Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Masonic Temple advertising chipping your kids
shanyin
Novice YoginSault Ontario Veteran
I drove by my local Masonic Temple today, and they had a sign advertising them putting identification 'c.h.i.p.s' in your children.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xorR2Yo84Jo
Who.. the are these people. I expressed an idea to my friend of standing out there with a sign. 'They will kill you' he says.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xorR2Yo84Jo
Who.. the are these people. I expressed an idea to my friend of standing out there with a sign. 'They will kill you' he says.
0
Comments
oddly enough, my girlfriend came up behind me while i was watching this and told me that her old church said the chips were "the mark of the beast" spoke about in the bible. i guess, according to the bible, everyone is going to want this "mark of the beast" for some beneficial reason but it is said that the people behind the mark are going to be the anti-christ.
weird. haha.
I've heard the theory your friends old church is talking about.
Yeah, that's what they use to preach in the church I'd be dragged to as a kid. Only they claimed it would be a barcode. Years later, partly for my own amusement and partly as one final *** to the traumatizing fear that church instilled in me as a kid, I had a barcode tattooed on my wrist.
aw man, you're going to have to get that removed when we all get our real ones!
Thank you.
Two,
Microchipping children, given the frightening increase in child trafficking ( see Madeleine McCann case) is not necessarily a bad thing.
Microchipping can also be used for advantageous purposes; blood groups, medical conditions, and other personally identifying factors.
Questions to be asked would be, if we do it to precious pets, are children not more precious?
If medical services are not freely available to everyone who needs it (and who can't afford medical insurance), then who pays for it, exactly?
*Edit: I should say that I apologize if my language offended anyone, but that I make no apology for the use of it itself.
Of course, I haven't watched the clip so I could be wrong.
In metta,
Raven
I was only able to watch the first 1:30 of the youtube piece before it cut itself off. However, in that 1:30 I heard nothing about Masons, or chipping children. All I heard was another 9/11 conspiracy theory. I've heard plenty of them, and this one didn't sound any more convincing, in my opinion. Is the rest of the piece about Masons and chips?
That is really a bunch of paranoia. I'm a member of the Masonic Lodge, and it's essentially a philanthropic fraternal order. Nothing more. They aren't trying to take over the world, and they don't care about taking your home, your money, or your life, whether or not you "disagree with them." While some members are politicians, business men, and even a few past presidents, the majority of members are hard working blue collar people. Nothing to be afraid of, nothing to be alarmed about.
Now as far as the chips go, I know nothing about them. I'm interested to learn more though . . .
I view these events as distractions to the Path.
Thank you for editing your post.
Metta to all sentient beings
I was just making a point that coarse language is not needed to get an opinion or view across, shanyin's post was just as effective without course language as it was with it.
Here are some thoughts by Sangharakshita on this, in his essay on the ten precepts.
"Ten Pillars of Buddhism" Page 34-35
http://www.freebuddhistaudio.com/texts/lecturetexts/161_The_Ten_Pillars_of_Buddhism.pdf
"Such language has become common in recent
times, and the use of four-letter words is viewed by some as a sign of
rugged masculinity, of freedom from convention, of some kind of artistic integrity, instead of what it really is, a sign of emotional immaturity, impoverished imagination, and limited vocabulary."
Which I kind of agree with.
Metta to all sentient beings
Please see this description from Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonic_Child_Identification_Programs_%28CHIP%29
At no time is there any discussion or action on the implanting of any devices into anyone's body, children or adults. This is a fantasy promoted by conspiracy theorists, who are wont to espouse most vocally on topics they know absolutely nothing about.
As Fede so accurately pointed out above, the sign which someone read and filtered through their own fears and belief system in all likelihood has only good intentions as it motivation. It would be wise to fully check something, before jumping to conclusions.
I disagree. And such language has always been common, hence the term "vulgar" (the word vulgar itself meaning "common"). The only reason such language is view negatively is because some high-brow folks at some point decided that such language was beneath them and only suited for the underclasses. My vocabulary is quite extensive I assure you.
The reason it is viewed negatively is because a lot of the time it is associated with negative emotions. You have to admit, it does not sound very nice when someone is using the F word and other similar words in public. I know a lot of people including family members who have to swear with every sentence, its became so common for them to do it that they don't even realise they are doing it. In my opinion and I also point it out to them, it sounds horrible, especially when its used in public. I don't know what class has to do with it, I think every class has people who find it fine to swear out aloud to their hearts content. So its has nothing to do with being beneath anyone, but has everything to do with speaking in a civilized manner to one another. But if you think its ok to do this then of course thats your right but next time your F ing and blinding in public spare a thought for the poor people who have to listen to it.
