|
QPZIL posted:What is it you're shocked about, and why is it you'd like to see it dismantled? It says that there's racial segregation, women and people born slaves aren't allowed to join, looking at wikipedia it says disabled people aren't allowed to join either. I don't know how any organization can still have these views and have people join up. Why hasn't their charter been updated?
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
Crankit posted:It says that there's racial segregation, women and people born slaves aren't allowed to join, looking at wikipedia it says disabled people aren't allowed to join either. I don't know how any organization can still have these views and have people join up. Why hasn't their charter been updated? You should read the thread. The answers are here.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
What is it you feel should be done about a private club that excludes people? There isn't a "charter" so to speak, we cannot change the rules for free born men or women being disallowed. As far as segregation and the disabled that is not the case in my lodge. We have our brother chaplain that has fairly severe muscular dystrophy and is well loved. Segregation was/is not based on a rule, but on the ability of just one brother voting no on a petition for membership. If you have even one rascist in the lodge it is possible for them to keep anyone out.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
Crankit posted:racial segregation There isn't. Once upon a time this was true, i.e. the turn of the 19th century, and this is when Prince Hall formed his side-branch of Masonry aimed at freed African Americans (now known as Prince Hall Freemasonry). Nowadays, the racial split is purely traditional, just as there are "traditionally black" colleges that do no turn away the minority student, but just so happen to be predominantly one specific group. I visited a lodge last week with a black Senior Deacon, and one of my close friends who is going through the initiation process is black. I can assure you there's no rule to racially segregate things. Crankit posted:women This is beaten to death every few pages. I'll just say - this is a fraternity, and you can find countless others on college campuses all over the country. Whether it's morally right or wrong for fraternities/sororities to exist is totally your own opinion, but it's not like Masonry is an unprecedented phenomenon. Crankit posted:people born slaves aren't allowed to join This is a holdover from the 1700s when the stipulation had a very practical application. Since Freemasonry as we know it today was founded on Enlightenment principals of being tied to no man, and being a completely free thinker and being able to go and do as you please, it was completely understandable at the time that initiates were asked if they were "free born". Not to mention, in times where Freemasonry was outlawed, you wouldn't think of initiating a man who was beholden to another man, who might give away those secrets. Nowadays, it is purely symbolic of being born under the ties of no other person, and represents the aspect of self-motivation and personal freedom that Masonry espouses. Crankit posted:looking at wikipedia it says disabled people aren't allowed to join either This I can't comment on since I haven't done the research and haven't encountered it at my own lodge, so I'll let someone else speak to it.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
The prohibition on the disabled is a holdover from when Masonry was actually a guild for stoneworkers, as I was made to understand. Seeing as the guild was also a sort of social security system, allowing in those who couldn't really work in order to have a safety net was seen as undesirable. Considering the work that Masonry now conducts, no one could really be considered disabled in the unable to work sense.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
West Virginia still legit excludes people based on physical deformity. The traditional justification for this is quite straightforward, and it is that it was not believed to be fair that Freemasonry long predates things like welfare, social services of any type, or even health insurance or disability insurance. As such, Masonry was those things to the members in the early days. A Mason could expect to be supported by his brothers if he became unable to work. His children and wife could expect the same thing. Clauses disallowing the disabled existed so as not to put undue financial burden on their brothers, creating bad blood or so on. Naturally many Masons were philanthropists who would help this person anyhow, but consider it something of a pre-existing conditions clause. That said most states now adopt a rather liberal interpretation of sound mind and body. Many lodges are more than happy to accept the war wounded or physically disabled (though some are not). No lodge would ever kick out a brother who was injured after becoming a brother, and for this reason many lodges and even grand lodges will put a man through the work immediately, even making them a Mason on Sight or performing a one day class, if they are about to go to war. As for the free born bit, every Lodge I know of at this point would consider "free born" in a broader philosophical sense of "all men are free," but historically this was meant to exclude slaves for a variety of reasons including that a slave was not considered to have the agency to take the oaths involved, that financial obligations and so on taken by slaves could not be held to them but rather to their masters, and that a slave could not morally disobey an order from his master to reveal the secrets of freemasonry. Secrecy is the primary drive behind almost all these things, after all, and the latter point is considered the most poignant. Masonry today does not endorse things like slavery, but in the 1600-1700s, it did firmly believe in things like morals of station, concepts like noblesse oblige, the moral duty of loyalty in slaves and servants, and so on. So Masonry could not at that point in good faith put a slave in such a condition that he may be ordered by his master to reveal the secrets of Freemasonry, or in any such situation that could be so compromising. This is needless to say not the case today, and as I said, most lodges are happy to accept the idea that no man can be born in any condition other than free. As to the other points, they have been labored to death. Let us leave it at: we exist to rule the world, very slowly, and that's why Bitcoin must be stopped.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
You know what, I lay it super heavy on the controversy in the OP. Does anyone want to detail all the good things their Lodge does with regard to charity and so on, so I can include these kinds of things in the OP as well? Aside from the obvious like the Shrine Hospitals, iCARE from the Scottish Rite, and all the Masonic Retirement Homes, my Lodge engages in personal charity to people who are in need in the community and are brought to our attention. Maryland also participates in MASONIChip and so on. I know many of the lodges in other countries are actually part of social services - in Ireland they pay quite a bit in donations to underwrite welfare programs, and I imagine it's also such in Australia? I have always been blown away by the amount of money donated by Masons in the UK and Ireland relative to the US, where our dues mainly go towards keeping the building running.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
My lodge hands out 2 $1000 scholarships a year to graduating high school students. Monthly charity donations of I think $1000. And we will throw a pancake breakfast/special dinner to raise funds for various causes. Most of it is nickle and dime donations or private donations by members in the name of the lodge or Masonry in general. So the actual dollar figure is who the gently caress knows. Its not so much Masonry that provides the charity. Its the Masons that donate their time and money because they are benevolent people.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:You should read the thread. The answers are here. I tried, and will read again but after the OP it starts off like this: Brethren, it is the pleasure of the Worshipful Master that Something Awful Mason Thread No. 3523447 be now opened and stand open for the dispatch of business! The lodge is tiled accordingly! Brother Goons, It's the order of the Worshipful Goon that a thread of master goons be open in this forum and that you conduct yourselves accordingly. Brother Senior Warden, are all present Master Goons? Inquire through your proper channel until you are duly satisfied. "I am protected." Then as Worshipful Master, I order Something Awful Getout Thread #3523447 to be now open. If the questions are frequently asked it might be an idea to place the answers in the OP. Paramemetic posted:West Virginia still legit excludes people based on physical deformity. The traditional justification for this is quite straightforward, and it is that it was not believed to be fair that Freemasonry long predates things like welfare, social services of any type, or even health insurance or disability insurance. As such, Masonry was those things to the members in the early days. A Mason could expect to be supported by his brothers if he became unable to work. His children and wife could expect the same thing. Clauses disallowing the disabled existed so as not to put undue financial burden on their brothers, creating bad blood or so on. Naturally many Masons were philanthropists who would help this person anyhow, but consider it something of a pre-existing conditions clause. Well, in that light the slavery thing makes more sense and doesn't sound so bad. On the subject of physical deformity in West Virginia that's pretty awful have any of you guys written them a letter, or gone up the chain of command to let them know that the rest of you have moved on and so should they?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
