Colin F. Jones

~ Australia: The Great South Land ~
EVIDENCE OF PREJUDICE

John XXIII had succeeded Pius in 1938, and the turning point of church history came when he called Vatican Council II (1962-1965). The council issued 16 documents that attempted to give a deeper understanding of the church and its doctrine and help the church serve the modern world and its needs. The council also involved the church more fully in the ecumenical movement to unite all Christians, in other words to allow their decreasing flock to mix with people who attended other churches.

The most spectacular innovation at the council, which convened on October 11 1962 was the invitation extended to Protestant and Orthodox churches to send observers; and though the meetings were secret: they were attended by representatives from the various Christian representatives of the world.

This widening of scope was in consonance with the ecumenical movement and was designed to promote understanding and tolerance among the churches.

The Freemasons, (the teachings and practices of the secret fraternal order of free and accepted masons), varied in different parts of the world and were established as ‘grand lodges’, the supreme authority of the order being custom. Higher masonry designed to take over the role of religion.

Various chants and to some ‘childish rituals’, were normal at local meetings, and much symbolic regalia was worn by the various orders according to ‘levels’ of status.

Its secretive nature, for all members were sworn to secrecy, was akin perhaps to a gang of children, who had instigated certain initiation ceremonies, and rituals with petty punishments handed out for petty unconformities.

Interestingly, women were not part of such ‘sects’, and mostly saw such meetings as childish and without purpose.

The Grand Lodge of Ireland chartered the first properly constituted Masonic Lodge in Australia, on 6th January 1820 as Australian serial Lodge No. 260 in Sydney. At the time of this writing it was No.1. (NSW constitution)

The earliest Royal Arch Chapter in Sydney, that is still working, was that attached to the Irish Lodge No. 266 in 1843. The first Mark Lodge was chartered by the Grand Lodge of Mark Master Masons of England as Sydney Lodge No. 2. in 1858, and is now the senior Lodge of Mark Master Masons in Australia.

The first chapter of the Ancient and Accepted Rite was chartered in 1859 by the supreme council of England as metropolitan chapter No.11, to meet in Melbourne. The oldest preceptor of Knight Templars is Pembroke Preceptory of Australasia No.51 consecrated in Melbourne in 1857 by the Great Priory of England and Wales. It is from the three original Grand Lodges of England, Ireland and Scotland that masonry has been translated to Australia and many other countries.

The evidence of proper translation is the charter (or warrant) issued by the original Grand Lodge, which must be displayed at the regular meetings of each lodge.

The written evidence of personal qualification is, by certificate bearing the signatures of the Grand Lodge and that of the person concerned that is presented to him at a regular meeting of the lodge.

The six Grand Lodges of Australia have proclaimed pure ancient Masonry to consist of the three craft degrees, the honourable degree of Mark Master Mason and the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch. They control all active Freemasons and charter lodges to work only the three craft degrees and the installation of the Master.

The other two degrees of pure ancient masonry are controlled by recognized Sovereign Grand Bodies separately organized and established. All the degrees of pure Ancient masonry are (in 1955) under the control of the originating Grand Bodies in England, Scotland and Ireland.

Of these further degrees there is not yet anywhere in Australia, one Grand Body that exercises independent jurisdiction, properly established and recognized in other parts of the world.

In England there seemed not to be ‘fractures’ in Christianity, certainly in the world I had been raised in, and the fact that there were ‘Protestants’, ‘Methodists’ and ‘Catholics’, all claiming to be the ‘true representatives’ of the Christian faith in Australia was bewildering to me.

When union with Rome was broken when Henry VIII, withdrawing allegiance from the bishop of Rome announced that in England the king should be head of the church, due to his request for the annulment of his marriage to Katherine of Aragon be denied by the Pope, the foundations of the Church of England were formed. And why not? A Pope was no more qualified than a King to assume this position and neither is necessarily qualified.

The basis of this was obvious that it was a direct refusal to accept the Popes dictatorial power over moral and religious issues, particularly in a country in which he was neither native nor in residence.