Metta to all sentient beings
And there you make assumptions about how exactly I speak and act. Of course I adjust the language I use according to the situation at hand. This has nothing to do with certain words being "crude" or "bad", but rather what works for the situation. Much in the same manner of how I will use formal language in a formal environment and causal language in a casual environment, or I will use simpler language with a child than I would with an adult. If I feel a situation warrants blunt language I will use blunt language. If it warrants kind language I will use kind language.
Excellent point. That's something I also brought up in a similar discussion we had about bad language a while back after receiving this email from a socialist discussion list that I belong to:
While the context is slightly different, I think it sums up my position quite well.
In this case, it's illustrating how the common language of the people (including things such as profanity and slang) was historically looked down upon by the ruling class as being inappropriate.
From one point of view, you could say that the ruling class was behaving appropriately and teaching the common person by example how to behave. But from another, you could say that imposing aristocratic manners upon the common person was simply another form of oppression, and judging the common person by their use of vulgar or common language was simply another form of class discrimination. The same can easily be applied to people who use the idea of right speech in a similar way.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the importance of right speech, and that includes taking other people's feelings into consideration; but I also realize that words are just words. As Chandrakirti allegedly said in one of his works, "Words are not policemen on the prowl. We are not subject to their independent authority. They take their meaning from the intention of the person speaking." In other words, it's not just the words being used that matter, it's also the intentions behind them.
For example, I grew up in a family/area where swearing was the norm, but that's not the reason I use profanity. I can be as proper and as articulate as the next person, but I chose to use profanity for two main reason: (1) the use of profanity helps to stress certain points, emotions, etc. and (2) I find the taboo against using certain words ridiculous (unless, of course, the word itself has become so offensive that its use automatically attacks or insults a group or individual directly).
I understand that others feel differently, and that's why I don't use profanity all the time, but I think that people should be free to express themselves as they see fit. I'm a very strong proponent of free speech, and while I agree with Lincoln that no one should "curse at other people, attack people, or generally be jerks," I'm quite liberal when it comes to the general use of profanity.
My own point of view is that words have no meaning by themselves, they only have the meaning that the hearer gives them. If I look at a word written in a language I don't know to read, no concept forms in my mind regardless of the intent of the writer. If I read a word in a language I do understand then concepts form in my mind. Those concepts might be the same concepts the writer intended or they might differ significantly.
I do curse from time to time around some people and in some contexts, but in general I do not curse because I am aware of what concepts are likely to form in others minds and they are not concepts I wish to deal with or bring about in their minds. Similarly when I hear or read others curse there are concepts that form in my mind which are not generous toward the speaker/writer. Not in all cases, but in many. I am definitely not part of any ruling class either
In any event, if a mod says 'watch it' then dems da rules around these here parts :winkc:
Yes, that's also another way looking. I was mainly talking about it from the point of view of the speaker, though.
Point taken. However, we've had this discussion before, and the general rule is that, "no one can curse at other people, attack people, or generally be jerks." My understanding is that profanity in and of itslf isn't prohibted, although the use of it's regulated to a certain extent (and that's generally up to the moderator's discretion).
I know. And I agree with what you said. Your point of view is valid as is mine. That's the queer thing about points of view.
(notice how I slipped the word queer in there?) I didn't mean anything by it
I really don't see what class has to do with it in the modern world. If you can speak without having to swear,it does not mean your in some kind of higher class than people who do swear. What it does mean is that you can speak to someone in a civilized manner without the need to add expletives.
Metta to all sentient beings
Sorry I am not trying to make assumptions about you, I was just making the point that people should take into consideration other peoples feelings when they swear in public, it was a general statement and I am sorry if I used you as an example to get my point across.
Metta to all sentient beings
Masonry is something I'm pretty interested in... kinda mysterious.
Yeah the video is Aaron Russo talking about his encouters with his close friend Nick Rockeffelor, a big banker.
Again, glad to hear from a mason.
Thanks for that.
No, it isn't a class thing in modern terms, but the mindset that certain words are somehow bad or "dirty" is carried over from previous eras in which this thinking very much was a class-based thing. Much like how the word "vulgar" means "common", yet people now think of it was meaning essentially the same as "obscene".