We had a charity budget of $16000 this year and all will be spent. We also started a BBQ group that will essentially cater charity auctions and events for local groups. They have raised quite a lot of money for various groups. We also contribute to a Masonic scholarship fund. This is in addition to the many small acts and gifts we give during the course of a year.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Maksimus54 posted:What is it you feel should be done about a private club that excludes people? There isn't a "charter" so to speak, we cannot change the rules for free born men or women being disallowed. As far as segregation and the disabled that is not the case in my lodge. We have our brother chaplain that has fairly severe muscular dystrophy and is well loved. Segregation was/is not based on a rule, but on the ability of just one brother voting no on a petition for membership. If you have even one rascist in the lodge it is possible for them to keep anyone out. That's a good question, I'm already doing what I think should be done, asking the people in an organisation why they support that organisation when another organisation with all the same principles but less prejudice or discrimination exists. If I was a mason and I didn't agree with the policy on women I would let the lodge know that sexism has now had its hey day QPZIL posted:This is beaten to death every few pages. I'll just say - this is a fraternity, and you can find countless others on college campuses all over the country. Whether it's morally right or wrong for fraternities/sororities to exist is totally your own opinion, but it's not like Masonry is an unprecedented phenomenon. I think college fraternaties and sororities are mostly an american thing. I don't see why freemasons have been able to progress on black people, disabled people, people who don't actually work with stones, but not women. You guys could join an irregular freemason lodge and not be sexists right? So why don't you?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
Hilariously enough, we can also join regular lodges and not be sexist.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:Hilariously enough, we can also join regular lodges and not be sexist. I was under the impression that sexism was discrimination against women, you're in an organisation that disallows (i.e. discrimnates against someone) because they are women (i.e. sex based discrimination). I just checked the definition of sexism: Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. It sounds to me like freemasons who don't let women in their freemasonry group are sexists, but maybe I'm confused by some of the complex terminology.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
Crankit posted:I tried, and will read again but after the OP it starts off like this: You are asking a question that can not be broadly answered. First off Lodges and Grand Lodges interpret the terms differently. My lodge has a past Master who is blind as a result of a war injury, and was blind before he started his degree work. They had to file a petition with the Grand Lodge and it passed with no scrutiny. About the only disability that keeps someone out is mental illness along the lines of severe bi-polar and schizophrenia that has gone un-treated. If a man can function in society, they are generally permitted. Other lodges are not as permitting. Some Grand Lodges hold the same policy as mine but the individual lodges are much more archaic in their interpretation. On the other side, some lodges don't give a poo poo and have to try and side step the Grand Lodge or argue with them because a bad knee shouldn't keep someone from being a Mason (exaggeration, don't get your panties in a twist over it, I am not aware of any GL that would keep someone out for a bad knee). Its not a simple answer. Edit because you posted while I explained your previous bitch: Crankit posted:I was under the impression that sexism was discrimination against women, you're in an organisation that disallows (i.e. discrimnates against someone) because they are women (i.e. sex based discrimination). I just checked the definition of Fraternity: A fraternity (or fraternal organization) is an organized society of men associated together in an environment of companionship and brotherhood; dedicated to the intellectual, physical, and social development of its members Its a god drat club for men. This isn't wal-mart hiring a garden shop attendant. Its a social club for guy to wear funny aprons, organize spaghetti dinners and develop complicated handshakes. Genocide Tendency fucked around with this message at 19:19 on May 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
