|
Post by tws on Sept 9, 2007 1:05:35 GMT
I base my position upon that of freedom of association. See my Reply #6. Among those on which I base mine are the principles of equality, justice and unity. Is it truely unity when it is forced?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 9, 2007 1:23:20 GMT
Perhaps this SHOULD go to a Court of Law in Australia and we would then get a definitive Legal Ruling.
Like Bro Wayseer I would prefer a less robust approach, but this would at least bring this matter to a head.
BTW I DID vote with my feet, left Malecraft (UGLE) and became a Co-Mason. Thereby utilising your feedom of association. Making a choice, based on your own reasons and not that of some outside force imposing it upon you. I have the utmost respect for your decision.As do I (noting that Bro. Steve had said that perhaps this SHOULD go to court). After all, as has been attributed to Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing."
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 9, 2007 1:26:19 GMT
Is it truely unity when it is forced? Look at the ending of apartheid in South Africa. Again, 'force' is not my preferred option. However, I prefer that to the current 'forced' separation.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Sept 9, 2007 1:26:49 GMT
. After all, as has been attributed to Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." Is malecraft Freemasonry evil, then?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 9, 2007 1:33:15 GMT
. After all, as has been attributed to Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." Is malecraft Freemasonry evil, then? No, institutions cannot be evil in and of themselves (particular policies may however arise from or lend themselves to 'evil' tendencies, as with apartheid). Where there may be evil is in the intentions of individuals. However, I cannot see into individual souls so as to presume to say whose intentions are evil and whose are not.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Sept 9, 2007 2:03:46 GMT
At least we are not evil. Freemasonry is considered a secular religious institution, in most States here in the U.S., so we are exempt,by law, from gender integration. Much as would be a monastary.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 9, 2007 2:07:57 GMT
At least we are not evil. Freemasonry is considered a secular religious institution, in most States here in the U.S., so we are exempt, by law, from gender integration. Much as would be a monastary. Perhaps legal (there) but, in the case of Freemasonry, is it just?
|
|
|
Post by tws on Sept 9, 2007 2:11:32 GMT
It is considering that women have the choice to be Masons, if they so choose, through thier own masonic orgs., just as Bro. Karen is. There is a way. Male, female, and co-masonry are there for those who choose to participate.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 9, 2007 2:22:56 GMT
It is considering that women have the choice to be Masons, if they so choose, through thier own masonic orgs., just as Bro. Karen is. There is a way. Male, female, and co-masonry are there for those who choose to participate. We appear to be going around in circles. In Australia the choice is not that easy. Your remark reminds me of an astute comment by Bro. JMD under "Freemasonic Regularity," Reply #87: I personally cannot agree with "There exists today Freemasonry for men, Freemasonry for women and mixed Freemasonry, so the UGLE’s wish not to admit women is hardly relevant is it?"... I suppose, the above quote has the exact equivalence to my ears were I to hear a GL say: "There exists today Freemasonry for whites, Freemasonry for blacks and mixed Freemasonry, so this GL’s wish not to admit blacks is hardly relevant is it?" BTW, elsewhere this quote was taken, perhaps disingenuously, to be an accusation of racism. On the contrary, it relies on readers NOT being racist so as to appreciate the analogy.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Sept 9, 2007 2:30:43 GMT
Its just not the same. Racial equivalincy has been used as an arguement by homosexuals in thier arguements as well. The simple fact is that under the laws of the U.S., all are equal in the eyes of the law. Racial and feminist equality has already been achieved. This is entering into the realm of diminishing returns.
The UN treaty you are so fond of may have a good purpose in third world countries, and that is where a fight such as yours would do genuine good.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 9, 2007 2:33:53 GMT
Racial and feminist equality has already been achieved. Must have slipped past me
|
|
|
Post by tws on Sept 9, 2007 2:36:50 GMT
Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Nothing can garuntee that but one's own hard work. Maybe you are living in the wrong country?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 9, 2007 2:41:19 GMT
Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Nothing can garuntee that but one's own hard work. Maybe you are living in the wrong country? This is my hard work to guarantee that outcome.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Sept 9, 2007 2:50:30 GMT
This is my hard work to guarantee that outcome. Equality of outcome? That is impossible to achieve. If one applies to be a rocket scientist, and is not qualified, then one is not entitled to be one. Everyone has an equal opportunity to achieve. Education is free in the civilised world. If someone does not take advantage of it, and chooses instead to sit around all day and watch TV, then I am am not under obligation to insure that they have all that thier heart desires.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 9, 2007 2:56:37 GMT
Equality of outcome? That is impossible to achieve. If one applies to be a rocket scientist, and is not qualified, then one is not entitled to be one. Everyone has an equal opportunity to achieve. Education is free in the civilised world. If someone does not take advantage of it, and chooses instead to sit around all day and watch TV, then I am am not under obligation to insure that they have all that thier heart desires. I was using your words! To quote another, " The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." Anatole France
|
|
|
Post by tws on Sept 9, 2007 3:00:52 GMT
There is no need for the poor to steal bread or to sleep under bridges. There are both private and government institutions to turn to if one is truely in need. In the day when your quote was written, there was nowhere to turn. Such is no longer the case , at least in Western countries.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 9, 2007 3:11:11 GMT
There is no need for the poor to steal bread or to sleep under bridges. There are both private and government institutions to turn to if one is truely in need. In the day when your quote was written, there was nowhere to turn. Such is no longer the case, at least in Western countries. I suggest many live below the poverty line in the USA and that gender and race are factors in the unequal distribution of wealth and opportunity. Albeit, perhaps not as bad as when this picture was taken. Maybe you are living in the wrong country?
|
|
|
Post by tws on Sept 9, 2007 3:13:24 GMT
Unequal distribution of wealth? Sounds familiar..."from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
|
|
|
Post by tws on Sept 9, 2007 3:14:28 GMT
Btw, that photo was taken long before I was born.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 9, 2007 3:18:44 GMT
Unequal distribution of wealth? Sounds familiar..."from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Would you agree that gender and race are factors in the unequal distribution of wealth and opportunity?
|
|