Behind the Lodge Door

A. Fisher Paul

Description

A probing analysis of Freemasonry in the U.S. in general, but especially relative to religious education, opposition to the Catholic Church, directing national social policy and how Masons attract members. Thoroughly documented. Immensely revealing. Covers the birth and rise of Freemasonry, the Catholic Church's early condemnation of it, etc. Essential to understanding the forces behind the scenes. 384 pgs,

Sujets

• Philosophie et théologie
• Christian theology
• Catholic Church
• History of religions
• Christianity

Informations

• Publié par: TAN Books
• Date de parution: 01 avril 1994
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781505102307
• Langue: English

Extrait

BEHIND THE LODGE DOOR
CHURCH, STATE AND FREEMASONRY IN AMERICA
Paul A. Fisher
Originally published in March, 1988, hardbound, by Shield Publishing Co., Bowie, MD. Second Shield edition, hardbound, October, 1989. Shield paperbound edition, December, 1989.
Copyright © 1988, 1989, 1994 by Paul A. Fisher.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted, for public distribution, by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Brief passages may be quoted without permission.
Library of Congress Catalog Card No.: 93-61894
TAN BOOKS Charlotte, North Carolina 1994
To Ruth and our children Maureen Elizabeth Kathleen Ruth Sean Paul Ann Regina Margaret Veronica Megan Marie Matthew O'Mara Patricia Siobhan Terrence Jerome
CONTENTS
AMAZING DISCOVERY
Court's Dramatic Reversal On Traditional Religion • Bias On The Bench • Justice Frankfurter's Religious Biases • Unitarian Influence • More Cause For Concern: Freemasonry • Discovering Masonry's Secrets
PART I: UNDERSTANDING THE CONFLICT
1. Lifting The Veil
What Mussolini Found • Church Exposes Masonry In 1738 • Barruel's And Robison's Revelations • Freemasonry In Early America • Legislatures Investigate U.S. Masonry • Other Early Activities Of Masonry
2. The Mind Of Masonry
The View From The Lodge • Pike's Morals And Dogma • Albert Pike • Other Integral Characteristics Of Masonry: Prejudice • Atheism • Teacher Of The World's Children
PART II: TARGET—THE CHURCH
3. Warring On The Church—I
Insult, Abuse And Violence • The War Against Catholicism Intensifies • Know-Nothing Power • Humanum Genus Exposes Masonry • Masonic Influence On APA • Sectarian Means "Non-Protestant"
4. The Craft And The Klan
The Klan Moves North • Jews Attacked • New York World Exposes Klan's Anti-Catholicism • The Craft And The Klan • The Klan In Action
5. Footsteps In The Sand
A Tombstone Becomes A Stepping Stone • A Klansman Moves To U.S. Senate • The Court's Ku Kluxer • Black Evades The Issue
6. The Craft Fights Religion-Clause History
The Historic Record Of Religion In American Life • State Constitutions • Constitutional Conventions • Debates In First Congress • Federal Legislation • Messages And Addresses Of Presidents • Days Of Thanksgiving And Prayer • Earlier Supreme Court Decisions • Masonic View Of Religion Clause • BluePrint For Court's Re-Direction • Masonic Argument In Perspective
7. Defusing The Parochial Aid Bomb
"The G.I. Bill Of Rights" • Parochial School Aid At The Threshold • Enter Justice Black • The Assault On Parochial Aid • Congress Presses On • Everson Wends Its Way
8. Everson : Masonic Justice Built On Sand
Further Preference For Non-Belief • The "Religion" Of The Religion-Clause • Reaction To Everson • McCollum Reinforces Everson Philosophy • Everson's Enduring Impact • How Religion-Clause Cases Came To Court • Secularizing Religious Colleges • Melding The Craft And The Court—A Summary
9. Warring On The Church—II
The Catholic Population Threat • Catholics Help Masons • The Church's Rapprochement With Masonry
PART III: TARGET—THE STATE
    10. Warring On The State
Masonry In The Civil War • President Andrew Johnson And Masonry • Masonry And The Philippine Insurrection • The American Connection With Philippine Masonry • Masonry And World War I • Communism And Freemasonry • The Craft And Spanish Communism • Communist China And Masonry • Masonry, Communism And The Catholic Church • Masonry's Political Orientation Confirmed • Masonry Wins Again • Masonry In Japan
PART IV: TARGETING MEN FOR THE FRATERNITY
    11. How It's Done
The Lure • Targeting The Candidates • The Binding Oaths • Symbolism • Masonry And The Media • Masonry And Politics • The Fraternity's Disguised Power • The Military And Masonry
AFTERWORD
APPENDIX A • Masonic Justices
APPENDIX B • George Washington's Masonry
APPENDIX C • The Ancient Mysteries
NOTES
AMAZING DISCOVERY
Prejudice by Supreme Court Justices is not a thought which comes readily to mind when thinking of the American system of justice.
Yet, for at least three decades (beginning in the 1940s) the opinions of a significant number of Justices were influenced by an anti-Christian and anti-Catholic philosophy when rulings were fashioned on the religion clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .")
Moreover, because of stare decisis— the legal doctrine which holds that a principle of law established by one judicial decision is accepted as an authoritative precedent for resolving similar legal conflicts—the religion-clause opinions rendered by the Court during that 30-year epoch have formed the basis for virtually all subsequent decisions on the clause since that time.
Although many people have been outraged by the Court's decisions regarding the place of religion under the Constitution, most citizens are convinced the American judicial system is eminently fair and just.
The latter view prevails largely because of a perception that Court nominees are carefully scrutinized to assure representation on the bench of a broad spectrum of the nation's varied groups. For example, it is generally thought that certain segments of the population have a non-defined "right" to a seat on the Court. When selections for a vacancy on the bench are under consideration, careful thought is given to a "Black seat," a "Jewish seat," a "Catholic seat," and a "woman's seat," not to mention choosing jurists who are sympathetic to labor, industry, and the medical and academic fraternities.
Strangely, however, mention is never made of two other groups in society which apparently have been successful in making silent claims to seats on the Court. Those two groups are Unitarians and Freemasons. Masons dominated the high bench from 1941 to 1971. That was an era when traditional Judeo-Christian values were removed from the curricula of public schools—and from public life generally.
That amazing (and rarely discussed) facet of American jurisprudence was discovered completely by accident when the author was conducting research on the religion clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Court's Dramatic Reversal On Traditional Religion
The research focused on trying to find a rationale for the Court's dramatic reversal of the role of Judeo-Christian religious values in public life, beginning in the 1940s.
Careful study showed that the Court's 1947 Everson decision 1 was the keystone opinion upon which almost all subsequent religion-clause cases have been based. However, close scrutiny of the clause and the history of its conception and adoption failed to uncover convincing evidence to support the Court's view that the Constitution erected a "wall" which separates things religious from things civil in our society.
For example, neither Constitutional history nor legal precedent prior to Everson support the following words frequently quoted from the majority opinion in that decision: "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: . . .No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion . . . In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra at 164." 2
Following Everson , the Court repeatedly leaned on the "wall" to impose its will, and prohibited public financial assistance to children attending schools teaching traditional religious values.
As a consequence, the high bench: outlawed released time for children to attend religious classes within public school buildings; 3 declared atheism and secular humanism to be religions protected by the First Amendment; 4 prohibited recitation of prayer in public schools, even though the prayer in question was approved by leaders of the three major faiths in the United States; 5 and banned recitation of the "Our Father" and oral Bible reading as religious exercises in public schools. 6
Related cases denied State funds to religious-oriented schools for teaching aids, periodicals, maps, etc.; banned singing of Christmas carols in public schools; prohibited public school teachers from teaching in religious schools; and held that a law permitting employees to observe the Sabbath as a day of rest impermissibly advanced a particular religious practice, and thus violated the religion clause.
Those decisions by the Court seemed to demonstrate a bias in favor of a totally secularist society, and my research could uncover no convincing evidence that the First Amendment ever was intended to quarantine religion from public life, a proposition being advanced suddenly by the Court in the 1940s.
The Court's curious tilt stirred nagging questions:
Why did the high bench suddenly take up an interminable series of religion-clause cases in the middle of the 20th Century?
Why did the high bench in these latter years seem to ignore the legislative history of the religion clause in the Constitutional Conventions, and when it was crafted by the First Congress and sent to the people for ratification?
Why was a figure of speech—"a wall of separation between church and State"—enshrined as a rule of law?
Legal briefs submitted by attorneys in the various religion-clause cases provided no answers; nor did the Court's numerous opinions on the subject illuminate the dilemma.
Bias On The Bench
And then, by accident, the obvious answer suddenly suggested itself in mid-summer, 1975: There was bias on the bench.
That insight into the puzzle was partially provided by a 1975 article in The Washington Post , tit