Crankit posted:Well, in that light the slavery thing makes more sense and doesn't sound so bad. On the subject of physical deformity in West Virginia that's pretty awful have any of you guys written them a letter, or gone up the chain of command to let them know that the rest of you have moved on and so should they? A recent Grand Master of West Virginia changed those things, and then the guy that replaced him reverted it all and kicked him out by edict. There is no accountability at the Grand Lodge level, the Grand Master has absolute authority in his jurisdiction. This is by design, not by accident, but sometimes it does cause issues. West Virginia is also among the very few Grand Lodges that do not formally recognize their Prince Hall counterparts. All we can do is wait, because the web of fraternal recognition is complicated and it is not our place outside WV to tell people inside WV how they are allowed to run their lodges. The chain of command is internal to each Grand Lodge, so nobody outside WV has any authority over the Grand Master of WV inside WV. Grand Masters have a considerable amount of authority. As a fun anecdote, the old GM of WV (the one who got the boot after making reforms, Frank Haas, who I believe is no longer a brother, sadly), on a trip to Scotland with a team, wanted to practice the degree before they left. He had called ahead to Newark International Airport and reserved a room, which, after he and the team got there, he declared jurisdiction over, chartered, consecrated, and opened lodge by Edict in that room. After they were done he revoked the charter, relinquished jurisdiction, and so on. He could do that because he was Grand Master, and has unequaled Masonic authority. Crankit posted:I was under the impression that sexism was discrimination against women, you're in an organisation that disallows (i.e. discrimnates against someone) because they are women (i.e. sex based discrimination). Is it discriminating if I don't let you stand in the bathroom while I'm taking a whiz? What if you're a woman? What if it's a men's restroom in a public place? What if it's not a men's restroom in public, but is actually my restroom in my apartment? I mean I know this is a provocative and somewhat dismissive answer, but you're making the argument that it is sexual discrimination to disallow people from participating in a private function comprised of private membership on private property for private reasons, because the person being disallowed is a woman. You know nothing of the reasons for the decision to not allow women (they have been battered to death in this thread so far), but in your self-righteousness you see fit to insist that it definitely is wrong that such is the case anyhow. It creates the implication that you value a woman's right to . . . be a member of a social club? Over our right to privacy and our right to association. It is amusingly paradoxical that in a crusade to create equal rights for women, you would deny other people the right to privacy or to association. The courts have widely upheld that truly private clubs, that is, clubs that have genuine membership criteria which are not open to the public, which not just anybody can join, have the absolute right to disallow people based on things like gender because of a constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of association. Without getting into the "should" of this situation, because it is immutable regardless(as is discussed prior in the thread), the fact is it is certainly legal, and not really as barbaric as you would make it out to be. Women should certainly not be discriminated against, but alas, a woman's right to join a club should not impinge on the rights of men to not be forced by coercion to allow those women in a club. Just as I can't join the Junior League or the League of Woman Voters or the National Organization for Women or the Pythian Sisters or whatever else, and nor should I want to, women are not allowed to join Regular Freemasonry for reasons that are entirely procedural and historical and not at all based on some kind of "psh, women aren't worthy" thinking that you would imply is the only possibly reason for disallowing women from membership. And besides, it's not as if there aren't irregular lodges that women can join. If a woman really wants the Masonic experience or whatever, she's welcome to join a Co-Masonic Lodge or a Continental Lodge. She just won't be regarded as a Mason by myself or any other regular Masons. Edit: Or just pretend that we're holding meetings of GROSS. It's whatever, we literally cannot change this ancient landmark of our order which has been law for 400 years and became procedurally indelible in the early 1700s, so if you have to think less of us for that I mean that's your thing. 
Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 19:56 on May 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
Crankit posted:I was under the impression that sexism was discrimination against women, you're in an organisation that disallows (i.e. discrimnates against someone) because they are women (i.e. sex based discrimination). This argument comes up every few pages with the same faulty logic. Edit: Crankit posted:I tried, and will read again but after the OP it starts off like this: God forbid we have a little levity. Lovable Luciferian fucked around with this message at 19:47 on May 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Guys I just tried to join the Red Hat Society but they just laughed at me. Are they a sexist organization?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
Crankit posted:I read the OP, freemasonry is pretty shocking and I'm surprised such an institution is allowed to exist in this day and age. What can the average person do about this? Tell you what. Go post in the NBA thread, the MLB thread, the NHL thread, go scream at the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the WNBA, the YMCA, the YMCA, every former President, Royal Rangers, the Catholic Church, every Nun to ever exist, Job's Daughters, Rainbow Girls, Roller Derby, and every other of the probably close to 10,000 societies, organizations, clubs, fraternities, sororities, teams, groups, associations, and incorporations that segregate based on gender and then, and only then can you bitch about us. Until that point, 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
My lodge sponsors, funds and manages a little league branch called The Challengers, which is composed of four teams of mentally and physically challenged children and young adults. So there's that too?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
All North Carolina lodges contribute towards running an orphanage in Oxford,NC, as well as a Masonic retirement home. Individual lodges routinely involve themselves with charities in their communities. I read a quote recently that stated Masonry in the US alone contributes approximately 2 million dollars per day towards charity.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:You know what, I lay it super heavy on the controversy in the OP. Does anyone want to detail all the good things their Lodge does with regard to charity and so on, so I can include these kinds of things in the OP as well? Aside from the obvious like the Shrine Hospitals, iCARE from the Scottish Rite, and all the Masonic Retirement Homes, my Lodge engages in personal charity to people who are in need in the community and are brought to our attention. Maryland also participates in MASONIChip and so on. I know many of the lodges in other countries are actually part of social services - in Ireland they pay quite a bit in donations to underwrite welfare programs, and I imagine it's also such in Australia? I have always been blown away by the amount of money donated by Masons in the UK and Ireland relative to the US, where our dues mainly go towards keeping the building running. Our lodge does the Bikes for Books program in several area schools and supports most of the regular Masonic Charities. Our banquet for our the Widows of Lodge Members is coming up next week, which is also when we present our scholarships awards for the year - we're giving away five $1,000 scholarships renewable for four years and two one time $1,000 scholarships, all to local high school students based on criteria of academic merit and community involvement. We also participate in a number of fund raisers over the course of the year; relay for life and a polar bear plunge for special olympics are the ones that come to mind immediately.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
A few things our Lodge participates in include the giving of nearly $10,000 in scholarships to local high schoolers annually, actively promoting and contributing to the Masons4Mitts program with the Junior Giants, Raising a Reader, our annual Christmas party that benefits local shelters and homeless groups, Child ID, working with Parks and Recreation to clean up many of the local open spaces, and contributing to a great many charities and other non-profits who solicit us for funds. I'm exceedingly proud that when I took office I more than doubled our charity budget, and have made our charity a driving force for good in our community. It looks like the guys coming up behind me have no desire to slow down, and one has even started talking about how we can do more, which I fully support.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
well, I just got a call from the secretary of the lodge I asked for a petition. apparently a whole group of masons want to meet with me at IHOP saturday. anything I should be prepared for? and what is it with masons and IHOP?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
Colton posted:well, I just got a call from the secretary of the lodge I asked for a petition. apparently a whole group of masons want to meet with me at IHOP saturday. anything I should be prepared for? and what is it with masons and IHOP? Be prepared for delicious pancakes. I'm going to assume you haven't actually submitted a petition yet. If that's the case they are probably just wanting to get to know you a little bit and hand over the petition. If you have already submitted the petition then they will be asking you some set questions to make sure you're a good fit for Freemasonry. It's also possible that they have a masonic lunch club that meets and they are having you along so you can meet some of the guys. In any event it's probably just a session where you get to ask questions about masonry and they get to know a little about you. These things are usually informal so don't stress out about it.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 07:22
|
|
|
I have not submitted the petition yet. I still have a few questions about it so i guess i'll have them answered this weekend. I don't know why i'm nervous though. Maybe i'm just worried about making a good impression.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 07:57
|
|
|
Colton posted:I have not submitted the petition yet. I still have a few questions about it so i guess i'll have them answered this weekend. I don't know why i'm nervous though. Maybe i'm just worried about making a good impression. If you're worried about making a good first impression then you're probably the kind of guy that has nothing to worry about. If you have any concerns you want answered off the forums feel free to PM me. I'm a United States Freemason so if you're in a different country my advice may not be as good.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 08:17
|
|
|
I had dinner like, five times before I turned in my petition. Ask questions, be chill, and enjoy some awesome pancakes.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 08:40
|
|
|
Show them the rebellious nature of today's youth, go with waffles (the goat likes waffles). In all seriousness though, I visited 4 different Lodges and had maybe a dozen or more dinners and coffee meetings with "the guys" before I ever asked, let alone turned in, my application. They want to feel you out, make sure your questions are met, expectations are reasonable, and that you seem like an upstanding lad. As was mentioned, the fact that you're worried means you're likely going to be just fine. They're actively interested in you, as you are in them.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 11:11
|
|
|
As others have said - relax, enjoy a bit of time with them and get to know them. This isn't a job interview, you are not on the spot. If you have questions, you should ask them (unless you're uncertain about asking those questions in public, in which case I would perhaps suggest that you ask us here - many have done so before.)
