Fellowship Foundation Followers = Modern Freemasons?
Someone recently responded to one of my blog posts by saying that this country was based on Christianity and the Bible. Sure. But consider the impact that freemasonry had on the founding of our nation.
In colonial times, freemasonry helped propel educated
individuals to the forefront of politics. Nine of the signers of the
Declaration of Independence and thirteen of the signers of the Constitution
were freemasons.
Although freemasonry considered itself an apolitical
fraternity,1 because so many colonial political leaders were
freemasons, it is difficult to separate their political activities from their lodge
activities. Prosperous men who had time to join fraternal organizations had time to devote to politics.
The rituals of freemasonry contributed to the development of the middle-class male identity.2 Masonic lodges served as focal points for political activities with freemasons playing significant roles in both the French and American revolutions.3
So is that what we have here? That so many politicians have been involved in Fellowship Foundation activities that to say Gerald Ford was a member, and Richard Nixon was not, is pointless because the Fellowship Foundation convinced Ford to pardon Nixon?
Is it futile to compile a list of Fellowship Foundation "members" because any politician interested in re-election knows that he or she must attend the National Prayer Breakfast?
Doug Coe is a student of history. Perhaps he fancies himself as the Grand Poobah of Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes Lodge No. 26? No offense, lodge brothers among us!
1. Kutolowski, Kathleen Smith. Freemasonry and Community in
the Early Republic: the Case for Antimasonic Anxieties. American Quarterly
1982; 34(5): 543-561.
2. Cary, John H. Joseph Warren: Physician, Politician,
Patriot. Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois Press, 1961.
3. Stevens, Jay. The Riddle of Joseph Warren. Yankee 1993;
57(7): 52-57.
Sweetmolly, I have been wondering about this issue for a while-.
The little research (if it can be called that) I have done on this topic suggests that Freemasonry's decline and evangelical Christianity's rise are linked causally, both here and in the UK.
From the abandoned temple or two that i've seen in upstate New York, Freemasonry definitely looks like a phenomenon of the past.
But as you note, it played a leading role in our politics in our nation's early days.
It seems to me that freemasonry is a relic of the Enlightenment- like the U.S. Constitution itself (sadly). The Fellowship that you document seems like a far more dangerous parasite growing on the vestiges of the Republic.
I'm curious for your thoughts.
July 20, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am going to politely disagree about the waning influence of Freemasonry. It is still very much a part of this nation. While young membership may be declining, recruitment is still strong in ivy league schools and throughout the military. One need only visit Disney's "Club 33" to see the obvious influence in industry.
As an odd FYI, the flag was kept at half-mast for 33 days when Ford died... one for each degree of Scottish Rite.
July 21, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Diachronic, I hadn't thought of the decline of freemasonry and the rise of evangelical Christianity, before. Let me think about that.
I know that our modern eyes have misjudged the religiosity of the founding fathers. They may have used familiar religious terms when speaking and writing, but I understand their beliefs to have been deistic, or agnostic.
And for students of freemasonry, perhaps my choice of the word "modern" in the title of this post is misguided. In the history of freemasonry, "modern" lodges were older, and "ancient" lodges were newer. Perverse, isn't it? Ancients were revolutionaries and moderns were royalists.
July 20, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just an aside here.
Ford was also a Mason:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=5485
America, 1975 was a foreign country...
July 20, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. Ford was a joiner, wasn't he?
July 20, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Molly,
Someone just posted this link elsewhere on David Berg:
http://www.davidberg.org/mission/flirty-fishing
July 20, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see that some bloggers have connected Doug Coe with Berg, but I think it's a case of poor disambiguation. Coe is smooth. Berg is not. Sharlet does not mention Berg in his book. What does that say?
July 20, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lots of fish in the sea where Coe was fishing. I admire your efforts to see who took the bait.
July 20, 2009 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Web is a seductive mistress. I make up stuff all the time, but it's always based on a nugget of truth, and I have a good nose for spoilers and tricksters. The more serious posts are thoroughly researched, and I don't mean through publicly available Web content.
July 20, 2009 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Molly: I wonder if the actions of Coe and his cohorts might be construed as treason in a country with a formalized separation of church and state?
If treason against the United States is defined, according to Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, as: "levying war against the United States, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." And,
if (according to Wiki) the Supreme Court ruled in 1807 that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war..."
then is the answer to whether or not the subversive,covert actions of the C-Street gang might be argued as being treasonable dependent upon definitions of: a) the United States (is the official US limited to that body of combined branches of government that are recognized as legitimate representatives?; b) War, in terms of what actions and/or attempted actions are "against the United States"; and, c) overt versus covert assembly?
If the treason glove does not fit, then what term would correctly apply to their takeover attempt of legislators?
July 21, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wendy, reading your post, I was reminded of the tragic story of Theodosia Burr Alston. I thought treason, then Aaron Burr, then his daughter Theodosia.
In this case, the problem with charging someone with treason is everyone's complicity.
I read yesterday that the heads of state invited to the National Prayer Breakfast are chosen intentionally to "vote our way" at the United Nations.
Is it time for sweetmolly to join the Foreign Legion?
July 21, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
With Theodosia's fate in mind, Molly, if you feel you must flee, please do not do so by sea near Nag's Head. And maybe forego the Foreign Legion as well, if votes are being suborned at the UN.
The good news is that purveyors of fake IDs are a dime a dozen in and around Time Square. Just let me know what nom de plume (or guerre) you would prefer.
July 21, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, Molly -- do you think Theodosia's story was the genesis of that native Charlestonian's favorite rhetorical question:
"Why should I travel when I'm already here?"
July 21, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wendy, now that I've had pluff mud between my toes for more than ten years, I dread traveling to even nearby Columbia.
What's that other saying...rather be dead in Charleston than alive in Columbia or rich in Greenville?
So true.
July 21, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can a place be so flawed yet so fascinating? Oh, and also addictive. Pluff mud. Ahhh.
July 21, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Classic pluff mud picture -
http://www.postandcourier.com/photos/galleries/teen_crashes_over_bridge/
July 21, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink