Thursday, November 29, 2007

Ancient charges in modern times

Long ago I noticed that many Christians like to pick and choose Bible verses to support pet theories about how things should be.

For example, Exodus 22:18 says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Pure and simple: God tells us to kill witches. We don't actually kill witches anymore, but some people still use this verse to "prove" celebrating Halloween or reading Harry Potter books are sins.

Leviticus is full of instructions on how to live, with many rules about who you can have sex with, what time of the month you can have sex, what foods are permissible, how to treat your slaves, etc.

Deuteronomy 14:8 explicitly says that we are not to eat pigs. There's one most Americans — certainly most Freemasons — ignore.

The entire fifth chapter of Leviticus is dedicated to instructions on how many lambs, rams, pigeons, doves and quarts of flour you must sacrifice if you commit any of the sins enumerated elsewhere in the Torah, the first five books of the Bible.

Though we say that we believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and that violating any single rule or commandment is a sin, we don't really mean it. In fact, some brush off the strange rules of the Old Testament by saying Jesus "threw out the old law." Others just realize that certain rules are outdated, or believe that Mosaic law was only meant to provide structure to the lives of Jewish nomads three thousand years ago.

Except, of course the Ten Commandments. Oh, and Leviticus 18:22, that famous verse used to justify gay-bashing and to prove homosexuality is a sin.

Picking and choosing which rules we'll follow, which ones we'll revere as revealed truth or ultimate law and which ones we'll just pretend aren't there, is simply human nature.

We pride ourselves on being law-abiding citizens, for example, because we don't kill, steal or beat our wives, but yet we'll think nothing of driving 90 mph or running stop lights, clearly violations of the law.

We all pick and choose our "morality," and internally justify our behavior.

We do the same thing with Masonic rules and law.

In Masonry, our "old testament" is Anderson's Constitutions, also known as the Ancient Charges of a Free Mason. We pride ourselves on following them to the letter.

Don't we?

Well, when we want to. When it's convenient, or when they can be used to justify a personal or political motivation. Of course we do.

Anderson's Constitutions are often cited to prove that women, atheists and "irreligious libertines" cannot be Freemasons. And yes, it's pretty clear in the Constitutions that women can't be raised as Masons. Section III says, "The persons admitted Members of a Lodge must be good and true Men, free-born, and of mature and discreet Age, no Bondmen, no Women, no immoral or scandalous men, but of good Report."

What of atheists?

It's a little more complicated.

Section I says:
A Mason is oblig'd by his Tenure, to obey the moral law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist nor an irreligious Libertine. But though in ancient Times Masons were charg'd in every Country to be of the Religion of that Country or Nation, whatever it was, yet ‘tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves; that is, to be good Men and true, or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguish'd; whereby Masonry becomes the Center of Union, and the Means of conciliating true Friendship among Persons that must have remain'd at a perpetual Distance.
Not so cut and dried as the bit about no women, is it? Does it say an atheist can't be a Mason, or does it say, if a man becomes a Mason and "rightly understands" Masonry's teachings, he can no longer justify in his heart and mind not believing in God?

Many good Masons have fought over Anderson's meaning. Most French Masons believe in freedom of conscience above all else, and the Grand Orient of France for most of its existence has not required a man to profess theistic beliefs before becoming a Mason. American and English Masons, on the other hand, value godliness moreso than the sanctity of the individual, and pride themselves on requiring a profession of belief in God as a prerequisite for Masonic membership.

The difference in opinion on this single point has led millions of American and British Masons to deny recognition to French Masons, to deny that they are even Masons at all.

In spite of Anderson's prohibitions against women becoming Masons, there are women Masons throughout the world. British Masons accept that fact; American Masons, for the most part, refuse to accept it, even though there are many female orders practicing Masonry right here in the Land of the Free.

People have interpreted the "laws" differently. Or perhaps ignored certain laws when they are no longer meaningful, or appropriate, for a new time and place.

Sort of like Christians who eat pork.

Another set of Masonic instructions are the Ancient Landmarks. There are many of them, and the final one says that the landmarks can never be altered or changed in any way.

The problem with this is that no one can agree on what is or is not a landmark, and how many there actually are. So much for not changing anything....

If obligations also say no women, or no atheists, can or should they be changed to allow for a new interpretation of the Constitutions?