The act of supremacy, (1534) acknowledged the king as the only supreme head on earth of the Church of England. Thus the reformation in England under Henry and Woolsey was at first a matter of policy, not Doctrine.

Another factor was the resentment that had been seething for centuries, over the drainage of money from England to Rome. Many changes took place thereafter and basically there was little difference between the Catholic Church and the Church of England, other than that one denied the other authority over it.

Frederick Barker, Church of England Vicar of Baslow in Derbyshire, was consecrated Bishop of NSW (succeeding Broughton) on 30th November 1854 arriving in the colony on 25th May the following year. Six years later he was ‘enthroned’. This was during the difficult times of the Gold Rush.

Thomas Moore of Moorebank, near Liverpool in 1840 left his property to the church and established Moorebank as a college for the education of youths between the ages of 16 and 23 in accordance with the doctrines of the Church of England. Income had so far increased by 1850 that Barker was able to establish a College with William Hodgson of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, as Principal.

William Cowper (later Dean of Sydney) became acting Principal at Moorebank until Hodgson arrived in 1856. In1857 (17th December) a college chapel was opened and became licensed as Broughton Chapel. The College was moved in 1889 from Liverpool to its current spot near the Sydney University.

A fine Chapel was built which was opened in 1950, a gift from Rev Dr Frank Cash and his wife in memory of their son. Barker hastened the completion of St Andrews Cathedral in Sydney, which had been planned originally by Governor Macquarie to provide additional accommodation for Anglicans, as the old Church of St Phillip had become overcrowded in 1818 or thereabouts.

The Cathedral was opened on St Andrews Day 30th November 1868. Barker also established the Church Society, which since the abolition of state aid became the chief instrument in the creation of new parishes in the diocese.
In 1872 it was decided that on two Sundays in the year the whole of the collections of the diocese should be devoted to the funds of the church society. Bodies of this nature operate in every diocese in Australia.

The strong Irish element in the Australian character may have been a contributing factor to some people’s reaction to so-called ‘pommies’, embedded in those of Irish ancestry. Indeed it was evident from the early days of Australia’s history that there was a continued struggle by Irish elements to bring down or discredit the English, perhaps with some justification in reprisal for earlier unjust treatment.

Most of Australia’s bushrangers were of Irish decent and the well-known Eureka stockade incident is widely known. The underlying political view of Australians of Irish decent was based on socialist ideals, with a plan that determined to erase the ancestral union jack from the Australian flag, and establish a republic, free from the influence and monarchy of England.

It was difficult to associate a love of God with the despicable methods of reprisals, used by the Irish, namely the IRA. The IRA was a nationalist organization devoted to the integration of Ireland as a complete and independent unit, regardless of the fact that they were the minority in this devotion. There was no evidence of these people in Australia of cause, but they did represent to an extent an element in the character of the Irish people.

Michael Collins organized the IRA from remnants of rebel units dispersed after the Easter rebellion, and was trained in guerrilla warfare assassination and terrorism. With the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922 the IRA became the stronghold of intransigent opposition to Ireland’s dominion status and to the separation of Northern Ireland.

During the troubled early years of the state, the IRA was responsible for numerous bombings, raids and street battles on both sides of the Irish border. It was popular and effective at first but its fortunes turned after Eamon De Valera a former IRA supporter took over the Free State government in 1932. Weakened by internal dissensions by a loss of popular support because of its violence and its pro-German agitation during the Second World War, by the attainment of republican objectives, the IRA declined swiftly. Both Irish governments eventually outlawed it, and it disbanded to become a secret organization.

Of cause much of the history pertaining to the Irish, was unknown to me at the time, and many of my opinions lacked substance because I did not have enough evidence to substantiate my thoughts, I therefore believed, that hearsay, and opinions of others, had to be treated as less influential than they were intended to be, until I was able to secure a more educated base on which to build a case.

One of my ways of doing this was to question, and where no informative reaction was gained, to commit myself to opinion, to extract the opinion of others from them, by retaliation with disagreement with what I was promoting. I found this to be very effective, but it had adverse effects in that it gave the impression of a ‘know all’ attitude and brought me much disfavour.