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:I had dinner like, five times before I turned in my petition. Ask questions, be chill, and enjoy some awesome pancakes. I had dinner like ....a year and a half worth before I was told that there was space in the waiting list for me to submit a petition....
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
Colton posted:well, I just got a call from the secretary of the lodge I asked for a petition. apparently a whole group of masons want to meet with me at IHOP saturday. anything I should be prepared for? and what is it with masons and IHOP? If you meet the requirements (A male, free born, of lawful age and well recommended) then there is nothing to be prepared for. Have awesome pancakes, trade bad jokes, and relax. This is some old guys who want to eat breakfast with someone who may want to join their club. Not an interrogation. If it turns into one, then petition another lodge because thats dumb as hell. I know when I was on the investigative comity for my lodge, the first thing I would do was make sure they knew that we were more interested in getting someone in than keeping someone out. Don't be nervous, don't panic and hand wring over every little question. Chances are its just small talk and getting to know you as a person. As for the IHOP thing, we love our fuckin pancakes. And you drat well better love them too.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:This is a holdover from the 1700s when the stipulation had a very practical application. Since Freemasonry as we know it today was founded on Enlightenment principals of being tied to no man, and being a completely free thinker and being able to go and do as you please, it was completely understandable at the time that initiates were asked if they were "free born". Not to mention, in times where Freemasonry was outlawed, you wouldn't think of initiating a man who was beholden to another man, who might give away those secrets. Nowadays, it is purely symbolic of being born under the ties of no other person, and represents the aspect of self-motivation and personal freedom that Masonry espouses. That all sounds like a great reason why someone couldn't be a slave when they joined, but doesn't explain why they couldn't have been born a slave. 18th and 19th century racial attitudes being what they were, I'd be shocked if keeping out black people wasn't the true motive when the rule was first created. A brief Web search suggests that the rule is interpreted by some, even today, to include all descendants of slaves as well. Thankfully that seems to be a fringe attitude.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
Carbolic posted:That all sounds like a great reason why someone couldn't be a slave when they joined, but doesn't explain why they couldn't have been born a slave. 18th and 19th century racial attitudes being what they were, I'd be shocked if keeping out black people wasn't the true motive when the rule was first created. It has nothing to do with keeping out black people. It has to do with stone masons being able to cross boarders and blah blah blah, a lot of history You have been whining and bitching over details you don't understand. When explained, you either ignore the explanation or start crying and bitching about something else. If Masonry bothers you that god drat much, why are you posting in the Freemason thread? Edit: Carbolic and Crankit are two different posters. My bad. Ignore the strike throughs. Genocide Tendency fucked around with this message at 03:26 on May 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
Carbolic posted:That all sounds like a great reason why someone couldn't be a slave when they joined, but doesn't explain why they couldn't have been born a slave. 18th and 19th century racial attitudes being what they were, I'd be shocked if keeping out black people wasn't the true motive when the rule was first created. Except those particular rules are pretty old. In fact, the oldest existing Masonic document, the Regius Poem, written in 1390, states The Oldest Masonic Document, written circa 1390 posted:The fourth article this must be, So I mean, while the particular "freeborn" language may be somewhat new, it is essentially founded in principles dating to even the 14th century. And I think we can be in agreement that 18th and 19th century racial attitudes being what they were is moot when the "freeborn" stuff comes from the 14th century, especially when the 14th century document pretty well describes the reasoning (a slave or bondsman summoned by his master would have do go despite being apprenticed to a master mason). quote:A brief Web search suggests that the rule is interpreted by some, even today, to include all descendants of slaves as well. Thankfully that seems to be a fringe attitude. Pretty abhorrent stuff, but alas, while I would vouch for any brother as my own, I cannot say that every brother Mason is a saint to a man. I can say that I wish they were, and consider them to be, but I cannot avow it's true.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Pretty abhorrent stuff, but alas, while I would vouch for any brother as my own, I cannot say that every brother Mason is a saint to a man. I can say that I wish they were, and consider them to be, but I cannot avow it's true. This is a problem I'm facing having just moved to The South. The culture shock is one thing... being from California. But looking at the Masonic heritage around here is making me contemplate joining a Prince Hall Lodge. Which would be troublesome itself since the Grand Lodge of Louisiana doesn't recognize Prince Hall Masonry...
