|
Post by gaslight on Sept 13, 2007 7:08:36 GMT
Interesting point of difference in our respective Masonry, Averroes. In Co-Masonry we are directed to listen to our intuition, that still small voice within us all. Maybe not so different. In Emulation, "Standard" Scottish, and a host of other mainstream rituals, the injunction to 'listen to the voice of Nature' means, I think, precisely that: intuition or the inner voice. Slightly off-topic, but when I was given the job of editing my lodge's ritual a few years ago, I discovered to my dismay that for years the Brethren had been using a corrupt version that gave 'listen to the voice of Reason'. I shudder to think of the generations of Brethren who either took that to heart, or had no idea what it meant.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Sept 13, 2007 10:19:40 GMT
Perhaps NOT just a simple mistake? If more people listened to the Voice of REASON we might have a better world with less conflict.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Sept 13, 2007 11:03:33 GMT
Averroes, (the name of a famous Islamic philosopher). You will find that, with one exception, nobody on this thread wishes to force Male Only Freemasonry such as your own at the point of Law to admit women and that the majority of us are quite content to have Co-Masonry, Women-Only Masonry and Men-Only Masonry co-existing peacefully in the same locations.
For my own part, I was initiated into Male-Only Freemasonry under UGLE and as well as Craft (Blue) Lodge, I was in 15 other Masonic Orders. However, I still felt that something was missing and discovered this in Co-Masonry and after 18 years in Malecraft I Resigned (Demitted) from all my UGLE affiliations and became a Member of Le Droit Humain in December 2006 and have to say that I am happier and more fulfilled having found what I was seeking therein.
So I feel you have no need to come out with your six-guns blazing nor to invoke your Country's Constitution, Legal Code or Supreme Court. There is no Task Force of Co-Masons nor Women Masons waiting to storm your Temples, only one Brother posting here, who from heartfelt reasons no doubt, wishes to take the matter to his Nation's Courts, which of course have absolutely no jurisdiction in the USA nor for that matter the UK nor outside of their own Sovereign Territories.
Enjoy your Freemasonry in Blue Lodge, Scottish Rite, York Rite, Shriners or whatever in peace in the sure and certain knowledge that most of us here are quite happy to live and let live.
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Sept 13, 2007 11:14:05 GMT
I still don't understand why we can't continue with the branches we have, after all we all share the same root, and 3 branches seems to be an appropriate number to me!
We all sit as masons under the canopy of the GL Eternal, irrespective of the administrative structure we fall under.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 13, 2007 11:35:18 GMT
I still don't understand why we can't continue with the branches we have, after all we all share the same root, and 3 branches seems to be an appropriate number to me! We all sit as masons under the canopy of the GL Eternal, irrespective of the administrative structure we fall under. Please refer to Reply #28.
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Sept 13, 2007 11:56:30 GMT
Thanks for the offer Bro Phil, but I don't feel the argument has advanced any further really, and reply 28 doesn't answer the question, unless you are suggesting that Australia should be treated as a different case from anywhere else in the world, neither does the reply you quoted from JMD appear to apply. Simple fact is I respect your opinion and your right to hold it, and express it, but I also disagree with it. I am not going to be convinced by any arguments, it comes down to a matter of choice and ensuring that those choices are there for future generations to make. While I live in hope that one day there will be friendlier relationships between the branches, and even between the various twigs off of those branches, I firmly believe that there needs to be three choices - one of each gender and one mixed, this way all are given a choice of expression and style.
