|
Post by Bettendorf on Nov 4, 2007 20:34:24 GMT
Bro Carter, in the submission thread made some remarks that I would like to carry on with but thought it best to create it in a thread of its own. Immediately came to mind after reading his remarks was an address by the then GM of the GL of Oregon to GL in 1937;
"Masonry takes no part in politics. It is right that it should not. Neither should it permit discussions of political matters concerning which there can be an honest difference of opinion among Masons. Such discussion would only lead to dissension. "But as to those forms of government or political systems concerning which there is no room for difference of opinion among Masons, a different sutation exists. We have a right to discuss them within the Lodge. I refer to those forms of government or political systems which do not permit or tolerate Masonry.
During the year, I have talked in the Lodges throughout this Jurisdiction against those subversive influences which, if permitted to go unchallenged, might eventually gain control in this country and destroy our liberties, our free institutions, and our Masonry.
If to talk against these sinister influences which are gradually boring into our government, our educational institutions, our patriotic organizations, and our fraternities constitutes the talking of politics, then let us to that extent get into politics.
If Masonry is worth maintaing, worth having, it is worth fighting for, even if we have to go into politics for that purpose. If we have any stamina, any virility, we ought to fight those things which are trying to destroy Masonry. If we do not, we may awake too late to find Masonry in this country in the same condition that it is in Russia, Germany, and Italy today"
I am inclined to agree with this W. Brother and am interested in others opinions regarding.
|
|
|
Post by Bettendorf on Nov 4, 2007 20:43:36 GMT
I am definately no scholar, but, what position does this 1888 edit, Section 2 of the Communist Manifesto leave Freemasonry in;
"There are besides, eternal truths - such as freedom, justice, etc., that are common to all states of society; but communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis, ..."
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Nov 4, 2007 20:52:24 GMT
This would not happen in the UK. I could not envisage the Grand Master of UGLE, The Duke of Kent- a member of the Royal Family and cousin of the Queen, or Lord Northampton the pro-Grand Master who is a Hereditary Peer and a landowner making such statements although I am sure they hold quite definite opinions on this matter.
As to "Political" discussions in Lodges, again I have never heard of it over here although I have heard such matters being discussed in the bar after the Meeting or at the Festive Board by a few Brethren, usually amicably and in a reasoned manner.
I must say that it was also the Hard Right as well as the Communist Left who banned Freemasonry. The Craft was persecuted by Hitler, Mussolini, and especially Franco - three Fascist Dictators, as well as by Joe Stalin and his satellite states after WW2 until the 1990s. The Fascists considered Freemasonry to be part of the "Masonic-Jewish-Bolshevik " Conspiracy to Rule the World. Communists considered it to be part of the Bourgeois Capitalist System to exploit and keep down the Workers . Of course Freemasonry is neither.
Perhaps a more accurate title for this Thread should be Freemasonry Vs Communism and Fascism?
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Nov 4, 2007 21:02:44 GMT
Perhaps a more accurate title for this Thread should be Freemasonry Vs Communism and Fascism
All those who wish to bang the political drum please go and join a political party. In the meantime leave Freemasonry off your politics.
|
|
|
Post by Bettendorf on Nov 4, 2007 21:08:44 GMT
Perhaps a more accurate title for this Thread should be Freemasonry Vs Communism and FascismAll those who wish to bang the political drum please go and join a political party. In the meantime leave Freemasonry off your politics. Brother John, with all respect, here it is partisan politics that we leave out of Masonry. It is a common charge in the Masonrys of the world to be civically responsible. Part of that responsibility requires having a firm understanding of the Science of Government. There is no drum beating in raising Science of Government in Lodge.
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Nov 4, 2007 21:18:40 GMT
In regards to Freemasonry not being active in politics may I point out two situations where this was benificialy not the case.
The American Ravolution.
The French Revolution
Both of whoam could be argued where as of a result of Freemasonry.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 4, 2007 21:26:32 GMT
In regards to Freemasonry not being active in politics may I point out two situations where this was beneficially not the case. The American Revolution. The French Revolution Both of whom could be argued were as of a result of Freemasonry. There were Freemasons on both sides of both conflicts. Whether or not they were involved AS Freemasons is a moot point. The position has been less ambivalent in Italy, under Garibaldi, and in various South American nations.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Nov 4, 2007 21:41:16 GMT
European Freemasonry is more "Political" than the Anglo-Saxon version practised in the UK and USA which both tend to eschew any political involvement. Was this diffidence on the part of UGLE and the US GLs a result of the Illegal Assemblies Laws in Britain in the late 1700s and early 1800s, whilst for the US GLs was it informed by the Morgan Affair, the Anti-Masonic Party etc?
This Forum of course is NOT a Tyled Lodge and I have no problems discussing Politics or for that matter Religion with anyone, but knowing that both of these topics can cause a lot of ill feeling I would defer to the use of Bro Theron Dunn's "Broom of Harmony" if that is what posters would prefer. The observations of the Moderators would also be of assistance.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Nov 4, 2007 22:48:28 GMT
If a person cannot discuss political theory and/or political science then he is not a grown up, is irresponsible, and needs a good deal more maturing before he steps foot in a lodge. A disagreement over political science is nothing to throw a temper tantrum about, it is just a disagreement. If anyone has an issue with someone disagreeing with them then they can't be allowed to sit at the grown up table. Brandt
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Nov 4, 2007 23:02:08 GMT
As soon as someone writes Freemasonry and ...........
there is going to be some politics or religion involved.
The subject is not really the problem , it is how you react with each other that is always the concern.
This of course is only my view, but so long as you keep within the forum rules. I don't see a problem.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Nov 4, 2007 23:23:40 GMT
I don't see any reason that grown men and women can't behave themselves.
Brandt
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Nov 5, 2007 0:30:27 GMT
Very impressive points raised by the 1937 GM of the GL or Oregon. Would but a GM have similarly spoken over the past six years!
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 5, 2007 0:41:42 GMT
I am definately no scholar, but, what position does this 1888 edit, Section 2 of the Communist Manifesto leave Freemasonry in; "There are besides, eternal truths - such as freedom, justice, etc., that are common to all states of society; but communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis, ..." In context, we read: Part II: Proletarians and Communists
What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.
When people speak of ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express the fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.
When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death-battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience, merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.
"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religion, moral, philosophical and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."
"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."
What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.
But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.
The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Nov 5, 2007 1:07:18 GMT
Part of that responsibility requires having a firm understanding of the Science of Government.
That sounds suspiciously like a politically correct way of saying; 'I'm discussing politics in a non-political way' - which is, of course, nonsense.
To juxtapose Freemasonry and Communism is a 'political discussion'.
One of the very reasons for establishing Lodges was to create an opportunity to meet others without the intervention of politics.
The American Ravolution.
The French Revolution
Both of whoam could be argued where as of a result of Freemasonry.
Huh! I must have missed something - or is this idea taken from an anti-Freemasons site?
Brethren you may try to justify your 'political' discussion - but that is what you are doing - dreaming up reasons for discussing something which we are cautioned to avoid - for good reason.
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Nov 5, 2007 1:16:45 GMT
...we are cautioned to avoid in open Lodge.
And frankly, even there, in the context of a paper being delivered, and not a polemic, quite appropriate.
Only last month the paper delivered by the former UGLE Grand Sec. was filled with political considerations that, in the context, were entirely appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by parisfred on Nov 5, 2007 13:34:21 GMT
another point of view,
why don't we put on the same level the freemasons, who, during a meeting discuss about education, social welfare or public moral and the ones who don't discuss but accept as brother a certain category of human depending on gender, skin colour, religion or social status...
the first discuss political subjects, the others show political opinions... ... because they are not living in masonland but in the real life and what and how they behave have an influence outside of the lodge.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Nov 5, 2007 14:04:52 GMT
another point of view, why don't we put on the same level the freemasons, who, during a meeting discuss about education, social welfare or public moral and the ones who don't discuss but accept as brother a certain category of human depending on gender, skin colour, religion or social status... the first discuss political subjects, the others show political opinions... ... because they are not living in masonland but in the real life and what and how they behave have an influence outside of the lodge. I always respect your point of view Bro. Fred, but I must admit I am having difficulty following your meaning. Could you clarify more?
|
|
|
Post by tws on Nov 5, 2007 14:09:49 GMT
Part of that responsibility requires having a firm understanding of the Science of Government. That sounds suspiciously like a politically correct way of saying; 'I'm discussing politics in a non-political way' - which is, of course, nonsense. To juxtapose Freemasonry and Communism is a 'political discussion'. One of the very reasons for establishing Lodges was to create an opportunity to meet others without the intervention of politics. Yes, but we are not in a tyled lodge. Again, we are not in a tyled lodge. This is a free-speech forum. We are discussing political theory (not partisan politics).
|
|
|
Post by tws on Nov 5, 2007 14:14:34 GMT
I am definately no scholar, but, what position does this 1888 edit, Section 2 of the Communist Manifesto leave Freemasonry in; "There are besides, eternal truths - such as freedom, justice, etc., that are common to all states of society; but communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis, ..." In context, we read: Part II: Proletarians and Communists
What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.
When people speak of ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express the fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.
When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death-battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience, merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.
"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religion, moral, philosophical and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."
"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."
What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.
But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.
The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas. ...and even in context, this is still nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by parisfred on Nov 5, 2007 14:51:24 GMT
I will try try another way to explain my point of view I have been in lodge where the papers are about political subject : colonialism, abortion, DNA profiling etc... The brothers and sisters in those lodges discuss the subject and most of the times various point of view are expressed as we do here everyday. They speak about politics and the members are maybe more aware of political manipulation than others who don't, they also learn to listen in silence and respect , to different point of view and on very difficult subjects, I believe it helps them to be better citizen learning that opinions are relative.
On the other side you have freemasonry that swear that they don't in anyway do politics, just doing ceremony and festive board, but in fact as they are members of 2007 world not members of pre 1717 operative lodge, they act politicaly.
It is political to refuse people according to their skin color or being in relation with racist. It make sense politically to believe that all religion are moral and agnostic not worthy of membership,
freemasonry is not somewhere out of time, it's made for and by human being living in 2007.
even the type of masonry that we choose is political.
|
|