However I persisted and became quite expert at gathering information of opinion, which also in many cases revealed the characters of those with whom I debated, without necessarily revealing the truth of my own. Mine was a quest for knowledge, but in acquiring it, I met with the same responses in stating it, as I did in my ‘extraction method’ of gathering it. It would become ‘habitual’ in my approach, that unless concentrating on some degree of reservation, it became difficult for others to ascertain whether I knew what he was talking about, or just liked to argue and disagree with everything.

Of cause those close to me perceived that I just liked to argue, which to some extent was a pity for I had much to say that would go unheeded, but would prove to be accurate in the trial of time. I quickly came to understand, that ‘people’ were not particularly concerned with the truth, or the facts of a matter, but more concerned with defending or supporting those things that directly affected them.

In the main people were ‘utterly’ biased and lacked the courage and honesty to consider that what they believed might be wrong, or at least defective.

If the truth one spoke was detrimental to the “organization” then one was quickly expelled from it, for the only “truth” was that which fitted the established model, be it riddled with postulations and lies.

But to be heard, and more importantly, to have ones word accepted and acted upon depended in this life who one was and whom one knew. For here in this so called classless society, it was a crime to be poor, and knowledge was the private realm of those who had attended the ‘right’ schools, and had conformed to the “accepted” doctrine.

I was being denied the right to an education, and due to it respect of my intelligence was also being denied, in that my voice was but a loose board ‘rattling in the breeze’, something tolerated, but never really listened to.

I had loved going to school, I loved learning; being told by my teachers how well I was doing, but this now served as a carrot, luring me into denial, destroying my confidence, destroying faith in myself. Despite the fact that I had been top in my class in Penmanship, I could now no longer write properly and my arithmetic had slipped back to mid primary level.

It was common to here referred, that in Australia there was no class distinction; that you could find all manner of men drinking at the bar in the local pub. (Almost every reference was linked with the pub) All manner of men certainly, with the exception of Doctors, Solicitors, politicians business men, other than those who required to keep in favour by seeing to be ‘one of the boys’, and many others of prominence.

It was not perhaps as noticeable as it may have been in England, for in many cases one could not make the distinctions by character or bearing. But class distinction there was, deeply seated throughout the community.

Australian men were almost all addicted to alcohol, and much of their business was conducted out in the local pubs or private clubs. (I do not make this observation in comparison) The pubs were the centre of information and where ‘people’ could be found. One was identified by what type of car one drove and which pub one drank at. Women were utterly irrelevant.

Coffs Harbour had a false face to an extent, the minority being quite well off, and the majority pretending to be. They were the Australians we knew – people who mistrusted one another, hid their true feelings and were quite strongly religiously fragmented.

I was closely associated with religious teachings, and influenced by parents who had raised me ‘properly’, for I was very polite and considerate, but I wasn’t entirely sure but felt that the Catholics may have disliked the Masons even more than the ‘Pommies’, and that this had been long rooted in their history.

I had limited knowledge of Catholic association with the Masons, but was aware that some Protestant and Catholic scholars were of the belief that an order called the Illuminati, had been continued secretly in the Masonic order, which years ago the Catholic church had seen fit to discredit.

Illuminati, (Latin for enlightenment) was a rationalistic society founded in Germany soon after 1776 by Adam Weishaupt a professor at Ingolastadt. It had close affinities with the Freemasons and seemingly was organized on a Masonic plan. For 10 years it was very popular among German rationalists but as a society it had limited influence (or did it). The Roman Catholic Church, whom Weishaupt had left in his youth but re-joined later, condemned the Illuminati and the organization was dissolved in 1785 by the Bavarian government.

Some of the modern religious historians believe that the Illuminati still exist in the Masonic Order and that they have been a secret but major influence in world affairs, particularly in the US. In fact it is said that many Presidents have belonged to it and that the American coat of arms, when inverted shows a design relevant to Illuminati symbolism.
So there were many complex issues of the mind for me. It seemed to me that somewhere along the line someone had taken a simple event, and for purposes not yet clear had complicated it to the point where, it was impossible to be resigned to any one line of moralistic thought, given the free choice to do so.