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
There will always be a lodge that holds traditions that should be forgotten. Ignore them and move on. Most of us are the chillest motherfuckers around.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:... I cannot say that every brother Mason is a saint to a man. ... I'm glad you posted that. That's something that I have a hard time getting across to people at times. A past Grand Master once explained it to me in a way that I know he would never say in public. "There are just as many assholes in the Lodge as there are outside." Just like you I would vouch for any brother and come to his relief but that doesn't mean he can't be an rear end in a top hat. Edit: 7thBatallion posted:... Most of us are the chillest motherfuckers around. At the same time this is true as well. Lovable Luciferian fucked around with this message at 08:45 on May 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 08:42
|
|
|
Carbolic posted:That all sounds like a great reason why someone couldn't be a slave when they joined, but doesn't explain why they couldn't have been born a slave. 18th and 19th century racial attitudes being what they were, I'd be shocked if keeping out black people wasn't the true motive when the rule was first created. The problem here is that you are obviously looking at it from an American perspective. Slavery has been rampant throughout the ages, before it became fashion to go and raid Africa for her people. You see the word slave and you immediately imagine an African American in chains. Well that wasn't the true picture back in the 14th century when freemasonry started. Serfdom was slavery. 99% of the European population were serfs, and therefore slaves to the nobility. They needed permission from their masters to travel. Masons, the builders of cathedrals and castles were free, they had the ability to cross borders and move from country to country without restrictions. They were Freemen. Even once the serf/noble systems was dismantled there were still slaves, the first slaves to arrive in America were Scots and Irish that had been sold into slavery. http://www.electricscotland.com/history/other/white_slavery.htm So the rule against being a slave isn't meant to be a rule against blacks, though some use it as such, it as a rule against all men that cannot legally make their own decisions.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 10:04
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:So I mean, while the particular "freeborn" language may be somewhat new, it is essentially founded in principles dating to even the 14th century. And I think we can be in agreement that 18th and 19th century racial attitudes being what they were is moot when the "freeborn" stuff comes from the 14th century, especially when the 14th century document pretty well describes the reasoning (a slave or bondsman summoned by his master would have do go despite being apprenticed to a master mason). TemetNosceXVIcubus posted:So the rule against being a slave isn't meant to be a rule against blacks, though some use it as such, it as a rule against all men that cannot legally make their own decisions. In that quote of the translation of the 14th-century poem (Article 4), the requirement is that the apprentice not be a "bondsman" in the present tense. Article 11 of the poem mentions being "fair and free" - also in the present tense. Assuming the poem is legit, at some point the requirement clearly evolved from "be free" to "be born free" even though the explanation why you had to be born free doesn't make sense. I get that you don't want people who aren't able to make decisions in the club, but that's not what the rule says. The way the rule is currently, any random 18th-century white indentured servant would be fine (since he was born free, although he voluntarily subjected himself to a contract) but Frederick Douglass would have been unacceptable. That's why it's pretty clear to me that racism took over at some point, although I am not suggesting modern Masonry still has the same attitudes as it did in the 19th century. If someone went to jail would you suspend them from the lodge and/or revoke their status? What if they were on probation or out on bail? The poem is an interesting document. The rules seem to have been radically changed and reduced, from 15 down to 4. The old rules: 1. A master mason must be steadfast, steady and true 2. A master mason must attend the general congregation 3. A