonry is more interested in my background than with Freemasonry, and it should be that way.