Or should the Constitutions be followed to the letter?

If your immediate response to the latter question was yes, think again.

If you said yes, then you, most likely, just kicked yourself out of Freemasonry. In fact, you may never have actually been a Freemason, for lack of proper qualifications and credentials.

I don't mean this as an insult.

I mean it like this: If you follow the Constitutions to the letter regarding who can become a Freemason, it's highly doubtful if you — or I — qualify.

Section IV is pretty clear on the type of man who can become a Mason.
No Brother can be a Warden until he has pass'd the part of a Fellow-Craft; nor a Master until he has acted as a Warden, nor Grand Warden until he has been Master of a Lodge, nor Grand Master unless he has been a Fellow Craft before his Election, who is also to be nobly born, or a Gentleman of the best Fashion, or some eminent Scholar, or some curious Architect, or other Artist, descended of honest Parents, and who is of similar great Merit in the Opinion of the Lodges.
Are you a gentleman? Were you nobly born of honest parents? Are you a scholar, architect or artist?

Are these the requirements to become a Mason?

Or requirements to become a Grand Master?

Either way, this description give rises to the 18th century prerequisites of being a Mason, just as surely as does Section 1 in its wording about stupid atheists and irreligious libertines.

If we read into Section 1 a ban on atheists, shouldn't we also read into Section IV a requirement that a man have a certain educational level or mastery of an art or science?

I'm not saying we should, or we shouldn't.

I am simply pointing out the fuzzy areas of Masonic law and tradition, and urging us all to stop being so rigid about landmarks, charges and bans that we don't fully comprehend or that are more gray than black or white. Or that are obviously outdated, like the ban on women.

Freemasonry in the 21st century must progress, or it will surely die. We can be conscious of the past, using what we found there to help us cut our path into the future, but we must not worship the past, or blindly cling to it at all costs.

Rules are written for their time and place. Rules can and sometimes should be changed. Life is about expanding our knowledge and our perspectives, about evolving.

If you think differently, then you can't have any more barbecued pork.

Image: John Montague, 2nd Duke of Montagu presenting the Constitutions and the compasses to Philip, Duke of Wharton. Rev. Dr. John Desaguliers at the far right.

| | | | | |

36 comments:

  1. This is probably the best post I have ever read on your blog Brother... It certainly gives one many things to concider. Good job on this one.

    Gregg

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have nothing against atheists, and nothing intrinsically against them being Masons. There are many atheists I admire greatly, just as their are many religious people I admire greatly. There are atheists and religious people I have no admiration for at all.

    My oath is my oath. Examination of Anderson's or any other law cannot change that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. quote
    My oath is my oath. Examination of Anderson's or any other law cannot change that.
    end quote

    so what's going to happen do you when your GL changes the rules, even though you didn't vote for it. Your oath requires you to conform to and abide by the rules and regulations...

    So, and this is a hypothetical only, your GL votes to allow athiests in.... what are you going to do then?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Allow me to reiterate that I did NOT take my oath for the benefit of my Grand Lodge or any other man than myself.

    My oath is to myself first, to my Brothers second. If the GL changes, in that hypothetical instance where the details of my oath are re-described and my new oath is re-taken without to necessity of violating to old oath; then, we will see.

    I take no issue with an atheist because he is an atheist or a woman because of her gender. They are just people, and any oath I give 100% of my own free will and accord does not mean any ill-will toward them IF I can never sit in a tiled lodge with them. Just as I expect another group might not buy me dinner if I showed up to a meal for 'members only' but I was not a member.

    ReplyDelete
  5. One of our laws in America is Free Enterprise and a Free Market.

    Freedom of religion is also an American concept.

    Our countries Laws are based on individual freedoms.

    Lets hope there is an open mind to a free market when it comes to Freemasonry.
    That would be the American approach, no?
    Freemarket for Freemasonry.
    there are enough American males to go around to have more than 1 GL system of Masonry.

    America is a beautiful place big enough for a Free Market in Freemasonry!

    Let Freedom of consciousness reign!

    The American way
    Obligations should not interfere with our duty to our country, and our duty to America is to protect freedom, even in Freemasonry.

    Thanks WS.........

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why would anyone's freedom brother anyone else?

