A Crusader Should Be Certain in his Righteousness

Crusader88 was kind enough to respond to my most recent post. Sadly, he never answered my question but at least he took the time to express his views.

To be fair, I will include his comment here verbatim. It's not the kind of post a person can really respond to point by point but I will try to hit the hot spots. Mostly he just states what he believes and, well, that is his right. I continue to be amazed as to how absolutely certain about everything this young man seems to be. I'm 46 years old and I'm not particularily certain about much of anything. Of course, then again, I endured a steady diet of ontological shock from Robert Anton Wilson for a number of years so I am fortunate to have a fairly fluid reality labyrinth.

Crusader88 wrote the following comment:

First of all, I would like to apologize for calling Freemasonry a "vile entity". My, my, I forgot the Golden Rule.

Nonetheless, your lengthy post on Masonry (and several other subjects) has not changed my views. I was already well aware that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and other Founding fathers were Freemasons, that our Nation was founded on Masonic principles, that religion and politics must not be discussed in the lodge, and that atheists are not allowed into the ranks of Freemasonry.

Several elements of your post have reinforced my view on the Craft (if I may call it that). Although all Masons must be theists, the Craft's promotion of Enlightenment rationalism, empiricism, and discovering truth independent of tradition are very different from the traditional Catholic means of discovering transcendental truths.

We Catholics use (or are supposed to use) deductive reasoning for theological matters- first accept what is currently believed, and check them against evidence discovered. As individual interpretation of truth inevitably leads to error (the thousands of Protestant sects with conflicting beliefs), we Catholics believe Jesus Christ established the Church to preserve and define the truths encompassed in Scripture and Tradition. Some truths, which the Church is absolutely certain of, are defined dogmatically. Others are open to debate among theologians.

The Catholic view on religious truth, which I believe I've explained well, is incompatible with standard Masonic philosophy, which you have shown to be relativistic. The Enlightenment ideals characterized as Masonic, which led to the destruction of the old, legitimate governments of Europe, undermined piety and the idealistic foundations of Christendom from the start. They encouraged the hatred of the papacy and the rest of the clergy. Although some conspiracy theories about Masonic involvement in the French Revolution are indeed paranoid, Voltaire and other key agitators were indeed Freemasons.

Even your own words about Holy Mother Church are filled with much more anger and hatred than I left in my comment:...a struggle did exist back in the day. A struggle where the Papacy continued to fight a losing battle to control the minds, bodies, and free will of the Western World through the most brutal tactics. At the end of the day, maybe you have to make a choice. "Do you believe in Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Freedom of Religion, or do you believe that the population should live under the yoke of papist police and mind control?." This is merely a repeat of the old Protestant lies, exaggerations, and grandstanding against the "yoke of papist police".

Finally, regarding my patriotism: I love my country, and believe that it has an excellent form of government, although I do not believe republicanism is inherently better than other types of government, such as monarchy, dictatorship, limited monarchy, etc. I hold that virtue of government does not come from its form, but how it actually rules, and that all forms of government have faults they can easily fall into. For our Republic, I feel that although our Constitution provides for a very good government, its lack of an established religion is a weakness. It would be infinitely better if the government did not pretend to be indifferent to all religions ('tolerance' generally leads to preference for atheism, agnosticism, deism, pantheism, and other beliefs that are too relativistic to desire mass conversion and laws reflecting religious morality), and the Catholic Church was the established church. The government should at least encourage its citizens to accept the truth.

My interest is not in examining and arguing with your pantheistic beliefs as explained at the end of your post, so I'll leave them be. My, I'm sorry, but my comment must be half as long as your post! If you have any questions or I, in my infinite fallibility left some belief of mine unclear, feel free to contact me again (it was very nice when you did so the first time, as your post was so fixated on me. I wish you the best.

God bless.

[oh yeah, and don't call me a 'fundamentalist'. The connotation is very Protestant. If you won't be so kind as to say 'devout Catholic' or 'Catholic Traditionalist', 'fanatical Catholic' will do]

I will now try to respond to a few of the points raised by Crusader88.


