Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Religion enters the Glasgow North East by-election

Those who persist in the fantasy that religion plays no part in politics, that the two do not mix, or that they should be permanently detached, will doubtless point to the present furore in Glasgow North East, where the SNP candidate, David Kerr, has been outed as a member of the ‘Catholic extremist’ group Opus Dei, which is perceived, thanks to Dan Brown, as a kind of sinister Roman Catholic freemasonry.

It appears that both Labour and Conservative MSPs are making Mr Kerr’s religious views an issue during the campaign. Labour justice spokesman Richard Baker and the Scottish Conservatives’ deputy leader Murdo Fraser have both raised questions about Mr Kerr’s membership of the controversial group. Mr Fraser said it raised questions about whether it was appropriate to have a political candidate who was a member of a ‘secretive’ and ‘hard-line’ organisation. Mr Baker said it would be ‘a cause for people to have questions’.

Cranmer has some sympathy.

But the more Mr Kerr insists that his faith is a ‘personal matter’, and pretends that ‘religion had no part to play in the election’, the more he deludes himself and deceives the electorate. He says: ‘Modern Scotland and Scottish political parties encompass people of all faiths and none. My faith is a personal matter, and religion has no part to play in this or any other campaign.’

The delusion is that Mr Kerr insists that his faith, being ‘a personal matter’, will have no bearing on the way he votes in Westminster, which is a very public matter. Asked, for example, about his views on abortion, he said: "I'm not here to talk about theology. The Catholic Church's view is well known."

So abortion is simply a matter of theology?

If religion were simply piety and devotion, it may belong in the private realm. But when that religion instructs one in the way one should vote, the public are fully entitled to enquire into the provenance of the prelate giving the direction. Members of Opus Dei are exhorted to incarnate their church's teaching through their professional work. So are all Christians. But this organisation is a strong advocate of Roman Catholic moral values on issues such as abortion and contraception. Mr Fraser was not questioning whether, as a member of Opus Dei, Mr Kerr had a right to be a candidate, but simply that his views on certain issues should be made known to the electorate.

The Labour candidate Willie Bain said: “I want to bring people together, not divide them up. My faith is important to me, but it does not matter what religion or religious organisation a candidate is in.”

That’s nice, Mr Bain. But this is Glasgow, where it matters almost as much as it does in Belfast.

Yet the SNP candidate insists that it is ‘preposterous and deeply prejudiced’ to argue that somebody of his religious beliefs should be ‘debarred’ from running for public office. He said his religious views were now an ‘open book’.

That, you see, is the problem. When one is an ‘open book’ on religion one runs the risk of being subject to scrutiny, systematically codified and labelled a bigot by some unintelligent, undiscerning, unreasonable, reactionary, bigoted journalists. One might even be called a ‘nutter’ by one’s political opponents.

No matter how reasoned, thoughtful and sincere one’s beliefs, it is almost impossible to overcome the media caricature. And all journalists engage in this; even those who profess to hold a reasoned, thoughtful and sincere faith. A National Secular Society spokesman said: "The concern for voters would be that such a person would have their allegiance to the Church and not to the SNP. It is one thing to bring your religious beliefs to politics, but it is another to bring the dogmas of a right-wing Catholic organisation. That would be the worry for voters."

Ah, we are back to ‘Pope or Parliament?’. But Cranmer is puzzled by the distinction drawn by the NSS. They appear to be saying that it is acceptable ‘to bring your religious beliefs into politics’ as long as they are not Right wing and Roman Catholic. Or is it just the ‘extreme-Catholic-Right’ variety? They appear to have no problem with Left-wing Anglicanism. Is that because it is benign and supine? Curiously, ‘the dogmas (sic) of a right-wing Catholic organisation’ were not an issue for Michael Martin, who went on to become the first Roman Catholic Speaker of the House of Commons since the Reformation. Pace Mary Honeyball, being Roman Catholic is no longer a bar to holding public office.