master mason must not take an apprentice until the apprentice has worked for seven years 4. A master mason must not take a bondsman as an apprentice 5. A master mason must not take an apprentice who is deformed 6. A master mason may take a lord as an apprentice. (Plus some rules about employment that aren't very easy to read.) 7. A master mason must not assist criminals 8. A master mason may/should replace a bad employee/apprentice with a better one 9. A master mason must not undertake work unless he can do it profitably and well 10. A master mason must treat other masons as sisters and brothers 11. A mason must be "fair and free" and not work by night 12. A mason must not dishonestly disparage his fellows' work 13. A master mason must teach their apprentice in the craft 14. A master mason must not take an apprentice unless able to take care to teach the apprentice 15. A master mason must teach their apprentice to be honest. And the current rules from the OP: i. Be a man, and of lawful age. ii. Be born free. iii. Possess a good moral character and be able to be vouched for. iv. Profess a belief in God. The only correlation at all between the two sets is that iii seems to match up with 1 and 15. And possibly iv relates to 2, although it seems likely "congregation" meant a gathering of master masons and not a religious congregation. And, as discussed above, ii is like 4 and 11, except that the new rule looks at your status when you were born, rather than when you become a Mason. New rule i has no correlation at all, and in fact Article 10 expressly contemplates treating fellow masons like "sisters". (Edited to correct misreading of Article 4 and discuss rule i / Article 10 change.) Carbolic fucked around with this message at 16:40 on May 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 14:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
Carbolic posted:If someone went to jail would you suspend them from the lodge and/or revoke their status? What if they were on probation or out on bail? Yes, most lodges in the US will automatically expel a person who is convicted of a felony, some a misdemeanor of vice. quote:The poem is an interesting document. The rules seem to have been radically changed and reduced, from 15 down to 4. The rules from the Regius Poem are not merely to join Masonry, but also include rules for Master Masons to follow. In fact there are fewer of them than there are in speculative Masonry. So there are more than 4 because those 4 in the OP are general requirements to get your foot in the door, which do not include the obligations or rules of conduct provided after you're initiated. quote:The only correlation at all between the two sets is that iii seems to match up with 1 and 15. And possibly iv relates to 2, although it seems likely "congregation" meant a gathering of master masons and not a religious congregation. And, as discussed above, ii is like 4 and 11, except that the new rule looks at your status when you were born, rather than when you become a Mason. New rule i has no correlation at all, and in fact Article 10 expressly contemplates treating fellow masons like "sisters". The "sisters" bit I would assume to be related to 14th century rules where a woman was considered the same as her husband but I profess no knowledge here. I don't believe women could be masons (or any other kind of professional) in the 1390s, but I could very well be mistaken. The thing about the Regius Document is it very much applies to operative Masons, and predates the formation of so called "speculative Masonry" which is what happened when Freemasons stopped needing to be literal stoneworkers. So many of its rules remain the same because speculative Masonry developed out of operative Masonry, but many change to suit (for example: we don't need to take an apprentice). Before this becomes a "so why can't you change rules now?," it would boil down again to the method and words of obligations and such and is simply not doable, whereas nobody was taking an oath to never change the Regius Poem. Also, as to the "assuming it's legit," it is legit, but it may be as late as 1425. It's the oldest piece of Masonic writing known right now. There are however minutes back to the 1400s in some lodges, and grand lodge assemblies back to the 1600s. Much of this blurs between operative and speculative, lending some credibility to the understanding that it sort of happened in tandem.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 17:07
|
|