Email Exchange on “The Vagaries of Various (Ir)Religious Views”

Brethren:
Below is an interesting exchange of ideas on the subject. Understandably, the email sender could not be named.
Leon
----
Email Exchange on “The Vagaries of Various (Ir)Religious Views”
Leon:
Nice comprehensive article. I have a short reaction. While Freemasonry can set its own rules as to which persons they will accept, I think atheism alone should not be isolated as a barring characteristic.
One can declare himself easily as believing in God, but it is his own concept of God. Each person eventually develops his own religion, his own set of tenets that he believes in. Thus, finally and eventually, his own personal God is one that he believes will reward him (with something) or punish him (with something). One's God is ultimately self-serving (through the promise of salvation or the threat of eternal damnation), even though in the course of one person's life he can be a benefit to or persecutor of society. Ultimately, it is the morals and ethics that should be the gauge of acceptance, and not the mere declaration of theistic belief. Good Atheists, Naturalists, Agnostics, Christians, Hindus, Muslims essentially share a common theme, which is the promotion of the common good, a better life for every one, and tolerance for differences. It is often the deeply religious that blow themselves up as suicide bombers or execute genocide in the gas chambers.
Non Believer

Dear Non Believer:

That was a very good reaction, unfortunately, it is off tangent.

The only reason atheists are not welcome to join Freemasonry (and I guess even agnostics and naturalists would also not qualify if they would not expressly declare belief in God), despite the many virtues atheism possesses, is the fact that they could not be made to swear to certain obligations which the Masonic Fraternity deemed mandatory for joining.

In simple language, when you swear, you hold yourself responsible to somebody Omnipotent but when you affirm, you simply assures that you will make good your word.
You mentioned that “One can declare himself easily as believing in God, but it is his own concept of God”, and this is fine for as long as he has faith in his own God. Faith, after all, is what differentiates the believers from the non-believers. But if he lied because he in reality does not have a concept of God whatever that may be, then that would be another story as all liars can always do!

This may be a matter of semantics, but those who do not believe in God can only affirm but not swear (those who believe in God are obligated to do so) to certain obligations. Thus, a President, for example, will be made to swear to the book of faith he believes in(the Holy Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Guru Granth Sahib, etc.), but can only be made to affirm to his responsibilities if he has no concept of a God to swear his obligations to. And that is where the hairline distinction sets in.

You also mentioned about acceptance – by whom? Believers, I’m sure, would want acceptance from God, non-believers, I guess, would want acceptance from history and mankind, and there lies the difference.

You are right, suicide bombers and genocide experts often cause mass destruction to humanity. But this does not exclude eccentric atheists, agnostics and naturalists either. And have you ever considered those who invented the gas chambers and even the hydrogen bomb are the scientists who are most likely atheists or agnostics who don’t believe in God?!

Thanks for your reaction.

Leon
-------
Leon,
I guess this is where I distinctly disagree with: that a person must be made to swear and be accountable to a "higher entity" as opposed to having true personal integrity and committing to one's own word. I personally believe that one's own principles should be the basis of one's character, and these principles should hold up to any test, be it religious, scientific, or ethical. Thus, it is unfortunate that I can not be a Freemason on the basis of this logic, but other persons can become Freemasons yet have beliefs and principles as firm as nata-de-coco.
I pity those who can sleep soundly at night thinking shallowly that their god will save them, and I emphatize with all those who turn around in their sleep, challenging their beliefs and principles and the purpose and meaning of their lives. As for some atheists and some theists, I despise those whose use their lack of belief or strong belief of god for their intolerance.
Regards,
Non Believer
Dear Non Believer:

That’s well said. But the Masonic Fraternity has its own rules. Women, children and atheists are barred from joining for distinctly separate reasons. One can pity their members, spit on them, curse them, despise them. do anything, say anything, but that is all there is to it.

The Royal Society, the organization that explores the frontiers of science, an organization where but a handful can join because of its own unique standards of admission, is a creation of the Masonic Fraternity. Many its members are atheists and therefore could not become members of the latter because of that peculiar rule. But that is how it is and if that is not tolerance, I don’t know what is, although perhaps, it is but a matter of semantics.

One of the most important tenets of the Fraternity is “those who best work and best agree”, and if you cannot agree with it, it’s alright, There is another thing, it does not invite outsiders to become members. A person may even be holier, may be the most intelligent creature alive, or may have beliefs more outstanding and more admirable than those who profess belief in an Omnipotent Being but sadly, that is how the cookie crumbles- he still does not qualify, and that’s it.

I guess that is about there is to be said.

Leon