And in Michael Martin’s case, there were far better reasons for barring him permanently from public office.

Sadly, this by-election establishes that Tony Blair was right about ‘doing God’. Whipped up by the fervour and ecstasy of DaVinci, David Kerr’s faith has become a political football, obliging him to deceive the electorate that it is simply a personal matter and quite divorced from his public duty.

That deception alone is sufficient to establish his unsuitability for public office.


Blogger Arden Forester said...

Being a Roman Catholic is no longer a bar to holding public office? Maybe, but you have to bend so much to the New Labour wind you are in peril of breaking your back!

You cannot be on an adoption panel, you are sniffed at in the police, fire service or NHS for being of Catholic beliefs and teachers who are Catholic are seen as behaving badly as far as the new doctrines are concerned.

It's just one brave New Labour world, isn't it? Traditional believing Christians are being pilloried by prigs, poseurs and politically correct (I'd say incorrect!) apparatchiks.

21 July 2009 at 10:16  
Blogger Botogol said...

the nice thnig about democracy is that the electors can learn about what the candidates belive and then decide for themselves if they are suitable for public office.

the important thing is that candidates don't have *secret* beliefs - religious or otherwise.

21 July 2009 at 10:17  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Arden Forester,

His Grace was referring to Statute Law. Of course, being any type of Christian is increasingly a hurdle to gaining public office. Rocco Buttiglione was among the first high-profile victims of the intolerant 'post-Christian' relativist era.

21 July 2009 at 10:50  
Anonymous Kwelos said...

Well that's a refreshing change. I was under the impression that the SNP had sold their souls to the Religion of Peace™ :








21 July 2009 at 11:02  
Blogger Jim Bartlet said...

All I can say is that Mr Kerr should step out into the light. We are either Christians or not. His Grace has highlighted the important truth about suitability here. If he is going to duck and dive in the shadows of furtiveness about something which should really be of great importance to himself, then how is anyone to respect his character?

Someone who feels committed enough to join an organisation such as Opus Dei will surely have the courage of his convictions to stand by his beliefs. Anything less will be perceived as deception, or worse!!

21 July 2009 at 11:12  
Anonymous Puritan Preacher said...

Regrettably, Mr Kerr appears ashamed of his religion. You cannot be a secret Christian. Attempting to keep his beliefs private is a mistake. It will and should have a bearing on how he behaves in public office. We are to be 'salt and light' to try and make the world a better place. There is nothing sinister in that aim.
He needs to be open and take on his critics in debate; it would be a refreshing approach.As things stand he comes over as just another shifty politican, dodging and diving, ducking and weaving. This will not help his campaign.

21 July 2009 at 12:51  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Secularism is often in practice an alternative religion. Similar questions might be asked of a confessed secularist about his agenda.

21 July 2009 at 13:31  
Anonymous fausty said...

Evidently, it is acceptable to Labourites that they have ties to the secretive and sinister Fabian Society.

The hypocrisy!

21 July 2009 at 13:38  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Ruth Kelly is a member of Opus Dei. It didn't stop her becoming a minister under both Blair and Brown although she did resign rather than compromise her religious ethics. Or that's her excuse anyway.

And Kwelos is right, the SNP do seem to favour Islam over Christianity. After all, they seemed to pass off the Kalashnikov training/toting (in Pakistan) of Glasgow councillor Jahangir Hanif and his children as nothing more than holiday highjinks. Personally I'd call it something else...

21 July 2009 at 13:59  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

I am surprised that Your Grace implies that Freemasonry is in some way sinister . Perhaps His Grace has been taken in by the smear and innuendo ,now dished out to all religious organisations , which was first applied to Masonry .

That it was the Labour R.C. mafia , ably backed by the hard-left S.N.P. , who spearheaded legal discrimination against masons in the Scottish Parliament is beyond doubt .

