Brother Morris, First, on a personal note, let me say thank you for your comments which caused me to search deeper into the identity of the author. I was surprised to discover that I actually own several books by this person (written under an earlier name) which I purchased back in the 80's. I think that perhaps I will dig them out and re-read them. Perhaps they will be more meaningful to the person that I am today than they were to the young, impetuous man that I used to be
Second, and more important, I would like to discuss words with you. The author of this piece uses the word dangerous to describe some people. You indicated that this word "didn't seem right" to you.
You know I didn't post because there was just something there that didn't seem right to me. I now think its the word "dangerous".
I admit that it is a provocative word. Today, it is a word that is often used in a casual sense to indicate that something is bad. Of course using words in the casual sense often means that they are poorly defined. If we look at
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dangerous we find this definition:
dan·ger·ous
adjective \ˈdān-jə-rəs; ˈdān-jərs, -zhrəs\
: involving possible injury, harm, or death : characterized by danger
: able or likely to cause injury, pain, harm, etc.
In order to explain my point I would like to reference the word danger to in relation to handguns. Some people would like to ban (or restrict) handgun sales, use, and ownership based on the argument that handguns are dangerous. Handguns certainly are capable of causing injury, harm, pain, or death; so taken in a casual way the argument seems to appear valid. However no one is arguing that we take handguns away from police. Why? Is not the answer that we want some people in our society to be dangerous? Is it not a good thing that criminals consider the police to be a danger to them. So would you not agree that in some cases being dangerous is a good thing?
My point here is that if you begin with a good man, and help him become a better man, it is logical to believe that his actions will work toward good. A man who is both good and dangerous will, in my opinion, probably do away with more evil than a good man who is weak. Any man who is powerful is dangerous. Power and Danger are only bad when they serve evil. Who wins when good men are weak?
My question to the thinking Mason would be; What will happen if good men refuse to be dangerous?