You are obviously happy and comfortable with your opinion, and I am very pleased for you, however I know I'm not going to be persuaded round to it, and you aren't going to be persuaded out of it (not that I am trying to do that).
|
|
|
Post by corab on Sept 13, 2007 12:01:29 GMT
Even if that choice, involves discrimination on the basis of race or gender rather than on individual merits and compatibility? If so, that is where we differ. No -- we differ in our perception of what the existence of single-gender and mixed-gender masonry represents. You see discrimination, I see freedom of conscience. When I first considered petitioning a lodge I was at complete liberty to either approach an all-female order, or a mixed order. Following the dictates of my conscience I opted for the latter. In arriving at that choice I was not discriminated against in any way, shape or for. The choice was simple: want to work with men - Y/N? If N, go for feminine masonry. If Y, go for co-masonry. What's the problem? Coming back to your question then:- ... the issue of race is not under discussion here, so I'll leave that out of the equation. I do not believe that the co-existence of single-gender and mixed masonry constitutes discrimination; I believe it represents freedom of choice, and yes, I will defend that. I don't think the particular points I raised were addressed by any means, but am open to post references ..? With h.g.w., Cora
|
|
|
Post by Ziggy on Sept 13, 2007 14:44:12 GMT
You and your neurotic pals can use as many indirect attacks and insults, all you want. They just roll off like water off a duck's back. However, I'm still waiting. There's people who talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. Which are you? Here's the website www.aclu.org/I don't see any news about the Grand Lodges in America being taken to court. What's the matter Phil, don't you have any Guts?
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Sept 13, 2007 15:23:56 GMT
The above post by avrroes has been modified to remove the picture for bandwidth reasons.
I would also ask the following :Take a deep breath before hitting the 'post' button, and take time to read what you have written to ensure you are happy for it to be a public reflection of freemasonry, and of you as a person, and a mason. This site is open for all to read and should be a positive mirror for freemasonry. It is possible to disagree with someone without resorting to intemperate language.
Please continue.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 13, 2007 20:46:21 GMT
No -- we differ in our perception of what the existence of single-gender and mixed-gender masonry represents. You see discrimination, I see freedom of conscience. Bro. Cora,I was wrong, it seems we cannot agree to differ, (or at least agree on where we differ). I see discrimination because that is what, by definition, the exclusion of people based on class or category, rather than on individual merit, means and, in this case, I can see no good and compelling Masonic reason for such discrimination (instead I see it as being contrary to Masonic principles and ideals). You are welcome to see freedom of conscience or freedom of choice. However, freedom is circumscribed, in part, by respect for the freedoms of others. In this case, my conscience directs me differently than does yours. I suggest you do what you feel is right, while I do likewise. You ask, “ What’s the problem?” I have already repeated that for me it is an unprincipled indulgence of prejudice. While I consider the analogy of race to be apt, you conveniently say you will leave it out of the equation. However, when I have repeatedly asked how the basic principles of discrimination differ between that of race and that of gender, I have yet to receive an appropriate response. You say, “ I don't think the particular points I raised were addressed by any means, but am open to post references ..?” and I will gladly do so. In the meantime, I apologize if there has been any misunderstanding and ask that you please assist me in understanding what your points (below) were, that you feel have not already been addressed. I understand that, but you're not going to do that with selectively quoting, and thus mis-representing, my statements. I said:-
However much it makes my blood boil when a Bro:. tells me with total conviction that I cannot be a mason because I'm a woman, it is one of my most deeply held beliefs that every single one of us has the inalienable right to experience his or her freemasonry in his or her chosen environment, and that is a right I am prepared to defend with everything I have. [/blockquote][/quote]
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Sept 13, 2007 22:39:58 GMT
Yup - he's terrified.
Avrroes - if you are in fact a FM - you are talking with the Brethren. You may not agree with them - that's your privledge - but they are Brethren and I would like you to treat them as such.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Sept 14, 2007 12:22:44 GMT
I don't really care what my neighbor does in his house though the party last night sounded quite interesting. Female lodges, cool by me. Male lodges, cool by me. Mixed lodges, cool by me. The lodges in which nobody shows up are also cool by me. True freedom, as I mentioned earlier, scares a lot of people. Freedom also allows others to do things that you may not like but are none of our business. Fortunately we are also allowed to do things that others may not like and it is none of their business. I do find it sad however that we are unable to express the principles of fraternal love to those that just don't share our pet prejudices.
Brandt
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 14, 2007 12:28:57 GMT
I do find it sad however that we are unable to express the principles of fraternal love to those that just don't share our pet prejudices. Agreed.