See below for a selection of the new establishment's view on the evil organisation which purveys the dangerous message that "All Men Are Brothers".


That both political movements are now mired in a dispute over membership of a much more dogmatic , much more secretive organisation , which has no such message of universal brotherly love , is more than a little ironic .

As is the desperate attempt by both to appeal , simultaneously and primarily ,to the large Irish R.C. vote in the Glasgow East constituency .

21 July 2009 at 14:03  
Blogger Jim Bartlet said...

The Masonic Lodge is no place for the Christian Heart, the Christian Soul, the Christian mind, or the Christian body.

Word verification = cohortin (which can have many implications for myself also - well done)

21 July 2009 at 14:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Liberal MP's (reportedly) called on our House of Parliament on several occasions to investigate Masons links/involvement in lucrative PFI contracts. The question of 'religeon' was not raised, merely the issue of taxpayer funded business protectionism concealed beneath the sworn secrecy of Masons.

It' fair to assume that members of all such 'secret societies' were christened in church as children by their parents and are not aetheists. It's also fair to assume that members of societies such as 'freemasons' are of differing religeous origins.

21 July 2009 at 14:27  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

That is your opinion , Mr. Bartlett .
It is not mine .

Nor have I seen or heard anything which demonstrates that Freemasonry is anything but compatible with Christianity .

Innuendo and smear , as I said .

21 July 2009 at 14:28  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

True , Anonymous .
Masons are from all religious backgrounds . Persecution of them in my part of the world seems to stem from the Left-Liberal "Project" and R.C. hangers-on , both of whom are implicated in this story . That's why I brought it up .

I don't want to argue with any fellow communicants regarding their views of Masonry and the Christian faith .
I know some see the universality as anti-Christian , while others make up stories about worshipping Gilded Goats smeared in virgin's blood .
Believe what you want .

Any Mason who uses his affiliation for gain or illegal purposes is beneath contempt .

Have the members of other religious organisations , or even political parties , not done this sort of thing ?

Or are Masons the source of all evil/crime in the world ?

My local newspaper tells me that most crimes in my town are committed by those whose surnames originate in Southern Ireland . it is not difficult to imagine what religion they would describe themselves as following .

I do not use that as an excuse to smear all followers of that religion , however . Why should Masonry be so smeared ?

21 July 2009 at 14:45  
Blogger Francesca said...

Religious beliefs should be discussed openly. The public has a right to know where a politician stands. Abortion, as you rightly notice, is not about theology. By hiding away religion as 'personal', we run the risk of reducing it to the few and badly thought public statements some religious figures make (or fall into) every now and then. Are believers not capable of thinking for themselves and interpreting scripture and tradition to make sense of ethical dilemmas?

21 July 2009 at 14:57  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Very true , Francesca .

In my view the current attempts to silence Christian expression are aimed at nothing more than to establish the current Left-Liberal party line as the new morality .

Why should we trust the members of a large , powerful organisation (whose policy is decided in secret meetings and enforced through rigid party discipline) to tell us that their new-found enthusiasms for issues such as abortion , "Gay" rights/marriage and dogmatic marxism-feminism have now supplanted centuries of Christian (and pre-Christian) thought ?

21 July 2009 at 15:06  
Blogger Jim Bartlet said...

If I need to go into a Church, I simply have to walk through the door......this is the first of many contrasts. Another being that I, and evryone else knows what will take place, for the most part.

Like you point out, it is my opinion, and I echo yours.....until proven otherwise, I have not seen or heard anything which demonstrates that Freemasonry is anything but incompatible with Christianity.

21 July 2009 at 15:08  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

We'll have to agree to disagree , Mr.Bartlet .

Thankfully , as Christians and free-thinkers , neither of us has to claim an ideological hegemony .

We'll leave that to other , more "progressive" circles .

21 July 2009 at 15:15  
Anonymous bertrand said...

Those who claim to find no incompatibility between Freemasonry and Christianity are ignorant of one or both. Walton Hannah's Darkness Visible makes an unanswerable case. (Hannah was a CofE clergyman.)

