<I don't mean this to be rude>

Not rude - good question..

I will get back to you on it (if no one else does) .. but just wanted to let you know I don't find it rude and appreciate your respectful tone :)

I agree that the wording is unfortunate -- and a holdover from earlier times. I believe the gist of the phrase is supposed to imply 'someone who hasn't thought seriously enough about life, the universe, and everything to realize that there _must_ be a deity involved...' That is, that it's not intended simply to be a gratuitous insult.

Freemasonry purports to advance "the brotherhood of man under the fatherhood of god," so that's sort of the kernel of why a belief in deity is required.

As a deist, and someone who enjoys both masonic and deistic history, there are plenty of reasons why Masons would feel this way.

In the case of the historical quote from above, this has to do with the brand of atheism that later clenched the heart of the French Revolution. In many cases, when it was the driving philosophy; it was relentless and cruel - even going to extremes. Plus, in cases where a society would support a dominate atheistic point of view, they also tended to persecute Masons. Dialectical materialism - which says only 'science', atleast from the marxist point of view, can explain why the universe formed the way it did, is often one of the philosophical platforms of atheism and secular humanism. This philosphy tends to deny the possiblity of an Universal Architect. While some modern atheists deny this almost religious faith in secular science, humanistic atheism expresses a literal fundementalism that is usually found only in radical religious sects. This is odd, since true science (non-political) would have never been able to fully develop without the values of the Masonry.

Right now there is a historic rift growing between atheistic and deistic thinkers because of people like Richard Dawkins - the Dawkins version of evangelical atheism has also had a diversive effect on the scientific community as a whole. Dawkins has promised that with the abolishment of religion - and by religion he means all religion, faith or spirituality, then humanity will be free to think and reason. However, what is being proposed to take it's place is a rule by science alone ... and thus, the dissolution and destruction of human society as we have known it since it's rise in Egypt.

There are serious questions to be asked about this line of secular humanistic or atheistic thought - and very little historic proof to the validity of the possible scientific utopia that Dawkins is purposing. There is a huge difference between the 'reason' that Dawkins has in mind, and that of the Founding Fathers, Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine.

When atheism acts as a cultural solvent in this way, I would imagine that it's actions would be perceived as an antithesis of a truly free society by some Masons.