Life it seemed was not just about survival, acceptance of God, and helping ones fellow man, but about greed, ambition, promotion of self power to the point where it can be used to secure power over others.

Everyone it seemed wanted to claim to ‘have the knowledge’ and to force their claims upon others for the purposes of some sought of conformed control. Hell, nobody was going to do that to me. An opinion I recorded later in my private papers is hereunder stated.

The underlying fundamental ingredient of prejudice among people residing in communities is germinated in religion. Not that religion is in itself the course, but the doctrines applied to it, are divisional, because of inflexible belief, and inconsistent interpretations, which provide a wide variety of influence.

The central fulcrum from which most religions are balanced, is firm in its simplicity that there is a power, normally referred to as God, who is the creator of all life. It is due to man’s interpretation of how the gospels should be instigated, that has complicated what might otherwise be a simple comprehensive event that has led, or maintains a continual disunity among various peoples, causing prejudice.

The argument is not about ‘proving’ the existence of God, but in proving, or ‘enforcing’ doctrines upon communities, to establish ‘proof’ by common acceptance, that is at issue. That which becomes accepted by a majority, is more often considered to be the ‘truth’, or is factual, due to its acceptance, but if this is due to the established domination of an educational system which applies instruction to the very young mind with a view to conformity, then that which is accepted is not necessarily ‘true’ or ‘factual’.

Prejudice is germinated, when some one or body questions or disagrees with aspects of the accepted doctrines, or indeed the applied doctrines. This will normally arise from a source, where the established policies of the doctrines are absent, or a different view of them has been taught. Those with the greater power or influence, use prejudice, to in fact eliminate it, by attempting to force compliance to their way of thinking, thus fails to justify their doctrine according to the claims made.

All religions have built into them, by man; a defensive mechanism to protect them from disreputability, but this in its self is a declaration of doubt, for that which is true and pure, need not be defended.

Religion is not unlike an industrial union, with regards to the church, in that it requires controlling its members with applied rules and laws, to ensure that maximum amounts of numbers are retained, for without numbers, the church within the system cannot exist.

But unlike a union, religion remains, even though the church might disappear. It is the applied doctrines and prejudices, designed to maintain numbers that, in effect deters voluntary enlistment, and raises the number of defectors. The church is utterly irrelevant, in the sense that religious teachings and applications can be carried out just as effectively in the local park, for surely the ‘earth is the house of God’.

The methods of establishing ‘religious monarchs’ and mortal men as ‘holy’, the practice of wearing robes not only ancient, but of foreign origin, turn many away, who, believe just as deeply, and sincerely in God the creator, as those who accept the doctrines of the church. It is thus prejudicial that the church has become the central place of worship, and is proclaimed as the house of god, for the churches are but buildings, which segregate communities, from the real church, which is the earth.

I can build my own church; it is no less ‘holy’ than any other, and in communion with God, I can ask for his blessings, without the interference and indoctrinated rules men have seen fit to implement in other churches.

A priest or rector, or whatever name is given to one who has resigned to represent the word of God, has no more right to such representation than anyone, and ones communication with God might well be more personal, and more binding than his.

It is not God who is the controlling factor, but the doctrines of the church, which establishes, as it does governments, groups of people in positions of influential power. It is this ‘enforcement’ of doctrine which is rejected by the natural sense of ‘freedom’ which resides in men, who have not been ‘mind-programmed from birth to conform without question.

Even men who have been influenced in this way, often, in experiencing the more realistic horrors of life, are beset with doubts, and often though they do not utterly reject God, reject the teachings of the church to which they belong. The whole basis of prejudice and conflict is a foundation of unstable confusion, caused by the ultimate desires of certain people to reside as all powerful over the masses, whether it be the head of a socialistic and atheist dictatorship, or the head of a powerful church.

Along these lines of thought my reaction to the prejudice, my father was evidently suffering, was thus stated; in those early times, the following observation was written.

“It horrifies me to think that one, (though he may well believe just as deeply in God) is subjected to prejudice, by a majority religious sect, because he does not attend the same church to communicate with God.