Also worth reading: John Salza's Masonry Unmasked. This has the benefit of being an unsensationalist examination by someone who was himself a Freemason.

21 July 2009 at 15:18  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

Would there be a problem if he were a Muslim.
I think not.

21 July 2009 at 16:20  
Anonymous Got the Guts to wear God said...

I feel that if a person with religious convictions wants to enter politics then that is their right. It would do no harm for a few of our bent politicians to have some kind of spiritual ethics when being tempted by dirty dealings. Are any of them innocent of lying, cheating, and robbing the tax payers?

It is the media and the Whitehall gang that owns them that should be kept out of politics. They seem selective as to which religions can run with the ruling elite and which ones can’t. I haven’t heard too much from either regarding Shahid Malik or Lord Ahmed?

21 July 2009 at 17:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

Adrian P
Got the guts to wear God.

Thanks, bang on the button, most of the other communicants haven't got the balls to go down that route.

To my atheist uneducated mind, I care not one jot about Freemasonry, Opus Dei, or any other so called Christian(or otherwise)secret society, but the unchecked march of Islam in my beloved England should concentrate all our minds.

Oh by the way, sorry, but I thought The Davinci Code was a good read !

21 July 2009 at 18:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you got the 'balls' to say what it was about the Davinci Code that appealed to you?

21 July 2009 at 19:41  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Excellency ,

What ??

So you are saying Christians shouldn't be involved in politics ? Leave it to the atheists to run UK? OR is this because he is a Roman Catholic you are now back onto the anit-Catholic bandwagon a la Catholics priests are Homosexual and therefore pedofile theory as per your previous posts ?

OR is it because you just don't like the Labour party?

Which is it or is it a combination of all of these ?

Please do tell us .

21 July 2009 at 21:03  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Lord Lavendon,

Please simply re-read the post in a calm and reflective manner.

21 July 2009 at 21:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lavendon

It seems that you have misread the Post (and previous posts) and have either misread the comments, or not not read them at all. But there again....you are a banker!

21 July 2009 at 21:33  
Blogger McKenzie said...

I have just popped in to say how it is looking all very disturbing to me Your Grace.

21 July 2009 at 21:39  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace,

I will do so.

21 July 2009 at 22:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Am I the only one who thinks Lord Lavendon is a twit- even for a banker?

21 July 2009 at 22:31  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous 19:41

Read my lips...
No more No less

22 July 2009 at 00:06  
Anonymous not a machine said...

mmm bit of spat in commons over it , the lib dems should just come out and rename there party the european secular socialist lites.

It is interesting that Roman catholic faith gets some stick from the secularists as opposed to tatchells and co regular disrupting of the service at Canterbury.

The barring of people for religous belief from politics is unworkable , the secularists perhaps have won that argument , if they wish to help anti religous groups campaign for there form of delusion and political power , then they can do that.

what annoys me is that they work in the political realms as they can get a result on the ignorant, they do not have a showdown with the appologists as faith can be so intimate and personal they lose everytime someone says they have experienced god !!.

I have no choice but to see my Roman Catholic followers as brothers and sisters , as i do my methodist and baptist aqquaintences , but I appreciate my protestantism for being able to question and wrestle .

22 July 2009 at 00:34  
Anonymous bertrand said...

One is reminded of Hilaire Belloc's experience, recounted in many profiles:

"In 1906 the Liberal Party nominated him for Parliament in Salford South, near Manchester. No Liberal had ever been elected there, which may explain why one of the country’s two great parties would nominate an eccentric French-born Roman Catholic journalist who had been naturalized for only three years. The voters were mostly Methodist, and Belloc’s campaign manager warned him to avoid religion.

"Belloc rose to his feet in a packed hall at his first meeting of the campaign. "Gentlemen," he began, "I am a Catholic. As far as possible, I go to Mass every day. This [reaching into his pocket] is a rosary. As far as possible, I kneel down and tell these beads, every day. If you reject me on account of my religion, I shall thank God that He has spared me the indignity of being your representative!" There was an absolute silence. One imagines the campaign manager contemplating the razor and his wrists. Then the crowd exploded with applause. His constituents may not have shared his religion, but they admired his guts, openness and ebullient temperament. (Perhaps, too, his capacity for drinking most of them under the table.) He was elected."


22 July 2009 at 01:53  
Anonymous Frank said...

re Hillaire Belloc
'may all my enemies go to hell
noel noel noel noel'
He regarded protestanism and islam as the greatest threat to the church even though he recognised the many similarities between the catholic church and islam.
A bad poet and a bigot =?

22 July 2009 at 02:47  
Anonymous bertrand said...


Rather unfair to cite those two lines in condemnation of Belloc. As the Great Wiki tells us, "In Belloc's novel of travel, The Four Men, the title characters supposedly represent different facets of the author's personality. One of the four improvises a playful song at Christmastime, which includes the verse... it should be noted that the other characters regard the verse as fairly gauche and ill-conceived, so while part of Belloc may have agreed with this somewhat offensive song, it is not necessarily representative of Belloc's personality as a whole." Few bigots manifest that kind of self-awareness.

As for Protestantism and Islam constituting threats to the Church Catholic... well, I think adherents of both religions would probably like to think of themselves as such, no? Else why would they proselytise Catholics?

Anyway, my point in citing the episode from Belloc's life was not to present him as a model of ideal conduct, but rather to show that Catholics seeking to be MPs have faced this kind of nonsense before - and that there is positive precedent for taking a more robust approach.

22 July 2009 at 04:39  
Blogger Manfarang said...

"faith has become a political football"-The Old Firm!

22 July 2009 at 04:47  
Anonymous Philipp Melanchthon said...

As one who knows plenty of Opus Dei members quite well and who is personally 'high but dry' in his churchmanship, I can assure you that they're a fairly diverse bunch who tend to reflect whichever part of the political spectrum they derive from. Quite frankly, given their internal dissensions, the notion of them colluding on matters extraneous to their piety seems risible.

22 July 2009 at 06:47  
Anonymous Frank said...

@ Bertrand
Apart from writing frightful poetry
the only thing Hillairehead Belloc noted of interest was the similarity between catholics and
muslims. Both fundamentalist and bullies who use what you euphemistically call the 'more robust approach.' Granted the muslims are more robust than the catholics

22 July 2009 at 13:39  
Anonymous churchmouse said...

@ Bertrand: "As for Protestantism and Islam constituting threats to the Church Catholic... well, I think adherents of both religions would probably like to think of themselves as such, no?"

What are you? french or something?[Yes, Your Grace - I employ your second alternative, and I apologize for being tedious. However, I also satirize european conventions for capitalization, which I find much more tedious, as well as dangerous and ugly].

Anyway - I am Protestant and intend no threat to the Catholic Church; rather, I assert my right to remain independent of a foreign system that I think is misleading and misled.

Perhaps RCs view non-compliance as threatening, however. That response would accord with those I have observed in gangster-type businessmen and other lefties, when they are faced by 'independent thinkers.

22 July 2009 at 14:11  
Anonymous Hillaire Bollocks said...

There was a french catholic called
who traversed la Manche
to find a good surgeon
He joined Cranmer's site
to put up a fight
but instead got bludgeoned
by a church mouse urchin.

22 July 2009 at 15:11  
Anonymous bertrand said...

I'm English, not "French or something". There do happen to be some Englishmen who subscribe to Cobbett's view that the English Reformation "was engendered in beastly lust, brought forth in hypocrisy and perfidy, and cherished and fed by plunder, devastation, and by rivers of innocent English and Irish blood." Sorry if that comes as a shock.