    Brandt

    ReplyDelete
  7. 2 bowl cain wrote:

    "The American way
    Obligations should not interfere with our duty to our country, and our duty to America is to protect freedom, even in Freemasonry."

    And, they DO NOT interfere with our duty to our country. No freedoms are denied in Freemasonry, and no one has the right to belong. They have the privilege to belong to the boy scouts, the Kiwanians, or any other civic group. Simple as that. Freedom is the freedom of the Masons to decide who can join or who can't. If it is not, then freedom is merely the freedom of sheep in a pasture. Is it freedom for an individual to put a camera in your bedroom, to demand a place at your table? No, it is not. I alone decide who I will call brother. What you propose is the very antithesis of freedom, and not freedom at all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. John Galt,

    What is proposed by 2 bowl cain is big brother's freedom, where freedom is slavery. The 'freedom' of association is guaranteed in this country, even for the Freemasons and the Boy Scouts. We will be fine without Big Brother imposing on us who we have to recognize as a Freemason. Keep your fascist impositions to yourself, 2 bowl cain. I prefer American freedom of conscience, not imposed conscience you propse

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Freedom of association is a human right and concept in constitutional law based on the premise that it is the right of free adults to mutually choose their associates for whatever purpose they see fit. This concept has been included in several national constitutions and other human rights instruments, including the United States Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, and Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

    Now, THAT'S freedom! Don't know why nobody's arguing for the rights of madmen or fools. Don't they have rights too?

    ReplyDelete
  10. First, the pork issue is dealt with in the New Testament in several different ways.

    Second, if the obligation new Masons swear to is different from the one I swore, that's great. I applaud it. But, does that free me from the obligation I swore to, which seems clear to me? Maybe I'm reading the English wrong, but it seems clear.

    I don't know if there is a mechanism for absolving me legally from the obligation I swore, but does it absolve me ethically?

    ReplyDelete
  11. It looks to me like times are changing for American Freemasonry.

    Over the past few weeks we have witnessed the departure of Halcyon Lodge in Ohio, and the creation of Euclid in Michigan. We also have Sirius lodge in Georgia and Regulus lodge in Alabama, and now St. John's Lodge in Ohio. Who knows how many others are out there that haven't said anything yet?

    Add to this creation of the Grand Orient of the United States and it's easy to see that all is not well with the Masons.

    http://www.stjohnslodgeatohio.org/

    http://masonictraveler.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think that you're making a big deal out of nothing. The G.O. split in America before, split from the U.G.L.E., both schisms well over 100 years ago; and yet both orgs. continue to exist. Not the first time, doubtful the last time, and even more doubtful given history that it will have a big effect. Who are we 'losing'? Those who don't like our methods? What would we gain by having them? The same thing the Boy Scouts would gain by letting the Brownies join them. Actually, the Boy Scouts would do better in that example than we would. John Galt's absolutely right; there's plenty of room for both kinds of Masonry-the right, regular kind under the U.G.L.E. and the wrong kind. ;,)

    ReplyDelete
  13. "I don't know if there is a mechanism for absolving me legally from the obligation I swore, but does it absolve me ethically?"

    I'm with you, Gingerman. To hell with all the laws others want to impose upon us. My obligation will always be my obligation which I took in the past and will stand by in the future. Those obligations that I took OF MY OWN FREE WILL, CONSCIENCE, and ACCoRd. It has NOTHING to do with the constraints it appears that the proponents of the G.O. wish to place on us and call it 'freedom' to eat their pile of fertilizer.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gingerman and Anagram,
    Kudos to you for being men of your word, who will stand up for what they obligated themselves to, and will stick by it no matter what happens. Thats the way all Masons should be, because all Masons should be men of fortitude. Not men who will try to bend the rules of the order to meet their personal interests. Our obligations make us Masons, and if we do not keep them then we are not Masons, and we (regular masons) love this order, and would be absolutely heart broken to be separated from any of our brethren but we must act by what we obligated ourselves to..

    I wish there were more men who would stand up here, and say I am a man of fortitude and i'll stand by my obligation.

    2 bowl cain,
    Freemasonry is not about what you can make it into (it's worked as far as making good men better for atleast 600 years), it's about what it can make you into. There is no room for any free market in Masonry, because well to be honest with you there's only one kind of Freemasonry and that is Regular Freemasonry. If it doesn't agree with the obligation that my brethren and I took then it is irregular.