Exactly. The point wasn't about class, it was about the origin of the term vulgar in relation to its use with regard to language. However, some modern day Buddhists do act in a similar way to the aristocrats of old when it comes to the use of language with regard to right speech, which is often due to their perception of certain words and how they're being used rather than the words themselves or even the intention behind their use.
And just for reference, the Buddha himself used some rather harsh speech when he thought the occasion called for it, e.g., he called Devadatta a chavassakhelapakassa, which Horner translates as 'wretched one to be vomited out like spittle.' His criteria for deciding what's worth saying can be found in MN 58. Essentially, something's worth saying — even if it's disagreeable — as long as it's factual, beneficial and said at the proper time. So, ultimately, it's up to the speaker to discern whether or not something's worth saying, and if so, when.
If you wanna keep talking bout language that's fine I guess.
Metta to all sentient beings
Historically? Or modern day? There is a difference.
Historically masons were a craft guild, much like an ancient labor union. They attempted to control who was a stone worker, who wasn't, and who got the jobs for stone workers. Modern day it's more about philanthropic goals, friendship, and bettering yourself through the betterment of you as an individual and society.
Religiously? The same thing as you
Non-religiously? Your going to have to be a little more clear.
If you have to ask, I'm not sure I can answer. I would assume they exist for the same reasons that a hunting club, moose club, elk lodge, rotary club, boy scouts, girl scouts, Y Guides, or the like. Essentially, they all exist for the betterment of society and it's members.
Other than to be repetative of the above stated reasons, the goal is to live life to the fullest, to continuously learn, to give back to society, and to make a whole bunch of good friends of great moral character. A friend once told me "Masons don't make great men, they make good men better." (if that helps)
This again ties into the historical versus the modern perspective. Historically there was a big need for secret handshakes for members, secret meetings, secret ceremonies. Along with them, since they controlled all mason jobs, the handshakes brought with it employment.
Today, however, there is no more "secret handshakes to get jobs" in masons as there are for fraternaties, or other clubs. A secret masonic handshake doesn't get you a job in and of itself. Being a mason lets others know you are of good moral character, and you have similar ideals. So, you might get a job as a result, but not because you know a handshake, but because the person hiring likes you (which there are a whole bunch of ways to accomplish that) and thinks you will work well together (which ultimately is the underlying goal of all hirings).
I'm not british, so I wouldn't be able to tell you anything about that.
LesC is a much better authority about answers, so it may be better to pm him, or ask him more specific questions. Or read a book about it (or the wiki article). An Idiots Guide to Freemasonry is a good read, if you are interested.
Metta to all sentient beings
Well, just to throw it out there, there are a bunch of people who are Buddhist & Christian, or Jewish, or what not. Buddhism doesn't exactly say that you can't be a member of another religion also (or so some think, others disagree). So it is possible to believe in a Supreme Being and also be a Buddhist, at least theoretically.
Apart from that, the view on belief in a Supreme Being, at least from those I've encountered, is a very loose standard. Believing in the Buddha (or a Buddha) according to some would classify as a Supreme Being.
But if that doesn't satisfy you, others view the belief in a Supreme Being as an attempt to weed out Atheists, although not officially. Masons believe that you have to have some faith, regardless of where it is placed. Faith in Buddhism would be enough.
Masons don't take the definition of "Supreme Being = God" or "Supreme Being = Allah." The term Supreme Being is something that can be interpreted internally.
Hopefully that clarifies things.
As specialkayme pointed out, being a mason does not in an of itself get you any special treatment. Of course if you are a member of Kiwanis let's say, and one of your members is a plumber, and you know him and like him, and feel he'll give you good service, then you'll have a tendency to employ him. So it is with Masons. Friends tends to collect together. But there is no favours handed out just because you are a Mason.
In fact the Grand Lodge of your particular jurisdiction probably expressly prohibits it. You are not allowed to use Masonic symbols in your business, on your signage or business cards. It's about personal improvement and charity for the most part, not personal advancement.
People fear what they don't understand, and it's often easier (and much more exciting) to make up a conspiracy theory than to seek out the truth as you are doing. There is a lot of info out there on the Freemasons, most of it true. National Geographic have done several very interesting documentaries, and for my money the best and most informative value out there is Freemasons For Dummies (Amazon $13.59)
To speak to your question concerning the Supreme Being thing, I echo what specialkayme said, and just add that for me, I think of God as being this all-pervasive force in the universe that defies description. As a Buddhist that does not conflict with my beliefs, because surely there are forces in the universe that I do not understand.
Be sure to PM me, if you have further questions.
Les
Metta to all sentient beings.