Crusader88 said "First of all, I would like to apologize for calling Freemasonry a "vile entity"."

Thanks, I appreciate that and apology accepted.

Crusader88 wrote "Nonetheless, your lengthy post on Masonry (and several other subjects) has not changed my views."

Oh, no worries there. I never thought that it would. When I wrote a lengthy post about a minor one sentence comment clearly I was just using it as a launching point for me to rant about a particular topic or another. I tend to do that from time to time when the mood strikes me (the mood usually striking me after a certain number of beers consumed that evening). I quite enjoyed writing the post because I don't think a lot of people out there know what pantheism really is and I was in mood to express my views on the subject.

Since you appear to express yourself as a fundamentalist it is going to take a lot more than anything that I, or anyone else for that matter, can say to change your views. In fact, I doubt anything less than a deep and life changing ontological shock will make that happen. I would explain more to you about reality tunnels and hard wired neural networks, but I'm afraid that would probably be lost as well.

Crusader88 wrote "Although all Masons must be theists, the Craft's promotion of Enlightenment rationalism, empiricism, and discovering truth independent of tradition are very different from the traditional Catholic means of discovering transcendental truths."

On this point your are absolutely correct. After all, let's look how long it took the Catholic Church to apologize for what they did to Galileo Galilei. That's the kind of 'discovery of truth' that would have the world still thinking the Sun revolves around the Earth.

So, from your previous comment you appear to be against rationalism, logic, reason, astronomy, geography, and empirical science to understand the Universe we exist in?

Yes, I can see that Freemasonry is clearly at odds with the ideology you profess.

Crusader88 wrote "We Catholics use (or are supposed to use) deductive reasoning for theological matters- first accept what is currently believed, and check them against evidence discovered"

If you say so. I was under the impression that theological matters were the province of the Papacy, spread through the Priesthood and any attempt to use 'deductive reasoning' on the part of an individual parishioner was deeply frowned upon.

Crusader88 continues.. As individual interpretation of truth inevitably leads to error (the thousands of Protestant sects with conflicting beliefs),

So, I find this quite odd. I have attended the Lutheran Mass hundreds of times. I have also attended the Catholic Mass many times as well. Here's what is a little bit interesting. I can pretty much recite the entire Catholic Mass, almost word for word, based on my experience within the Lutheran Church. As someone looking at the 'big picture' the differences between one Christian sect and another, appears to me to be pretty minor indeed.

I understand that, to you, these minor differences in dogma are of some critical importance but the distinction is lost on me.

Crusader further explains "The Enlightenment ideals characterized as Masonic, which led to the destruction of the old, legitimate governments of Europe, undermined piety and the idealistic foundations of Christendom from the start. "

I find this point of view to be strange and interesting indeed. So, you view dictatorships and monarchies as purely 'legitimate' governments? No comment.

Crusader states "Although some conspiracy theories about Masonic involvement in the French Revolution are indeed paranoid, Voltaire and other key agitators were indeed Freemasons."

Indeed the French Revolution was in part inspired by enlightenment ideas, however, its execution by Robesspierre is one of the saddest episodes in Western history.


Crusader88 continues with "Even your own words about Holy Mother Church are filled with much more anger and hatred than I left in my comment:..."

Yes, my comments are. And with good reason if you know your history. Obviously the Roman Catholic Church of today, even if we ignore thousands of protected pedophiles in its ranks, is nowhere near the same institution it was at the height of its power. However, for centuries it controlled the majority of the population of Europe under a reign of absolute terror and horrific brutality.

These are facts, facts of history you may choose to ignore, sweep under the table, or simply reject. Nevertheless, it is an indelible fact of history that the Roman Catholic Church oppressed, suppressed and, yes, even slaughtered for centuries to keep the population under their control. This was done primarily to increase the wealth and power of the clergy.

