Friday, March 09, 2007

Are celebrity Freemasons a public relations risk?

Unless you've read the Scottish Rite's "Strategic Plan," you may not realize that the use of "celebrities" who are Scottish Rite members is a part of the overall plan to "build a positive public image of Freemasonry and the Scottish Rite."

A key strategy of Strategic Objective II is to "establish means to utilize well-known members to accomplish the objective."

I've noticed that the SR has in recent years promoted to the public the fact that country music stars Roy Clark and Brad Paisley, NASCAR driver Brian Conz, actor Ernest Borgnine, and comedian/actor Michael Richards are Scottish Rite brothers.

In the case of Bro. Richards, I think the Scottish Rite got a little egg on its face after his racist stage-rage last fall. Richards had been featured prominently on at least two AASR magazine covers, and was well known to be a Freemason.

Do you think celebrity endorsements of Freemasonry is a good idea? Given that the objective is to "build a positive image," do you think the risk that any given celebrity may one day become a liability rather than an asset is worth taking? Do you think that promoting celebrities as being Masons will attract new members? Do you think that elevating certain individuals to a "higher status" goes against the Masonic ideal that all Masons are equal, or "on the level"?

Image: Roy Clark

| | | | | | | | |


  1. I just will say look at the Richards mess. Play with fire and get burned. No Mason should be held above another

  2. In theory, all Masons should be good men, but as you well know the West Gate hasnt always been guarded as well as it should. Holding someone up and saying "see he is great so we must be also" is always risky. With some celebs you might be safe... Cal Ripkin Jr, Nolan Ryan, Roy Clark, Audie Murphy.. I never have heard a single bad word about their character. Comedians I think are always a risk since they can get pretty fringe at times to get a laugh, it is after all their vocation. Which brings up another possible argument: Can you seperate the man and his vocation from the real man? Or as a Mason should he always be 'on the clock'? (I know its retorical)

    I think it comes down to having to evaluate it on a case by case basis and see if the reward is greater than the risk.

  3. In theory, all Masons should be good men, but as you well know the West Gate hasnt always been guarded as well as it should.

    It is said that one can learn about the social customs of a society by observing their proscriptions and taboos. Think about all of the "thou shalt nots" in your obligations. It is my opinion that these are there precisely because the early founders knew that the West Gate would never be perfectly guarded, that some men would be overcome by their passions, and that human nature will sometimes overshadow the moral virtues that we try to emulate.

    Tom Accuosti
    The Tao of Masonry

  4. How can any Freemason be a "good man" when the god of the religion of Freemasonry is Lucifer? The lower degrees don't know this, but traitors like Albert Pike along withe the 31st, 32nd, and 33rd degrees do.

  5. John Quincy Adams, President of the United States during the Morgan affair, later declared, objecting to the oath of secrecy, in particular to keeping undefined secrets, and to the penalties for breaking the oath, "Masonry ought forever to be abolished. It is wrong - essentially wrong - a seed of evil which can never produce any good."

  6. ... from which I deduct, "True Freedom", that you are a "traitor(s) like Albert Pike" or yourself of the "31st, 32nd, and 33rd degrees" to know this, aren't you?

    As you seem to have the time to answer on five years old posts in a blog that hasn't been updated in months, go do yourself a favor, "True Freedom", and get some reliable information, both on Masonry and Christianity; read



Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.