Fundamentalism is a Protestant error - one of the less malign ones - so I can't quite see how it can be imputed to Catholics.

22 July 2009 at 15:14  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Churchmouse -

"What are you? french or something?"

Indigomyth uses the same foreign phraseology .

You are correct , I think , as a Protestant to bear no ill-will to individual R.C.s . Opposition to the organisation is another thing .

In today's new Leftie-World the R.C. church hierarchy (especially the Scottish variety) has invented the P.C. term of "anti-Catholic" to be bandied about like "Islamophobic" , "Homophobic" or "Racist".
In this way they silence their opponents .

Is this evidence of a highly political organisation with an anti-freedom agenda ?

22 July 2009 at 15:15  
Anonymous bertrand said...

You can find the term "anti-Catholic" in Edmund Burke's writing. Rumour has it that he was alive in the 18th century. Still, I'm sure the Church hierarchy will be flattered to find themselves painted as such cunning wordsmiths.

22 July 2009 at 15:32  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

The previous use of the word does not say anything about the current , sinister P.C. overtones when it is deliberately applied against opponents by St.Andrew's Cathedral's press office .

The currently ambiguous links between this office and both Labour and the SNP are at the heart of this matter .

To your earlier post - try reading this


22 July 2009 at 15:39  
Anonymous bertrand said...

Young Oligarch,

I'll gladly read that link. Please do look into the books I mentioned earlier in the thread - especially Hannah's.

22 July 2009 at 15:41  
Anonymous Laird said...

I think you're right young og.
Indigomyth has returned in disguise as a french catholic
called Bertrand.

22 July 2009 at 15:48  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

I will do , Betrand , if I can find it second hand on my travels .

The first part of The Hiram Key is good , before it gets into "Surely this must mean ...." territory .

When I bought my copy in Glasgow several years ago I found a craft knife blade inside between two pages (admittedly it was still in the plastic wrapper it had been sold in).

Could this have been an anti-masonic threat ? If so , from whom ?

As far as I am aware , at that point Waterstone's did not have an ironmongry department , so it wasn't an accident .

22 July 2009 at 15:50  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

Poor recusant will be apoplectic when he discovers that his catholic compatriot Bertrand is actually indigomyth.

22 July 2009 at 16:15  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

I would have thought all my anti-Christian proposals and positions would make it impossible for me to be Catholic. I have argued fervently against RC adoption agencies, and have even questioned whether religious belief deserves any protection under the law. Hardly a Catholic position.

Rest assured that I am not Bertrand. My interest in the Catholic church only extends to extricating its claws from society.

Please do not sully my good name by association with any Christian denominations. It is clear from looking at my previous posts that I am anti-Christianity and anti-Catholic.

22 July 2009 at 16:42  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Indigomyth -

"I am ...anti-Catholic".

But not in a good way .

22 July 2009 at 16:44  
Anonymous indigomyth said...


//But not in a good way .//

No, in the best way. My anti-Catholicism is a product of my general anti-religion position.

22 July 2009 at 16:49  
Anonymous jilly said...

I have catholic friends who are
not fussed with all the extremist
elements of catholicism.They send their children to catholic schools but they are very normal and sensible.I think it's just a traditional thing in certain families.

22 July 2009 at 18:38  
Anonymous len said...

As freemasonry is a false religion with binding oaths it is hardly compatible with being a christian.

I think also we should ask ourselves what real purpose do organisations like Opus Dei, and the Jesuits ,and other societies, serve?

22 July 2009 at 19:42  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Freemasonry is not a religion , so it can hardly aspire to being a "false religion".

Since when is taking oaths un-Christian ?

How does that work out in court , or when MP's , Peers of the realm , soldiers , etc.,. take the Loyal Oath ?

22 July 2009 at 19:49  
Anonymous len said...

Norman Vincent Peale:
I consider Masonry to be the purest form of religion on earth"
(Masonic monitor, May 1992 pg 17,) Norman Vincent Peale was a 33rd degree Freemason

22 July 2009 at 20:54  
Anonymous len said...

Albert Pike" Every Masonic lodge is a temple of religion, and its teachings are instructions in religion"( Morals and dogma. Pg 213)

22 July 2009 at 20:56  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

"Freemasonry and Religion

Freemasonry is not a religion, nor is it a substitute for religion. The one essential qualification means that Freemasonry is open to men of many religions and it expects and encourages them to continue to follow their own faith. It is not permitted for Freemasons to discuss these subjects at Masonic meetings."

Grand Lodge of Free , Antient and Accepted Masons of Scotland .


The Aims and Relationships (Principles) of the Craft can be found here -


This is THE definitive masonic position .

Anything else is someone's individual addition .

For masonic discomfort with other bodies calling themselves "Freemasons" and imputing other values to masonry see here -


23 July 2009 at 01:21  
Anonymous len said...

The young Oligarch,
You seem to be in denial of the facts of freemasonry.
It IS a religion .

23 July 2009 at 08:27  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Len -

If you don't believe the words of the Grand Lodges , then you're not going to believe the words of any individual mason .

We're all liars , obviously .

It's a colossal global conspiracy (possibly controlled by the Jews - or 10' lizards).

You're right .

23 July 2009 at 12:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled; to conceal the Truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it." (Albert Pike, "Morals and Dogma," page 104)
Albert Pike 33rd degree Freemason.

23 July 2009 at 13:42  
Anonymous len said...

That should read len 13:42

23 July 2009 at 13:43  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

I will tell that to the Supreme Goat as I worship before his gilded hooves this evening .

Oops ! Wasn't supposed to tell you about that !

23 July 2009 at 13:46  
Anonymous len said...

The Young Ogliarch,
I rest my case and will leave you with Proverbs 23:9
" Do not speak to a fool, for he will scorn the wisdom of your words".

23 July 2009 at 19:16  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Len -

You don't have a case to rest .

All you have done is call me , and the Grand Lodge of Scotland , liars .

Your approach is "I don't believe what you say and nothing can make me change my mind ".

The sources (conveniently off-line) which you quote are flatly contradicted by official masonic pronouncements , links to which I have provided for your information .

You ignore these and stick to your prefered belief that Freemasonry , despite all its protestations , is really a "false religion" in disguise .

There is nothing more I can say , as there is no way to engage you in debate .

Good luck with the lizards .

23 July 2009 at 19:25  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

That's not right , Len . Christians should not mock each other , or call each other names , no matter how frustrated they become .

Let me atone by giving you an unrelated link I've discovered .


It's from Calvin College , Michigan and gives the text of hundreds of Christian texts .

I was looking for a translation of the Venerable Bede , as I couldn't find my old Penguin , and found it here .

Have a good evening .

23 July 2009 at 20:19  
Blogger Baal said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

24 July 2009 at 20:13  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Say "Hello" to Ishtar and Tanit for us , will you ?

Oh , and shut the door on the way out .

Thanks .

25 July 2009 at 02:44  
Blogger Baal said...

Well...Ishtar is both a mightier and more merciful God and one actually deserving of worship than the "Christ" so many of the apparently poorly read, uneducated, and ignorant "Christians" who post to this blog profess.

I will continue to visit this blog to remind the "conservative Christians", the "evangelical Christians", and the (this is perhaps the most amusing appellation) "orthodox Christians" that they are ignorant, lack much in the way of a classically appropriate education, and are deceived to believe in an extreme mutilation of the Gospel.

They are, of course, not all knuckle dragging cretins, some are so malformed that their knuckles fail to reach the ground.

25 July 2009 at 03:43  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Baal,

Whilst you are welcome to express your opinion, and forcefully express it, His Grace only asks that you do so without crude expletives.

Bless you.

25 July 2009 at 12:03  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older