So if they're 'fake', why bother?
It's a bit more complicated than that. When a man becomes a Mason, he is
expected to be able to practice tolerance and to 'keep a secret'. Most often
this involves personal matters but it's something every Mason understands. The
consequence of breaking this trust that's shared amongst ALL Masons wherever
dispersed is not a simple triviality; it's the core of the fraternal brotherhood
that has existed over three centuries and more. Thus, a serious and solemn
penalty is not a joke or prank. Every Mason understands this - but they also
understand that it's symbolic.... Those who have difficulty understanding
symbolism (or who want to attack Freemasonry for their own objectives) pick on
this as an object of scorn and mocking. To a Mason, it's sheer foolishness to be
doing so.
But he didn't know.... The horror of it all!
When a man joins Freemasonry, these concepts are discussed with him well in advance of
his initiation. This is not unlike other instances in our lives where we encounter things
which we might not have understood in their totality before they were presented to us. If
you've bought a house, can you honestly say that you obtained and studied carefully each
and every one of the mortgage papers before you signed them? More likely, you were handed
some things and relied on your trust in others that they'd be appropriate.
So too in Freemasonry: the individual seeks out the fraternity (not vice-versa) and at
several points along the way, including just seconds before the actual obligations are
conferred, he is reassured that what he obligates himself to will not interfere with any
duty he owes to GOD, his country, his family/neighbors, or himself.
Please pay particular attention to the order in which these
assurances are made. One charge of anti-Masons is that Masonic obligations interfere with
a Mason's duty to God yet should the Mason find any such contradiction, the obligation
would not be at all binding! Fact is: there isn't! <sigh>
With these assurances in mind, the candidate is asked if he is willing to proceed. Only
upon a positive, verbal statement does the ceremony continue.
As anti-Masons will show, obligations used in the past (available to them from the many
Masonic 'Exposures' written over the past 300 years) do contain penalties which - if
followed literally - would be so heinous as to warrant the contempt of all. The difference
is, however, that the obligations are allegorical in nature.
As times change, the concept of allegory is becoming lost. The number of 'acceptable'
nursery rhymes diminishes daily in an effort to be politically correct and as this
happens, fewer and fewer people understand the concept of allegory.
Consequently, many Grand Lodges throughout the world have changed or are changing their
obligations to say, simply and plainly, that a Mason in times past obligated himself to
various things (the 'Bloody Oaths') but that a Mason today subjects himself only to the
penalty of being 'spoken to' or being asked to leave!
Masonry's detractors, when confronted with this
information, will suggest that the penalties - if they are meaningless in the
first place - should be abolished. Why they are in a position to determine how
an organization to which they do not belong should conduct its affairs is a
mystery. Nevertheless, the penalties are mentioned since they emphasize the
sincerity of purpose upon which the work is undertaken.
It's hardly the stuff on which the planets turn, but to hear the anti-Masonic faction
tell it, it's the most heinous thing in the world. Frankly, missing a mortgage payment can be far more hazardous....
In HIS Name
As a further complaint, against the
Masonic oaths, 'religious intolerants' will argue that an Oath made in
the Creator's
name is inappropriate. They also complain that one is made to swear to things unknown
until they are spoken. Many (perhaps most)
of those who make this objection have likely never served in the Armed Forces
(although many like to 'play' soldier, being part of a self-created 'militia'
movement). Had they served in the US military, perhaps they might have
understood this comparison which appeared on the alt.freemasonry newsgroup in
August, 2001. An anonymous poster using the moniker "Maverick
Ministries" wrote
"So you have entered
into "sacred" and binding vows with unbelievers/Non Christians if
the only requriement <sic> is to believe in a supreme being which could be an alien
is <sic> someone's mind and are therefore at the same table as Belial in
an unequal yoke. Time to come out and forsake this mess."
to which this reply was given:
"I DO SOLEMNLY
SWEAR (OR AFFIRM)
Here an oath is being taken.
THAT I WILL SUPPORT
AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN
AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME;
Allegiance is being sworn to a
document written by man that is subject to change (although change is
infrequent and takes a long time to approve). You will notice that the enemies
are not enumerated. You will notice some enemies may be domestic. This means
that one is obligated to fight enemies unknown to one at the time the oath is
taken.
AND THAT I WILL OBEY
THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE
OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME,
You will notice that obedience is
sworn to the President and officers without naming them. This means one is
obligated to obey persons most of whom are probably unknown to oneself at the
time the oath is taken.
ACCORDING TO
REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE.
You will notice that regulations
(which may as yet not be written) and the UCMJ are incorporated by reference.
The UCMJ prescribes strict penalties including death for many crimes that have
no civilian crime as a counterpart, such as quitting work without notice with
the intent never to return.
SO HELP ME GOD."
Here God is called on to be an
active part of the oath. This oath has bound many a believer and unbeliever
together, even to the sacrifice of one's life for the other's, and is
considered by many believers and unbelievers to be sacred.
I am extremely honored to be bound
by it.
Best regards, Kurt
(Our
thanks to Brother Kurt Kurosawa for this!)
The Biblical issue
By the time of Christ
the Old Testament law regarding oaths (Exod 22:11) was much perverted by the scribes, and
Jesus therefore condemned indiscriminate and light taking of oaths. The
lawfulness of oaths is recognized by the apostles, who called on God to witness
to the truth of what they said (2 Cor 11:31; Gal 1:20).
Taking ANY obligation
For those visitors from outside of the United States or those who have never
served in the military in the US, this is the oath of allegiance that is given
to every person enlisting or re-enlisting for any of the armed forces. This oath
has been given to ALL persons, even in times when their enlistment was not at
all voluntary but was required by the country's laws. Freemasonry, on the
contrary, is quite clear that an applicant must come 'of their own free will and
accord'. Further, before any obligation is given in any degree of Freemasonry or
of ANY body associated with it, the candidate is assured by the presiding
officer that it will not interfere with any duty he owes to God, his country,
his neighbor/his family, or himself. He is told "...with that assurance, are you
willing to receive it?" and has the absolute right to answer "No!". Gosh, it's
really not THAT hard to understand, is it?