    There are a lot of people commenting here who obviously didn't understand half of the things they obligated themselves to, and obviously don't even care about their oaths.

    This is the last comment that I will make about this "non-masonry", it is made up of men who can't or won't stand up through trials of their lives, but will run away and start something new that will better fit their ideas. Therfore I no longer wish to discuss this, because the simple fact stands that these men promised one thing in front of God and their brethren, and now they think that they are so great that they can twist their obligations to better fit their beliefs, how can i trust that they will be there for me and that they won't walk away. I WILL DO WHAT I PROMISED MY BRETHREN AND MY GOD THAT I WOULD DO. Thats all that needs to be said.

    -Freethinker

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hey AA,
    never argued for madmen or folls tobe free to join.

    Hust stating if McDonalds and Burger King, and BP and Shell Oil can exist in America, the The Right Masonic system and the Others should be able tocompete for the minds of men.

    That is what I mean by Freedom.

    More than one entity on the block is the Americanway, except in your masonry. You ego's are that fragile that another masonic body makes people cry about obligations and jurisdiction.

    FreeMarket for Freemasonry.
    Not freedom for anyone to join.

    i hope that cleared thngs up AA.
    I will type more clearly for you for now on, you seem to miss interpret things that go against your ideals.
    peace out?

    ReplyDelete
  16. freethinker states:"Freemasonry is not about what you can make it into (it's worked as far as making good men better for atleast 600 years), it's about what it can make you into. There is no room for any free market in Masonry, because well to be honest with you there's only one kind of Freemasonry and that is Regular Freemasonry. If it doesn't agree with the obligation that my brethren and I took then it is irregular"

    you consider it irregular, but there are hundred of thousands of masons who disagree with you, though. Just because YOU consider it irregular or your GL does, does not make it so.

    SO enjoy your masonry and I will enjoy mine.
    In America, the land of the free, I will keep my duty to my country br being a Free mason in a Free Country.
    Again, let Freedom ring!
    Except if you believe that America is not big enough to handle multiple forms of masonry, or the country is big enough, just the minds and world of the "regulars" is not.

    Go figure.

    Oh, yeah AA, slaves follow blindly, men question edicts from unqualified hat collectors.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Hust stating if McDonalds and Burger King, and BP and Shell Oil can exist in America, the The Right Masonic system and the Others should be able tocompete for the minds of men."

    No duh! I think you've passed your two bowl limit and smoked a bit too much if you thought I've ever argued against their right to exist. There are quite a few groups I'd prefer not exist in this county (i.e. Neo-Nazis and Klansmen), but they have the right to exist.

    Who is arguing against the G.O.s right to exist? Not I. I welcome their right to exist, and more power to them. Some here think that we're going away because of this little excusion into an 'alternate' Masonry. Freemasonry is not in any big trouble, and the G.O. only helps regular Masonry because many will prefer the alternative U.G.L.E. Freemasonry as they have before. Both systems have co-existed in the world and America for quite a long time, and neither system is going away.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "In America, the land of the free, I will keep my duty to my country br being a Free mason in a Free Country."

    I thought we were discussing the fine points of Anderson's. You can create Play Doh Freemasonry if it makes you laugh while you have the midnight munchies. More power to ya. Don't care.

    Never knew marijuana was a powerful hallucinogen; as you're hallucinating if you think we're arguing against your groups right to exist.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Oh, yeah AA, slaves follow blindly, men question edicts from unqualified hat collectors.

    That's why we're questioning your edicts. Hope you have some nice bowlers in your unqualified collection.

    ReplyDelete
  20. i have no need for edicts.

    and since their are no hats or chains to accumulate, all are on the level.

    Andersons Constitutions can be interpreted different ways, the reason for many GL's, hence the reason to do away with regular, irregular claims.
    I have heard a quality of irregular masonry is the selling of degree's.

    Now, if one lived in ohio, in one day, you received your MM degree, then the 32nd degree, then become a shriner. All in one day, at a price ofcourse.
    But NO WORK. How can one really be a mason if they've never worked to become one, or worked their way into a lodge.
    A definition of a cowan is someone trying to recieve a masons wages without doing the work?!

    so if my old GL sold degree's to anyone and everyone, and ZERO work had to be done, exceot writing a check, how is their any equality within a lodge room? just because they are a 200 year old institution they can sell off degrees?
    how is that different than an irregular group of masons?

