Wednesday, January 12, 2011

The American Founding -- nothing but Masonic curses and pagan imagery?

Listening to an attack on the American Founders, a lot of it about the Masonic influence on the architecture of Washington D.C. which does raise questions about how such apparently precisely designed symbolic relationships got conceived and built, meaning who exactly had the vision and was able to bring it off like that? Wild accusations of the Founders themselves as complicit in this really need to be toned down. The fact of the buildings themselves isn't evidence, you need evidence in the form of quotes at the very least. So far I haven't heard it. In any case there seems to be evidence enough that Masonic influence WAS driving the design. Beyond that I'm not yet prepared to go.

Those who get into this kind of information unfortunately tend to keep themselves as ignorant as possible of the other side of the story. You can't tell them anything about the Christian beliefs of the Founders for instance, because they always answer with the Masonic "evidence" against them. They seem to think that externals prove conscious intention. Big leap there. There's a Proverb about the foolishness of hearing only one side of a story. They rely on just a few of the same sources, all with an axe to grind. I'm not doubting that there was all that Masonic influence in the founding of America -- or the pagan themes either. What I'm doubting is that the whole story is getting told and that these influences are being understood in the right context and within the mentality of the times. You can't assume that what you know about the inner workings of Masonry is what was in the minds of participants in another culture and time. You have to study what they themselves had to say.

Of course I'm in the other position, having heard and read quite a bit that demonstrates the Christian mentality in the founding generation, very recently having heard an excerpt of a book being read on local Christian radio that seemed to do a very thorough job of showing that George Washington was a true Christian despite his Masonic membership. Sounded like a book I'd like to read if I could fit it in somewhere.

It's interesting now to have to contemplate the meaning of all this Masonic occultic stuff which does appear to be amazingly present in government architecture. But those who know only about the Masonic occultic stuff could use a good dose of the other side and do some reading in the evidence for the Christian basis of the nation because it's very strong and if they ignore it they compromise their credibility. As it stands, it all comes off as a jumping to conclusions based only on external appearances and a completely one-sided version of history.

Not to mention that the Christian nature of America is not dependent on the beliefs of the Founders but on principles that had been imbibed by them from the previous centuries of Christianization of Law and Culture. Our institutions were originally shot through with a Christian worldview no matter what the Founders' personal beliefs might have been. And the population of America at that time was deeply Christian.

I still have more to listen to on this subject and I'm not prepared to get much further into it at this point.

It is somewhat unnerving to find out how many pagan images inspired American buildings, but I think that could mostly have been the result of the fact that architects and sculptors, same as most artists in those days, had a reverence for classical (Greek) forms as particularly beautiful and significant, and that was a legacy from the Renaissance, not from pagan religion itself. To know how it was inspired would take more reading than those on the Masonic-conspiracy side of the story seem willing to do.

I don't know what artistic sensibility came up with the Egyptian obelisk for Washington's monument, but if you read the account at Wikipedia of the building of the monument it's hard to see any concerted pagan or Masonic intentions in it. It wasn't one smooth project. Its original plan was changed and its construction was interrupted which shows that 666 feet of height wasn't the original objective. If some such intentional symbolism ended up in it then we have to look for its author for the later stages. There doesn't seem to be such an intention in the early stages at least.

Also, there is no goddess named Columbia and it's plain foolishness that goes on and on about this supposed pagan "goddess." It wouldn't have taken much research to straighten out this nonsense either, just a reading of the Wikipedia entry ought to clear it up. There you find out that "Columbia" is a made-up name that appeared first in 1738 in Britain as a way to refer to America without doing it directly. It is based on the name Christopher Columbus! You know, the discoverer of America. It's an INVENTION for the purpose of SYMBOLIZING the country of America. A PERSONIFIED invention. And again, since artists liked Greek art one of them dressed her in a Greek chiton. (I guess because it suggests antiquity and dignity. You want a Hollywood style side-slit strapless gown? A bikini?) She never existed as a Greek Goddess!! She's a SYMBOL for pete's sake.

