스크랩 오바마, 프리메이슨으로서의 그의 종교관

[+진리사랑]

기사 1. 오바마는 프리메이슨이다. 

아래는 오바마가 프린스 홀 메이슨의 32도 프리메이슨임을 밝히는 기사이다.

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Barack Obama & Prince Hall Freemasonry

From a March 28, 2008 Post on the Democratic Party Website Blog

http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/MichaelsBlog/CcS9

Re: Moreover/Obama Muslim? Not Muslim Prince Hall Mason!!!

Mar 28th 2008 at 3:35 pm EDT

By LITTLE DINE' FOR RECALL ON COLUMBUS DAY

There is not one shred of evidence that he is Muslim. Grandpa told me that Barack Obama is a 32nd degree Prince Hall Mason, and goodstanding member of Royal Arch Masons,and Nights Templary.

Reverend Jesse Jackson is a 33rd degree Mason.

Reverend Jermiah Wright is also a 32nd degree mason. There are many very colorful high profile people that are Prince Hall Masons, to include Louis Farrakahn. I just can not understand why Louis Farakahn has been accepted as a high degree Mason, if he is totally contrary to most of the requirements and precepts for acceptability as a Mason in most of the Masonic Orders of the Nation and the International Masonic Orders known as Universal Masons..

The Prince Hall Masons belived to be of the Afro American Community are extremely prolific in the United States. There is a memebership of over 300,000, not including the Prince Hall Eastern Star Mason auxiliary composed by women only. Women can not be Masons.

There are hundreds of auxiliary orgs. that are under Prince Hall Masonry which is composed by huge numbers of members that could not rate accepted as masons due to requirements that were very scrutinized as to their background checks.

Reverend Al Sharpton being one a major activist in said organizations and member there of along with a huge number of Obama supporters and people in his campaign staffing....

Grandpa told me that Prince Hall Masonry is not exclusively for Blacks, he told me that a select group of people that are not of black heritage, but yet not anglo european caucasian, are Prince Hall Masons.

Grandpa is very learned on Masonoic Orders and high profile individuals that belong to many Masonic Theosophic Orders both Universal as well as international and Universal Masons Brotherhoods.

The enlightenment grandpa gave me on the subject makes me wonder if his control and knowledge of several languages and the inside intricacate trappings as to function of the Orders, might be related to the possibilty of him being of the masonic Universal Massons Orders.

However I guess that If and when he wants me to know he will clarify this to me. I do know for a fact he wears a peculiar ring with an eagle emblem and a diamond in the middle of the eagle in a triangular shape . The Eagle has its wings pointing downwards, and it is engraved on the sides with greek Character letters. The ring is really beautifull, made of Platinum and Yellow gold. He has different jewlry and rings which I thought were class rings.

Does anybody know what the Eagle ring might stand for?

I have never asked grandpa about it.

Peace to all here little Dine'

발췌 : http://freemasonry-watch.blogspot.com/2008/11/barack-obama-prince-hall-freemasonry.html

 

 ( 오바마가 끼고 있는 반지는 프리메이슨들이 끼고 있는 반지임이 밝혀졌다.)

( 프리메이슨 반지의 하나 )

기사 2  프리메이슨들이 늘 언급하고 있는 신세계 질서( NWO )에 대한 부분이 오바마의 연설속에 표현되고 있다.

오바마는 2008년 7월 25일 베를린에서 수만의 군중을 모아놓고 미국은 "NWO( 신세계 질서)를 향한 미국의 사명에 대하여 연설하였습니다.

" 물론 장래에 미국과 유럽은 차이가 있을 것이지만, 우리는 서로를 묶기 위한 작업을 계속하기 위하여 세계의 시민으로서 나누어야 할 짐이 있다. 워싱톤의 지도부의 변화만이 이 짐을 덜지는 못한다. 새로운 세기에서는 미국과 유럽인들이 함께 짐을 나누어야 한다.  국가들간의 파트너쉽과 협동 작업은 선택의 문제가 될 수 없다. 공동의  안보와 공동의 휴매니티를 진전시키기 위하여 이것는 필수적인 유일한 길이다." 라고 연설하고 있습니다.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/24/america/sub25obamacnd.php

기사 3  미국은 다원주의 국가임을 강조하며 성경을 모독하는 발언을 하고 있다.

 성겨을   모독하는 오바마        

위 연설중 종교 관련 부분 NARRATION    

While I’ve already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do ? some truths they need to acknowledge. 

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn’t want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles. 

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

위 연설의 요지

- 미국은 기독교 국가가 아니다. 철저한 정교분리 원칙은 헌법이 보장한다. 미국의 정치 전통은 꾸준히 정교분리를 추구해왔다. 종교적인 편협주의에 반대한다. 모슬림, 불교, 힌두, 유대교, 무신론자들이 공존하는 미국이 되어야 한다.

- 성경의 어느 귀절이 우리의 공공 정책에 영향을 미쳤는가 ? 레위기는 노예제도를 OK한다. 조개류를 혐오 식품이라 한다. 신명기는 어떤가 ? 믿음을 떠난 자녀들을 돌로 쳐 죽이라 한다. 산상수훈은 어떤가 ?  이런것에 대한 믿음으로 과연 우리의 방위군을 지켜낼 것인가 ?  사람들은 성경을 읽지 않아왔다.

- 민주주의란 종교적인 특수한 것에 대한 것이 아닌 보편적인 것에 관한 관심이다. 보편적인 것은 논의와 이성에 따른다. 만약 내가 낙태를 금지하는 법안을 만들려고 한다면, 교회의 가르침이나 신의 뜻을 묻는 것이 아니라, 왜 낙태가 믿는자나 불신자에게 공히 수긍할 수있는 원칙들을  배반하고 있다는 것을 설명하려고 할  것이다

( 게시자 주)

오바마가 프리메이슨이라는 것을 밝히는 많은 기사들이 있습니다. 워싱톤 대통령을 비롯한 미국의 역대 대통령들이 대부분 프리메이슨이라고 하는 측면에서는 그가 프리메이슨임이 놀랄 일은 아닙니다. 그가 정말 프리메이슨이든 아니든, 문제는 그가 프리메이슨들이 추구하는 보편주의적 종교관을 갖고 있다는 것이며, 기독교에 대한 편견도 심하다는 것입니다. 이러한 그의 종교관이 그의 종교 정책에 반영될 것은 뻔한 것이며 미국내에 다원주의를 표방하는 종교인들( 로마 카톨릭, 신복음주의자들, 프리메이슨, 다원주의 지지자들)에 매우  큰 호기가 되었습니다. 그들의 세력이 더욱더 힘을 얻어 세계의 교회들에게 큰 영향력을 미칠 것은 자명한 사실입니다.