We Freemasons are particularly sensitive on this topic for what happened to the Knights Templar on that fateful Friday the 13th.

Here are a few references to help you out. The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth-Century Spain, The Inquisition, The Spanish Inquisition : A History, Inquisition, The Dark Side of Christian History, or any others in a similar vein.

As horrific as any of the massacres, tortures, or burnings at the stake may have been what is most significant to this conversation is the abject terror, oppression, and suppression of free thought, free speech, and free will in the human population of Europe for centuries. The monarchies only tried to control your material state but it was the Church that wanted to control every single aspect of your mind.

In fact, it became so bad that sometimes men would meet in secret and swear oaths to protect the secrets of their brethren simply so they could speak freely without fear of the wrath of the Church.

My point is that this climate of oppression existed largely all over Europe for centuries and it is what ultimately spawned the Enlightenment, the Freemasons, and, yes, even Protestantism. These were reactions to an oppressive theocracy out to control the population and extort them of their money on pain of spirtual threats of eternal damnation and suffering. It takes a person of the highest caliber to call this bluff and I am proud of anyone who ever did.

I can see now that you believe that free thought, free speech, and religious freedom are generally to be considered as 'bad things' and that when revolutions occurred, such as the one that created this nation, they got the whole thing wrong. They overthrew monarchies and allowed individuals to worship the one, true, and only creator of the Universe as they each wished.

Crusader88 next expresses this opinion: "For our Republic, I feel that although our Constitution provides for a very good government, its lack of an established religion is a weakness."

I have to be frank, this comment leaves me simply flabbergast. You believe the fact that the United States isn't a theocracy is a weakness?!?!?

Wow, now I've heard everything. If this is our essential difference of opinion; that I think freedom of religion is a 'good thing' and you view it as a 'bad thing', I can see how this dialogue will hit an impasse quickly.

Crusader88 polishes it off with this explanation "('tolerance' generally leads to preference for atheism, agnosticism, deism, pantheism, and other beliefs that are too relativistic to desire mass conversion and laws reflecting religious morality), and the Catholic Church was the established church. The government should at least encourage its citizens to accept the truth."

Hmmm...tolerance generally leads to people getting along with each other. It leads to peace, and harmony, and a people coming together based on their shared values as opposed to their differences. Tolerance is the watch-word of a Freemason and it is of critical importance for mankind to mature and grow.

You never answered the question. How many Gods created the Universe? It doesn't matter how many different religions there are, there can only be a single God that created the Universe and, despite minor differences over ritual and protocol, they all worship the same creator.

From my own perspective, as a non-Christian, this all comes across as wildly bizarre. To me all Christian sects are roughly the same. Their basic belief system almost always includes a concept of a triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) and incorporates the idea that Jesus Christ died for their sins. They almost all believe in the Holy Bible, and accept both the Old and New Testament.

Whether they call their leader a priest or a minister, or drink grape juice or wine, seems like a minor quibbling distinction to me.

Nevertheless, I believe anyone has a right to believe any tom-fool thing they want to, so long as they harm no others in the process. Having said that, I would most certaintly consider restricting free speech and free thought as 'harmful'.

Crusader88 closes with "oh yeah, and don't call me a 'fundamentalist'."

To which I can only respond, I calls 'em like I sees 'em. Look, I make no particular distinction between any one Christian sect or another. They are all pretty much the same to me. A fundamentalist actually has nothing to do with religion either. A fundamentalist is someone who believes their reality labyrinth is the only one and try reality labyrinth. A fundamentalist is an individual who has hard wired their beliefs into their cerebral cortex and is convinced that they are right and everyone else is wrong. His being, purpose, and psyche is so wrapped up in these fundamental beliefs that a perceived threat is treated as if it were an attack on their physical person.

For further thoughts on this topic see: "The Cosmic Trigger", "The New Inquisition" and "Quantum Psychology : How Brain Software Programs You and Your World" all by Robert Anton Wilson (Allah Praise Be His Name)