    ReplyDelete
  21. "i have no need for edicts."

    Not yet, but give it time. Give it time.

    "and since their are no hats or chains to accumulate, all are on the level."

    All are on the level even with the hats or chains. So? Is that an 'edict' that you have no hats or chains, or did you choose to call it something less provocative? Is it 'no shirts no shoes' rule again? I guess wearing a baseball cap to the game changes the 'level'. That's lame thinking.

    "Andersons Constitutions can be interpreted different ways, the reason for many GL's, hence the reason to do away with regular, irregular claims."

    Whose reason? Basically, you're saying anybody who claims to be a Mason is a Mason. If you're not saying that, then people who just claim to be a Mason but have none of the degrees, education, or even the intent are Masons and deserve to sit in lodge. If they do not have that right, they are by definition 'irregular' in your lodge.

    "I have heard a quality of irregular masonry is the selling of degree's."

    Hearsay and your willingness to believe it is your business. Could well be true or not. That is not the only definition of 'irregular'.

    "Now, if one lived in ohio, in one day, you received your MM degree, then the 32nd degree, then become a shriner. All in one day, at a price ofcourse."

    Not a desirable situation, but it should appeal to your sense of 'everyone should be recognized'. Are you saying that because these gentlemen received a one-day degree they should not be recognized? Where's 'freedom of conscience', "hence the reason to do away with regular, irregular claims."?

    "But NO WORK. How can one really be a mason if they've never worked to become one, or worked their way into a lodge."

    That's what I'm asking you. Your claim is that these would sit in your lodge unequivocally. I thought you didn't want any 'recognition'. Why would you preclude these brethren based on your assumptions about the one-day degree?

    "A definition of a cowan is someone trying to recieve a masons wages without doing the work?!"

    Again. Would you not welcome these people into your lodge? If not, then they are irregular to you.

    "so if my old GL sold degree's to anyone and everyone, and ZERO work had to be done, exceot writing a check, how is their any equality within a lodge room? just because they are a 200 year old institution they can sell off degrees?
    how is that different than an irregular group of masons?"

    That's what I'm asking you. Would you not meet these brethren on the level? Why not if not? If so why so? They haven't done the work, but apparently you'll accept anyone into your lodge with a claim to the name.

    I agree that the one-day classes have little use in making Masons, which is what our target should be. Still, these brethren may be true and good and might be nurtured. I have never gone past my Blue Lodge, although I plan to go into Scottish Rite next year. People are free to collect hats and chains if they wish. Or is there an edict against that yet? You apparently won't meet people 'on the level' if they have hats and chains.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Whenever you make an opinionated post, it seems that you have a very crass way of getting that opinion across. I have no opinion on the actual matter at hand, but I do know that you'll catch more flies with honey.

    Good luck with your crusade.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The Grand Orient of the United States Regulations prohibit the Grand Master from issuing edicts or expelling/suspending any Mason.

    After reading through the materials it looks like most of it imposes strict limitations on the powers of all the officers. In corporate terminology it is a very flat organizational structure with all the real power vested in the Master and Wardens of the lodges.

    It stresses absolute freedom of conscience, promotes Masonic education, and the sovereignty of the individual lodges.

    From what I can see the Grand Lodge Masons operate under an oligarchy while the Grand Orient Masons are a representative republic. The lodges operate more or less autonomously and the Grand Orient does nothing more than provide a basic structure.

    Based on this the Grand Orient Masons would be much more free that the Grand Lodge Masons. Their oaths and obligations would have to be more liberal and progressive.

    The more I learn about the Grand Orient, the more I like it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Everyone should take a look at this: http://www.reformfreemasonry.com/documents/ReformFreemasonry.pdf

    There is obviously more to the Grand Orient movement than what has been presented thus far.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Guigirl

    Thank you for your thoughts. No crusade here aside to present the facts. If that is harsh, sometimes the truth isn't easy to hear.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Objective, this article is good, but it appears to be written by a regular Mason who mentions the G.O.U.S.A. once. Not quite 'evidence' of there being much more to the G.O. than previously presented.