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Sept 14, 2007 12:41:16 GMT
Bro lauderdale, it may perhaps in this instance be worth recalling a distinction between islamic and Arabic scholars: Averroes was of the latter variety (or if not Arab, at least Spanish-born in a Moorish landscape), who considered that philosophy supersedes religion. Many modern muslims are on the one hand quick to claim him as one of theirs in their false sense of superiority, though would by the other hand be as quick to condemn him should his writings actually be considered! Averroes, rather than a follower of islamic views, can be better considered a neo-Platonic Aristotelian - something islam has progressively purged from the formerly rich Arabic cultural landscape.
As to directly replying to him who adopts averroes's name hereon, I do not see why any of us should contact the USA-based Council for Civil Liberties (or whatever its name is - I closed the tab that had the link).
Were the situation such that mutual recognition, intervisitation, and equal opportunity of initiation was offered within the same locations, then whether a specific Lodge happened to be single-gendered or not would be (as is the case in a number of French Lodges) rather un-important.
In many places (in fact most at this stage), such is not the case. What needs to be recognised is that there is currently not equal opportunity of membership in most areas. In fact, I would suggest that the gender discrimination in many areas is extreme, with no possibility of Freemasonic access for many who perhaps would be interested were they to even be aware that such was feasible.
Members of a Lodge may want to restrict their own members to friends, or perhaps to those who drive pick-up utes with long-horns displayed on their rears... as long as other Lodges are similarly available for those who do not wear blood-coloured hankerchiefs around their necks, and thus as long as they do not prevent worthy individuals from being duly initiated and recognised as such, fine... that is not, however, the case.
The discriminatory exclusion of worthy 'men' (to use the pre-1980s generic idiom for 'human') based on gender has, since Switzerland finally allowed women the vote in 1974 (yep - that's right, 1974!), is quite out of touch with both the principles of Freemasonry and the development of social institutions that in large part Freemasonry has itself helped to shape over the past couple of hundred years.
...as to walkie-talkies, there are various ways to 'walk the talk' (an expression I find rather meaningless, but I understand the nuance intended). One of these is to first raise awareness of the issues. No internal change can occur unless we have awareness as to where we may otherwise be hoodwinked - and a fish may the the last to acknowledge water.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 15, 2007 4:26:27 GMT
History teaches that with sufficient drive and dedication to the ideal of equality -- as you so obviously have -- it can be done, and it can flourish into something as beautiful as a worldwide co-masonic order. But recognise the time, place and the socio-political circumstances in which my Order came to life -- fin du siècle France, amidst the passionate battle for women's emancipation riding on the mighty crest of liberté, égalité, fraternité, which still regularly echoes through our temples worldwide. Bro. Cora,This was more or less what I had in mind when I wrote: (although that seems to be pushing a few buttons here of late, from some unexpected quarters). “ Le Droit Humain” (as in The International Order of Co-Freemasonry Le Droit Humain) means “Human Right.” In the USA, a Co-Masonic administrative body is the American Federation of Human Rights. The movement has strongly allied itself to the struggle for women’s rights in particular. The two most influential figures in its history, Maria Deraismes and Annie Besant were passionate about the cause and, in Besant’s case, her involvement with Co-Masonry is interwoven with her involvement with The Theosophical Society (she was its second President), the first of whose Three Objects is: “ To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or colour.” ( emphasis added). I can only imagine that, having struggled as they did for their laudable but still limited success, Deraismes, Besant and others would be dismayed at what I suspect are the “ good enough” and “ I’m all right” attitudes of some of their beneficiaries. You speak of the end of a century ( fin du siècle): We now have our own new century: Indeed our own new millennium. It is up to us to carry on and shape the spirit of this age. I doubt that many people living through the cusp of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries recognised the spirit of that age, except in hindsight. I hope we can look back on the spirit of this age with pride. As Carrie Chapman Catt declared: The women of today only enjoy liberties unknown to their grandmothers because brave women of yesterday gave hard work and devoted, courageous service to the task of bringing them about. If women of tomorrow shall enjoy a still completer freedom, a juster status, the women of today must not shirk. Their movement must move on.
|
|