|
Is
debate possible with
someone who is so
inflexible, whose ideas
are so foreign, and who
appears to be totally
wrong?
Over
the years, Masons have
tried to engage in
debates with those who
believe Masonry is
satanic, part of some
huge conspiracy, or want
to gain notoriety. The
results are often less
than satisfactory and
the Mason may well come
away feeling beaten --
not because his facts
were wrong or his
presentation weak but
because he simply wasn't
prepared for the range
of seemingly ridiculous
claims.
Author Deborah
Lipstadt writing in
"Denying The
Holocaust"
notes that she
steadfastly refuses
to share the forum
(of whatever type:
television program,
radio talk show,
college debate,
whatever) with the
'Holocaust Deniers'
because the
existence of the
Holocaust was simply
not a matter of
debate. She states
that to appear with
them would "...give
them a legitimacy
and stature that
they in no way
deserve. It would
elevate their
antisemitic ideology
- which is what
Holocaust denial is
- to the level of
responsible
historiography -
which it is not."
The same holds true
for the anti-Masonic
debate. There can be no
argument that
- Masonry is not a
religion
- Masonry does not
seek world
domination
- Masonry is not a
tool of Satan
yet we often feel the
need to debate
with those who would
espouse those lies!
And Masons in these
situations are always at
a disadvantage. They'll
be forthright and direct
while their opponent
will be practiced and
smooth. The Mason will
be a 'virgin' in this
type of endeavor; his
antagonist will have
practiced this type of
thing many, many times
before. Whether it's
'witnessing' to Mormons
or preaching the New
World Order conspiracy,
the Mason will
consistently find
himself at a
disadvantage.
Instead of debating,
this site encourages the
following:
- Constant
learning about
Masonry and its
principles
- Behavior in
one's life so as to
be above reproach
- Not allowing a
the lies of
anti-Masons to go
unchallenged -
because the lie
repeated often
enough can become
for some, the truth!
|