    As to the content of the article, most Masons are willing to face the facts that reform is needed in Freemasonry. Given this, the writer seems to agree with my assessment (emphasis mine):

    "My favorite target to blame for all our misfortunes was failed leadership, particularly at the grand lodge level. But I was wrong. I have come to understand that I had mistaken what was merely the symptom of the disease (failed leadership) for the disease itself.

    The good news is that I believe that the disease afflicting Freemasonry is curable. But treatment will not be easy. Like a radical treatment regimen for cancer, it will be painful and may even cause the patient to become more ill over the short term. But, the patient is still strong; is possessed of a good heart and a noble sprit; and, if it can face the brutal truth with courage, it will prevail."

    This is my assessment too, in different wording. The author appears to be calling for reform within the regular bodies and recognizes that change may be necessary. I know that many GLs appear to not function with an eye at the future while keeping firmly entrenched in tradition. IMO, the GL in my district is heading in the right direction. If this is not the opinion of other GLs, that is unfortunate. However, each GL remains a separate entity. Of course, all we are hearing in all of these suggestions is to replace the Grand Lodge with the 'Grand Orient' or the 'Masonic League', but if the purpose is just to give us another system of government, that's useless. Better it would be to just have individual lodges in that case.

    It really is unfortunate that people concentrate on the negative here while at other websites and chat groups the overwhelming discussion is positive and optimistic. If you can see how truly evil and dirty regular Masonry is, than surely you can look objectively at it and see how well and good it is.

    I also see that the only examples given in the article are the ones heavily talked about here (ie Euclid and Halcyon). Perhaps the author has his own agenda? Are these two examples all there are? I would be entirely shocked if they were.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "The Grand Orient of the United States Regulations prohibit the Grand Master from issuing edicts or expelling/suspending any Mason."

    Well, it sounds like that regular brother who stole half-a-million would retain his membership then.

    "After reading through the materials it looks like most of it imposes strict limitations on the powers of all the officers. In corporate terminology it is a very flat organizational structure with all the real power vested in the Master and Wardens of the lodges."

    Not really familiar with the 'powers' of the officers, since our lodge runs at the will of the brethren. I can see how Halcyon is juxtaposed to that structure.

    "It stresses absolute freedom of conscience, promotes Masonic education, and the sovereignty of the individual lodges."

    Our lodge also promotes absolute freedom of conscience and Masonic education. Aside from stealing from people and acting unMasonic, the sovereignty of our lodges is clear.

    "From what I can see the Grand Lodge Masons operate under an oligarchy while the Grand Orient Masons are a representative republic. The lodges operate more or less autonomously and the Grand Orient does nothing more than provide a basic structure."

    Perhaps under some GL systems this is true. Under my GL, it is clearly democratic-often to the chagrin of the GL. Seriously, you think that the will of the brethren at large was to have Halcyon split away? I doubt it was even the will of the majority of Halcyon's members.

    "Based on this the Grand Orient Masons would be much more free that the Grand Lodge Masons. Their oaths and obligations would have to be more liberal and progressive."

    Why are they not liberal and progressive now? Is branding women's breasts like members of the G.O. have done in the past (Crowley) 'liberal' and 'progressive'? I think it's an insult to the female gender and is a step backward in time and entirely unMasonic.

    "The more I learn about the Grand Orient, the more I like it."

    That's fine. It still begs the question if everything they are doing and have done is above-board. Once the legalities are solved a different picture might emerge.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Bro:. Anagram,
    You said, "Our lodge also promotes absolute freedom of conscience". So are you saying that your lodge would allow its members to visit Euclid Lodge or George Washington Union lodges?
    Tony

    ReplyDelete
  29. Tony,

    My conscience was free when I took my oath and remained free afterwards. What my Lodge allows or does not allow has nothing to do with my oath to MYSELF. It's not about lodges or GLs; it's about what I swore to solemnly keep. If others are so light with their oaths and fail to keep to their word, that's up to them.

