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!

Obey Your Government???

TexMass

Registered User
Robin Williams says that politicians should wear suits like NASCAR showing all the companies they represent. I like that.
 

Hippie19950

Premium Member
Robin Williams says that politicians should wear suits like NASCAR showing all the companies they represent. I like that.

With the latest offering from the court, this should be easy to do. Now, if a company, or a very rich individual wants someone in office, they can buy it for the person of choice... No longer will we have to wonder who voted someone in office, all we'll need to do is look at the financial statement, and see who bought it for them. This has got to be the biggest public blunder yet... As for wheteher or not it is proper for Mason's to have any dealings with the Government (based on the original question), perhaps we should check the minutes of the meeting just before the Boston Tea Party started...
 

HKTidwell

Premium Member
With the latest offering from the court, this should be easy to do. Now, if a company, or a very rich individual wants someone in office, they can buy it for the person of choice... No longer will we have to wonder who voted someone in office, all we'll need to do is look at the financial statement, and see who bought it for them. This has got to be the biggest public blunder yet... As for wheteher or not it is proper for Mason's to have any dealings with the Government (based on the original question), perhaps we should check the minutes of the meeting just before the Boston Tea Party started...

Corporations will still not be allowed to donate to an individual. They will be able to pay for their own ads, and it will have to say who is paying for it. I support this, and here is why. Two years ago I wanted to support a candidate through the company and could not. Personally I can donate, but to allow for a company to run ads, defining why the current policies of X person is harmful to local business is a good thing. This opens up the door for good and bad, but in the end our company pays tremendous tax why should we not be able to take sides and have the same opportunity that is provided to others? The supreme court ruling took a different attitude when the Federal government wanted to say that it had the power to stop the publishing of books if they were politically motivated. The McCain - Fiengold bill had already been sent to the Supreme Court twice and was upheld. There has to be checks and balances on everything.

These are my thoughts and opinions.
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
Corporations will still not be allowed to donate to an individual. They will be able to pay for their own ads, and it will have to say who is paying for it. I support this, and here is why. Two years ago I wanted to support a candidate through the company and could not. Personally I can donate, but to allow for a company to run ads, defining why the current policies of X person is harmful to local business is a good thing. This opens up the door for good and bad, but in the end our company pays tremendous tax why should we not be able to take sides and have the same opportunity that is provided to others? The supreme court ruling took a different attitude when the Federal government wanted to say that it had the power to stop the publishing of books if they were politically motivated. The McCain - Fiengold bill had already been sent to the Supreme Court twice and was upheld. There has to be checks and balances on everything.

These are my thoughts and opinions.

I'm Bill Lins and I approve this message! :12:
 

Dragon

Registered User
I have hesitated responding to this thread because I am a very passionate and quite outspoken man. This is especially true when it comes to my political views. I am neither a Democrat, nor a Republican, or as I like to call them Demoncrats and Repubicones, I consider myself a Nationist, I believe in what is best for this nation and her people.

This country was founded on the belief that the Government is of the people, FOR the people, and BY the people. Nowhere in those words does it say that it is for the highest bidder. Politicians today have forgotten that they work for us, the people, they are only concerned with padding their pockets. Until the people of this nation wake up and do their job in the polling places and vote out the dead weight, the changes needed in this Nation will not take place.

It is the job of all of us to vote in the 2010 mid-term elections to correct these errors by voting out those representatives that are NOT serving this Nations best interest. We, The People of these United States must remind these politicians that they are in those positions to serve US, not the other way around. It is not the job of the government to provide healthcare for the nation, it is not the job of the government to pay off our mortgages or credit card debt. It IS the job of this government to protect this nation and her constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. That includes securing our borders, deporting those here illegally, and ensuring there is no chance of another attack of the same proportions as what happened at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
 

Dave in Waco

Premium Member
IMHO I think campaigns should be publicly funded only by set amounts depending on the level of the office. It would put all the candidates on a level playing field for their funding and cut out big backers with an agenda and not leave the candidate open to having return "favors". It would make them work to best spend their budget wisely, a usual requirement for a public offiicial.

Any thoughts or opinions on that?
 

MacFie

Registered User
That'd be great. Along with making lobbyists illegal, and a number of anything. It's quite the situations we're in at this point.
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
Just kidding, Blake!

I've been asked many times how we are to obey that part of the EA Charge, not to mention the WM installation. It is my opinion that we are charged to work within our system of government to effect change, & not to foment insurrections or other unlawful activities. I do not agree that we are not to be involved in politics- indeed, I believe that we should be involved, for the purpose of improving our system of government.

All that said, none of our political activities should be announced or discussed in Lodge.

The above is purely my own opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the position of the Grand Lodge of Texas or any officer thereof.

Take Out The Trash on Nov. 2nd! :wink:
 
Last edited:

peace out

Premium Member
Since when is it considered unruly to speak out against government. The EA obligation does not prevent this. How about not permitting wrongdoing if within our power? Our forefather's set up our government to respect the outcries of the citizens, not to subdue citizens into some misled oathful obedience.

Folks, you MUST speak out. Our government requires it. One can be peaceful, patriotic, and masonic as one is calling out politicians. Just don't go out joining an unlawful militia in effort of looking for real trouble. Our forefather's use to hang effigies of politicians and burn them in efforts of being heard. That may be crossing the line as we see, but it certainly sets the tone doesn't it?

My advice, be heard.
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
I would add- remember that you are a Mason & represent us all. It is perfectly OK to criticize an elected official's or candidate's actions or positions, but NOT OK to become personal in your remarks. In addition, do NOT make accusations unless you have proof. Make sure of your facts before speaking up.

Other than that, go get 'em, Tiger!
 

Dave in Waco

Premium Member
I agree with the brethern that criticizing our government does not violate our obligation as Masons. In fact, Thomas Jefferson would argue that it is our duty to criticize the government and as citizens to keep our government in check. IMHO, I believe the government is to rule and govern the people much the same way as the WM of a Lodge. But just like the WM of a Lodge, the government is only there at the will of the people or Lodge. So just like a WM, the government rules and governs at our pleasure.
 

cemab4y

Premium Member
Thomas Jefferson (not a mason) said that the people have not only a right, but an obligation to challenge and overthrow any government that is oppressive or unjust. George Washington (a Mason), said "Government is like fire, a dangerous servant, and a terrible master".
 

Ben Rodriguez

Registered User
Politics should be an honor, not a career. Former presidents should go back to work like the rest of us after having the honor to serve the nation as presidents! Protesting is patriotic in my book.
 

Traveling Man

Premium Member
Patriot or Traitor...

American Revolution:

Depends on your point of view. Treason is defined as acting against the king which is exactly what they did. But since they won the war for American independence we consider them as patriots. The winners decide who is a traitor and who is a patriot.
 
Top