Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 30, 2006 7:47:05 GMT
Bro. Staffs, Please consider using the same reasoning to justify racial segregation in the context of our professed universality.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Oct 30, 2006 8:02:12 GMT
Tamrin
Could I ask what your organisations policy is on the majority of Women Freemasons who want to remain as just Women only Freemasons?
Surely life is about freedom of choice, you seem to want to take that choice away carte blanche.
Where the change is needed is in Certain Grand Lodges acknowledging Women and Co-Freemasons as regular, that is all. I already do this and am happy to discuss and talk about all aspects of Freemasonry with all Freemasons. I would also like to visit a Co-Masonic Lodge, at the moment this is not to be but I am sure in years to come it may change, we will just have to see.
To call it an injustice is just too radical for me!
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 30, 2006 8:54:03 GMT
Bro. middlepillar, you wrote: "Surely life is about freedom of choice, you seem to want to take that choice away carte blanche." As I said to Bro. staffs: "Please consider using the same reasoning to justify racial segregation in the context of our professed universality." I see the women only lodges as being analogous to the Prince Hall lodges. They are the ones who have suffered discrimination and, if they feel the need for solidarity in the face of such discrimination, so be it. They could claim as justification the principle of Affirmative Action. We have prevaricated and deceived ourselves and others for too long: Please read my articles Craftswomen and Albert Through the Looking Glass. I suggest we would do well to test excuses given as to why women are excluded from mainstream Freemasonry and ask why some people want segregated lodges. By the way, I speak for myself not on behalf of any organisation.
|
|
|
Post by kizzy on Oct 30, 2006 17:21:32 GMT
Thanks Bro Tamrin, that was of great interest and usefulness.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Oct 30, 2006 18:05:30 GMT
Bro Tamrin,
Firstly I congratulate you on a couple of first rate articles. You are obviously very sincere in your wishes.
With regard to your question about segregation I cannot use the same reasoning, I look at each individual issue and work out my stance accordingly! With regard to the segregation issue I have written my views on this several times, there is no room in Freemasonry for any racism ever.
I cannot compare the two, you will find the majority of members of this Forum are very pro Female masonry as I am, I do not think that any female freemason is inferior to me and as I have said would love to visit a Co-Masonic Lodge. I just feel change will only occur over a long period and only if the majority want change, although I would welcome the chance to visit and would love to be able to recognise all Freemasons as regular (officially) although I do myself anyway. I appreciate that to many it would cause major problems. I cannot get as passionate about this as you, obviously.
I do not think there is enough consideration to the silent majority, most of whom are totally ignorant of Co-Masonry possibly know a little of Women Freemasonry and would most probably resign if change was forced on them!
Change will come, if wanted and in its own time. I must admit I think your 'Restore the loss' works really well.
I wish you much good luck.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Oct 30, 2006 22:20:01 GMT
Ah, Yes - Freemasonry is a bit like Oz - our PM and Treas are claiming there is no need for Australia to sign the Kyoto Protocols for much the same reason - why worry, it's never going to be as bad as they (the people who really know) say and if it is then we have plenty of time. Stern says the world lack leadership - How right he is - and the same with Masonry. The various GLs are busy - well, they make out their busy - doing what? How come I keep feeling I'm living on the Titanic and it's just a matter of time before the inevitable iceberg appears in the dead of night when everyone on board is having fun.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 30, 2006 23:41:53 GMT
Bros middlepillar and John Ford
Thank you for your kind words.
Bro. middlepillar, I especially commend your approach whereby: "I look at each individual issue and work out my stance accordingly!" and I suggest the same should be our approach to each individual person. "Masonry isn't for men or women. It's for people. End of story," as Bro. CoraB aptly wrote under another thread.
Bro. John, I agree that we cannot just wait for things to change: They never will by themselves. Someone needs to say "Look about you!" Let us see where we stand in relation to the wider community and consider the tragedy whereby an institution, which had once been in the vanguard of the Age of Enlightenment, has arguably become a social liability in relation to the advancement of human rights and equal opportunity.
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Nov 1, 2006 10:11:29 GMT
Good to see you on this site, tamrin.
I had before noted your recent site and already added it to one of my pages as an important link.
Where I agree with Staffs is that individual LODGES should be able to determine whether or not to initiate individuals properly balloted for. Where I disagree is the implication that its GL should exclude individuals from even being considered, whether on the basis of gender, race or religion.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 1, 2006 11:44:35 GMT
Care Frater jmdThank you for your kind words. Where I agree with Staffs is that individual LODGES should be able to determine whether or not to initiate individuals properly balloted for. Where I disagree is the implication that its GL should exclude individuals from even being considered, whether on the basis of gender, race or religion. I too agree with that argument in principle, so long as it is not used as a cover to exclude all women. As an analogy we may look at the racial divide in some jurisdictions where, although the Grand Lodge has no discriminatory policy, it is said that any person of colour, no matter how worthy, will be black balled from its individual lodges. If this were practiced, intervention would be justified. I would even go further and recommend softening the blow (sad that it should even be considered as such) for those who have deep seated difficulties coming to terms with the issue. Provided it was no longer the norm, this could be done by granting a limited number of lodges a limited amount of time in which they could continue to discriminate in terms of their members and visitors. In the meantime, they would have the opportunity to visit and see that women and men can work effectively and harmoniously together in lodge. Nosce te ipsum, #8 Hunter Valley College, SRIS
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 1, 2006 19:41:19 GMT
By the way, legislation can be a blunt instrument. Any temporary concessions to "soften the blow," may not be possible if we prevaricate and wait until the inevitable court case.
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Nov 3, 2006 12:32:57 GMT
Bro. Tamrin,
thank you for your excellent website and articles. As a german co-mason I just agree.
|
|