    No, my lodge would not kick me out if I visited those other lodges. Of course, I could not sit in lodge with them because of the solemnity of my oath, but I could drink coffee with them outside of lodge as long as I did not converse Masonically with them (keeping in mind that conversing Masonically means 'in a tiled lodge'). I do not think that it offends my oath to myself for simple discussion. If it does, then none of us regulars could be speaking here. We are *not* conversing Masonically, we are talking about Masonry. Big difference. My FREE conscience tells me to live up to my oath, whether or not I agree with all the details. I had a chance several times to not give the oath. I did so of my own free will and accord. I continue to live up to it in full cooperation of my freedom of CONSCIENCE. I stay out of tiled lodges considered clandestine not for fear of reprisal from my lodge or GL. I stay out of them because I took a solemn oath. I can keep my word, and I don't give it lightly.

    ReplyDelete
  30. What I do NOT understand is why NOBODY seems to see the objective fact that ALL male membership in Civic clubs is on the decline. One of the few exceptions? The KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, which afaik, not only does not allow atheists and women, but they don't allow non-Catholics. Go figure! The Elks began to allow women, but it has not yet turned around their decline.

    Why are you people who are talking about claiming to look at things 'rationally' entirely ignoring the rational facts? Probably because you want to harp on the Masons. Of course I am not suggesting we do nothing to fix this downward trend, which I think we are already doing at least in our area. I am suggesting we stop demonizing the regular brethren and stop look at the GLs as the 'great satan'. It's irrational thinking, and will only lead away from the goal. IF the GL is acting against the will of the brethren-at-large, it should be repaired. If not, they should be allowed to do their jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  31. quote
    The Elks began to allow women, but it has not yet turned around their decline.
    end quote

    I believe if you go look it up, that the Elks did not "allow" women to join, they were forced by the courts to accept women... Just something to keep in mind.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I love to see great posts like here on the burning taper.

    ReplyDelete
  33. quote
    The Elks began to allow women, but it has not yet turned around their decline.
    end quote

    I believe if you go look it up, that the Elks did not "allow" women to join, they were forced by the courts to accept women... Just something to keep in mind.

    That's right. Of course, we can thank those who believe Freedom of Association is constrained by their opinion. Steal your rights and call it 'freedom'.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The quote from the Action Institute site is interesting:

    "The proper view of civic groups is one that embraces the comprehensive nature of the human person, as social individuals. We should embody attitudes neither of radical individualism nor of extreme communitarianism, but rather of balanced individuals within community."

    and this from Abraham Kuyper in the same article:

    “sovereignty in the individual social spheres, in order that it may be sharply and decidedly expressed that these different developments of social life have nothing above themselves but God, and that the State cannot intrude here, and has nothing to command in their domain. As you feel at once, this is the deeply interesting question of our civil liberties.”

    This:

    :There is no doubt that flawed aspects of voluntary associations and fraternal societies have contributed in some part to their decline. The lion's share of blame, however, ought to be laid at the feet of the modernist view of individuality, which minimizes the importance of community and social structures.

    "There is no doubt that flawed aspects of voluntary associations and fraternal societies have contributed in some part to their decline. The lion's share of blame, however, ought to be laid at the feet of the modernist view of individuality, which minimizes the importance of community and social structures."

    ReplyDelete
  35. The major offense of Masonry to orthodox churches is that it, like our First Amendment, encourages equal tolerance for all religions, and this tends, somewhat, to lessen dogmatic allegiance to any one religion. Those who insist you must accept their dogma fervently and denounce all others as devilish errors, correctly see this Masonic tendency as [inimical] to their faith."
    - Robert Anton Wilson, Everything is Under Control: Conspiracies, Cults, and Cover-Ups, HarperCollins, 1998.

    ReplyDelete
  36. wow, WS, you sure held the match to a short fuse here.

    my opinion is that while I wouldn't necessarily oppose such inclusion, I did swear an oath that I would not communicate masonically with certain people.

    I think that I could be supportive of their right to explore masonry and what it means to them, without it interfering with my obligation, so long as I did nothing to violate that obligation.

    So if they want to meet, they should be free to do so. I can't sit in lodge with them, or discuss any of the secrets of any of the degrees.

    Because I took that obligation, I should be bound to it. That doesn't mean that future generations after us need to take the same oath.

    I think those that are casting judgement on either end of the issue are offside. One of the things Masonry teaches us is that there's ALWAYS way to merge two disparate sides. There's ALWAYS a way to find common ground. With upright intentions, square principles, and the level-headed desire to find a way to make it work, our brethren over the generations have made great things happen that were once claimed impossible.

    ReplyDelete

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