Who cares whether one church was established before another? To my mind God couldn’t care less where one does his praying, certainly he does not view me with prejudice because I don’t comply with some mortal ‘holy man’s’ doctrines, who says I don’t really believe in my God because I don’t carry out my communication according to his dictatorial persuasions.

Who are these people who set themselves above all others, to live in a world of fantasy and ignorance? They are no better nor worse than the lowliest man… nor are their prejudice doctrines acceptable to any humble being who believes that all humanity are equally the children of God. Such hypocrisy and self centred high mindedness, must promote much glee in the mind of the devil, as it promotes utter disgust in me.”

Thus if the seeds of bitterness had been sown in me, (for indeed I felt a growing bitterness) it was more likely due to this reaction than to my overall view of the Australian. Influencing ones view of cause was the strangeness of the climate and culture, and the desperation and anger within regarding the lack of quality in our lives.

Self-conscientiousness in me was a contributing factor, and the hardships I was aware my parents were subjected to. I prayed every night desperately to a diminishing God, that He help my parents establish a reasonable life.

Had we resided in Sydney life might have been kinder; there all the people had been under the stresses of the depression, and all were made hard by the circumstance and effects of being poor.

The natural difficulty in overcoming the harshness of the land, which was unforgiving, had developed individualism in the average country person, whereas the family had come from a world where families and friends enjoyed close relationships, that individuality was not the primary factor. This place seemed like a frontier; like the ‘old west’. It would not have been out of place if the men had worn ‘six-guns’ at their hips.

Here people lived on their wits, for all, it seemed were out to do one another out of whatever they possessed. This was not the ‘gentle’ environment I had been used to. Here, it was considered a weakness, at the very least ‘foolish’, to trust another person; lambs to the slaughter perhaps.

Frank of course was a survivor, for he had developed these instincts from his early experiences and early responsibilities. His intelligence and his education were really deserving of much greater status, in that he was far more capable of obtaining a higher office than perhaps his inspirations perceived. His strength of character was undeniable, the faith in himself, his honesty and fine principals were infallible.

Frank of course had had little to do with Catholic people, for he had been brought up in an area where they were absent, or at least a silent minority. The underlying ‘hostility’ however towards him, could not be justified by religious concept alone, for Australians had a traditional ‘defensive’ attitude to English people, and for that matter an ‘intolerance’ of all migrants of any nationality.

Those such as the Jones Family, were generally referred to as ‘Twelve bob pommies’, who had taken advantage of the assisted immigration policy to seek a better life in Australia, and references such as ‘wogs’, ‘dagoes’ and ‘spics’ were common regarding people of other nationalities.

In general they did not give the impression of ‘liking’ anyone who was not Australian born, with perhaps the exception of the Americans who in praise of people and country, satisfied the subconscious needs of a society, trying to establish a national identity, on the restricting foundations of ‘inferior complex’.

Australians in fact seemed to respond favourably to ‘Bullshit!’ particularly to what they termed American bullshit. But it was just the fact that Americans were polite, and were rarely known to “put down”, people of another country. Always they said nice things about Australia and Australians, who fed on it like mice and cheese.

It seemed that their ‘hostility’ was an extension of the belief that ‘others’ considered them inferior, or put more acceptably, that others, namely English people, considered them as such.

Despite their intolerant attitude they were in fact somewhat infantile in emotional acceptance, believing apparently that to display emotion was to allow intrusion, and intrusion meant the revelation of character weaknesses, they liked to consider to be absent.

All of them it seemed had an ingrained inherent dislike of the Australian Aborigines, but in this regard my Farther, who viewed them as lesser, more primitive people, was not in conflict with the general view.

To me the average Australian (those I had met) seemed to carry some deep-seated shame. They seemed to resent their origins, not because they were British, but because they were ‘convict’. But this was obviously not true in the wider view, as on many occasions Australians had demonstrated proudly their affiliation with the United Kingdom and had expressed pride in their Anglo Saxon blood.

It seemed ‘pommies’ or ‘New Australians’ as they were called, were the scapegoats for these pent up emotions, particularly among the Irish socialist thinking groups.

©Copyright circa 2003 by Colin F. Jones