Pike argued that one could not hold two religions at the same time and, hence, a Christian, a Jew, or a Moslem could not also accept Freemasonry as his religion. The logic of Pike's statement is not convincing, for, while one might not hold two inconsistent religions at the same time any more than he could be a monarchist and a republican at the same time, there is nothing to prevent one holding two or three religions, philosophies, or political theories which are not inconsistent. (Pgs. 511 - 512)
Freemasons are criticized regularly on the basis of one over-riding principle: religions are NOT consistent. Show me one religion which is totally consistent with another religion. It can't be done. All that CAN be done is to show consistency on certain points. But their very inconsistencies are what separate them and define each one for the religion it is, rather than as some other religion. What Coil suggests is not even possible. No wonder someone saw fit to edit his work.
As for the suggestion of lies, take the rest one at a time:
Some attempt to avoid the issue by saying that Freemasonry is not a religion but is religious, seeming to believe that the substitution of an adjective for a noun makes a fundamental difference.
W: Mackey's thoroughness illustrates Coil's failure to comprehend the difference.
No "lie" in this one. Mackey uses Webster's four definitions, and this one fits the second:
His second definition is, that religion, as distinct from theology, is godliness or real piety in practise, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow-men, in obedience to divine command, or from love to food and His law.
Duty to God and man is a strong tenet of Masonry. In that sense it most surely is "religious"--but not "a religion."
It would be as sensible to say that man had no intellect but was intellectual or that he had no honor but was honorable.
W: His objection, when applied to what he is protesting, amounts to, "if a man is religious, he is a religion."
Coil was objecting to definition #4 of Webster's,
Lastly, he defines religion to be any system of faith or worship and in this sense, he says, religion comprehends the belief and worship of Pagans and Mohammedans as well as of Christians—any religion consisting in the belief of a superior power, or powers, governing the world, and in the worship of such power or powers. It is in this sense that we speak of the Turkish religion, or the Jewish religion, as well as of the Christian.
Mackey was the one he was taking to task with the "substitution of an adjective for a noun," i.e., "a religion" vs. "religious." So I did not lie on that point either, he actually DID use that almost farcical analogy, that a man being "religious" was tantamount to his being "a religion."
If Freemasonry is not religion, how could it presume to aid religion?
W: Just one more example of the unfortunate tirade that occurred because Coil refuses to consider the difference between "religion" and "a religion" to be valid.
True again. This was made specifically about the "handmaid of religion" comment by Mackey. The fuller remark was:
In so far, therefore, it cannot become a substitute for Christianity, but its tendency is thitherward; and, as the handmaid of religion, it may, and often does, act as the porch that introduces its votaries into the temple of divine truth.
I've seen it happen. A widow in one of my churches told me how her alcoholic husband quit the bottle after joining Freemasonry and being told to read the Bible and make it his "rule and guide." He did just that, and found it told him to quit drinking and go to church, and he became a model husband, father, and Christian.
But you know this stuff already. Your own companion accuser and former Mason left under similar circumstances, after being obedient to that same exhortation--though he certainly interpreted matters differently. But "wisdom is justified of all her children."
In short, there can be much religion which is neither a religion nor one of the religions.
Again, I told no lie when I said this fits the first three of Mackey's definitions. Those three concern belief in God and the practice of all duties to God. But "a religion nor one of the religions" can only be referring to #4, the one Mackey clearly shows does NOT apply to Masonry.
I see no reason to continue and make this a point by point exposition again, for it would only be similar to each of these as re-presented. However, I will show you one of the striking reasons I really don't lend much credibility to Coil. The main reason I don't, of course, is the unwarranted (and really unsupported) attack on what is a well-reasoned and well-presented case by Mackey. He forgot to subdue his passions within due bounds, and they got the better of him, for his passionate attack on Mackey's stated opinion on the matter speaks for itself. It abounds with inconsistencies, and one of the most glaring of all, you yourself unwittingly posted.
First you quote him saying:
(c) Belief; Creed; Tenet; Dogma. Does Freemasonry have a creed (I believe) or tenet (he holds) or dogma (I think) to which all members must adhere? Does Freemasonry continually teach and insist upon a creed, tenet, and dogma? Does it have meetings characterized by the practice of rites and ceremonies in and by which its creed, tenet, and dogma are illustrated by myths, symbols, and allegories? If Freemasonry were not religion, what would have to be done to make it such? Nothing would be necessary or at least nothing but to add more of the same. That brings us to the real crux of the matter; the difference between a lodge and a church is one of degree and not of kind. Some think that, because it is not a strong or highly formalized or highly dogmatized religion such as the Roman Catholic Church where it is difficult to tell whether the congregation is worshiping God, Christ, or the Virgin Mary, it can be no religion at all. But a church of Friends (Quakers) exhibits even less formality and ritual than does a Masonic lodge. The fact that Freemasonry is a mild religion does not mean that it is no religion.
The analogy makes it clear that his answer to the questions whether Freemasonry has a creed, tenet, or dogma, is intended to be a yes--although a qualified yes, where he likens it to the difference between high church Catholicism with the informality of Quakerism, concluding Masonry to be a "mild" religion.
But before you even finished the post, you quoted this from elsewhere in Coil:
Definition of Freemasonry in its broadest sense: Freemasonry, in its broadest and most comprehensive sense, is a system of morality and social ethics,a primitive religion, and a philosophy of life, all of simple and fundamental character, incorporating a broad humanitarianism and, though treating life as a practical experience, subordinates the material to the spiritual; it is a religion without a creed, being of no sect but finding truth in all; it is moral but not pharisaic; it demands sanity rather than sanctity; it is tolerant but not supine; it seeks truth but does not define truth; it urges its votaries to think but does not tell them what to think; it despises ignorance but does not proscribe the ignorant; it fosters education but proposes no curriculum; it espouses political liberty and the dignity of man but has no platform or propaganda; it believes in the nobility and usefulness of life; it is modest and not militant; it is moderate, universal, and so liberal as to permit each individual to form and express his own opinion, even as to what Freemasonry is or ought to be, and invites him to improve it if he can. (Pg. 159)
So first you quote him asserting that Masonry DOES have "creed, tenet, and dogma"--then you quote him asserting it to be "a religion WITHOUT a creed"; and you quote him stating that it is a "dogma (I think) to which all members must adhere"--but then turn around and quote him saying that it "urges its votaries to think but does not tell them what to think"; and somehow you defend these self-contradictions? And not only that, you accuse me of "lying?"
I think you're just more interested in trying to look like you're winning an argument (which you haven't, of course), than in reading Coil with anything resembling comprehension. Nor do I buy your mock "defense" of Coil's honor. And your comment that "You still have trouble admitting error" is just a sad case of projection, by which you hope to escape your own errors.