For the same reason we also don't need to get worked up over the Statue of Liberty as if it were a demonic curse based on a real goddess. She is a personification of the abstract concept of Liberty. Yes, there were goddesses of liberty in Rome and Greece, but the statue is intended for a different purpose: to represent the freedom for which the United States is known, for which it fought against a despotic king and which its institutions enshrine. Again, she is a PERSONIFICATION of a concept. How would YOU try to depict the concept of freedom in a statue? A woman holding a torch is a very effective image. And again at Wikipedia read how her headdress was arrived at. There is no particular goddess she is based on, many ways of depicting her were considered. She is not worshipped as a goddess, she functions as a touching tribute to American history. It's absurd to try to make more out of it than that.

It is not a good idea to impute to demons what is really just the idealistic work of an artist.

Again, it seems clear enough that there was Masonic influence in much of the architecture, and there certainly are pagan images as well. The one that bothers me the most is the image of Mohammed as a lawgiver alongside Moses on I guess the Supreme Court building. And the Masonic symbolism is pretty thick in some of them.

But I feel a need for a better historical account of these things than the Masonic-conspiracy people give us. My main question is Who had that kind of mentality and the power to influence those buildings?


I've listened to some more on this subject and although there's plenty more to go I have come to one clear conclusion in my own mind that I want to state here:

IT DOES NOT MATTER as far as Christians go, or as far as the business of the U.S. government goes either, that somehow Masonic and pagan imagery and symbolism apparently got established here and there in the architecture of government buildings. What matters is the intentions of the people, what's in the heart, not what's plastered on the wall of a building.

Of course it may matter for SOME purposes, and if even half of it's true it's certainly a startling fact that needs to be thought about, but it isn't something WE need to be spending a lot of time concerned about, and IT'S WRONG FOR THESE TEACHERS TO TRY TO ENGAGE A PERSON'S CONSCIENCE AGAINST THIS.

What did Paul teach about idols? That they are NOTHING! We do not need to concern ourselves about them. Even eating food sacrificed to them is not to be made a big deal conscience-wise for believers who are to "[ask] no question for conscience' sake." If it IS a big deal for some with a weak conscience, as I understand it they should not eat it because it will defile them in that state of mind, and others should refrain from eating it as well for that brother's sake, but otherwise Paul teaches NOT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT IT FOR CONSCIENCE' sake.

27 If one of them that believe not biddeth you to a feast, and ye are disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience' sake. 28 But if any man say unto you, This hath been offered in sacrifice, eat not, for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: 29 conscience, I say, not thine own, but the other's;
The point is that there is no need to get stirred up about gods and goddesses in mere imagery. It is quite possible for Christian proceedings to go on within pagan walls without any effect from them if they are treated as the NOTHINGS that Paul says they are, just nice paintings and sculptures that remind us of the noble history of the nation. If you make a big deal out of any supposed pagan influence THEN you might expect an effect because you will have introduced anxiety and guilt where you should have left well enough alone.

ALSO, this idea that imagery that exalts George Washington to some kind of deified status IN THE MINDS OF OCCULTISTS proves that HE HIMSELF shared in their point of view is irresponsible. WHAT THE OCCULTISTS THINK ABOUT WASHINGTON PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT WHAT HE HIMSELF THOUGHT!!

And making his image on the one-dollar bill into proof of anything other than that he was the first President of the U.S., and one much revered by his own generation for many achievements and virtues, including his role as leader of the American Revolution, is, may I say, STUPID! HE WAS AN IMPORTANT MAN IN AMERICAN HISTORY. Good grief!

Such overwrought thinking really needs the correction of a good solid trustworthy biography of his life. Good grief!

I'm in fact VERY interested to understand the pagan and Masonic imagery and how it got there and what purpose it might have besides possibly making pagans titter at the recognition of some of their favorite symbols and the naivete of the rest of us, but again, I do not trust this kind of presentation.

No comments:

Post a Comment