|
Post by tws on Aug 21, 2007 6:37:33 GMT
I don't believe the Grand Lodge of Tennessee is a signatory to any such agreement. Only the US State Department has the authority to negotiate treatys, which has to be voted on by both houses of Congress, passing with a 2/3 majority, and signed by the President, in order to become the law of the land. That agreement isn't worth the bandwidth it took to put it up. The USA signed the Convention on 17 July 1980, but apparently has not ratified it—let alone the Optional Protocol (BTW, the world is bigger than the USA). It was signed 27 years ago and hasen't been ratified. Hmmm...sounds like a clue. Yes the world is bigger than the US. But as far as the laws governing our nation, no. BTW, if it wern't for us, you would likely be speaking Japanese right now.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 21, 2007 7:46:39 GMT
Bro. TWSWhile you naturally have the USA foremost in your approach to this issue, I have Australia foremost in mine. We have an election due in a few months and the present Opposition (who are currently strong favorites) have promised that, if elected, they will ratify the optional protocol, making the Convention (which we have already signed and ratified) enforceable. If and when that happens, our Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission may expect to soon again hear from me.
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Aug 21, 2007 10:01:40 GMT
It should be recognised that while masonic bodies are subject tot he laws of the lands in which they are based, as independent bodies, seperate from the state, they are not bound by conventions such as the ones mentioned by ichabod.
And tws, your final comment in the post above regarding speaking japanese is dissappointing, I expect better from you. Its like me saying something like: After all, if it wasn't for the white man ther would be a hell of a lot more buffalo's in the US, and the native americans would be the power holders....
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 21, 2007 10:40:10 GMT
Bro Bod, that is not strictly true. Recently in the UK there has been the situation where Roman Catholic and some other Adoption Agencies are being forced by Law to accept Homosexuals as Adoptive Parents although this is offensive to their Moral Codes and Male Homosexuality is actually a Sin to the RC Church.
I do not approve of such Laws and I would not want to see the Malecraft Lodges forced at point of Law to admit Women nor for that matter the Female Only Lodges such as those of HFAF and OWF forced to admit Men. Universal Freemasonry is big enough to accommodate Malecraft such as UGLE, Women only Freemasonry and Co-Masonry such as Le Driot Humain.
What I would like to see is acceptance by Malecraft that Co-Masons are as valid as they are themselves.
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Aug 21, 2007 10:54:10 GMT
That is a somewhat different situation as those agencies are in fact bound by legislation, such as the adoption act and other specific legal instruments.
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Aug 21, 2007 11:08:15 GMT
Bro Imakegarb and brethren,
My intent was not to strive to be a peacemaker (though that outcome would be absolutely wonderful), and certainly meant no offence in either of my previous posts. I was truly and honestly quite astounded at reading the discussion as it evolved - perhaps more sensitive to its implications due to my own position soon-to-be-faced un-desired confrontation with some local fellow brethren who will wish to maintain the status quo and continue to impose a prohibition on Lodges determining who they may or may not initiate based on gender.
As Bro ichabod mentions, there are likely legislative alterations that may well force us to alter what we should be altering without legislation - simply because it is the right thing to do.
It may also be worth keeping in mind that in our country, the nearest Co-Masonic Lodge may well be over 2000 km away (and the nearest Male exclusive Lodge only 200 metres!).
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Aug 21, 2007 11:57:15 GMT
I disagree, it is not the correct thing to do to force single sex institutions to accept the opposite sex. We have the dichotomy here in the UK that the Scout Association was forced to open up to girls, but the Guide Association is still single sex. Ridiculous. I think that people need to accept that there is nothing wrong with single sex institutions, and forced integration is un-ethical.
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Aug 21, 2007 12:30:40 GMT
...errrr... has the scout movement suffered as a result?... though that's perhaps another topic (locally, there appears to be more praise for the gender integration in Scouting than criticism).
The question can also be asked, in terms of the thread, whether it is the correct thing to do to force Lodges of an institution to remain single gender, rather than to allow them to determine membership based on merit.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Aug 21, 2007 12:50:11 GMT
It should be recognised that while masonic bodies are subject tot he laws of the lands in which they are based, as independent bodies, seperate from the state, they are not bound by conventions such as the ones mentioned by ichabod. Exactly Point taken. It was way past my bedtime when I was posting. BTW, I'm of Cherokee ancestry, and hold no animosity towards the "white man." My point was supposed to be that The US shed a lot of blood to secure freedom from tyranny for AUS, NZ, and the South Pacific. Don't piss it away to bow at the altar of Political correcness gone mad! To my Bros. in Australia I'll have to say you must fight tooth and nail to prevent any further erosion of your rights. Don't let crusaders with an agenda change your laws to your disadvantage like what happened when they came for your guns.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Aug 21, 2007 12:57:14 GMT
...errrr... has the scout movement suffered as a result?... though that's perhaps another topic (locally, there appears to be more praise for the gender integration in Scouting than criticism). The question can also be asked, in terms of the thread, whether it is the correct thing to do to force Lodges of an institution to remain single gender, rather than to allow them to determine membership based on merit. I speak from personal experiance on the Scout issue. As an Eagle Scout, I was thrilled when my middle son showed interest in joining. I thought I might become involved again after many years. I was shocked to see that women were now Asst. Scout Masters, uniform and all. I also noticed that the program had been watered WAY down from that I enjoyed in the 70's. While not "gender integrated " in the sense of the British Scouts, it spoiled the sense of father-son camiradere that was the hallmark of the Scout program for many years. I can see the same thing happening with Freemasonry if integration is forced where it is not desired. BTW, we did not stay involved long.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 21, 2007 13:25:07 GMT
Excellent statement. Indeed it if it dis-tasteful or un-ethical to force a lodge to integrate it is also dis-tasteful or un-ethical to force a lodge to remain single gender. Perhaps the answer is lodge sovereignty? Of course this will cause the world to end and the Kraken will rise up and start eating people.
Brandt
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Aug 21, 2007 14:00:17 GMT
JMD< depends who you talk to, there is a breakaway movement from the Scout Association that maintains male only troops. My question qould be how is the Guide movement exempt from such integration.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Aug 21, 2007 14:25:42 GMT
JMD< depends who you talk to, there is a breakaway movement from the Scout Association that maintains male only troops. My question qould be how is the Guide movement exempt from such integration. Yes, seem an unequal application of standards, does it not. This should tell everyone something about the agenda behind such movements.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 21, 2007 14:30:29 GMT
Bro. Brandt wrote:
Yes. And every bit as evil, in my opinion.
Also, Bro. Brandt, when I was trying to quote you, I hit modify instead and accidently removed the quote you'd pulled. I'm sorry.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 21, 2007 14:38:35 GMT
JMD< depends who you talk to, there is a breakaway movement from the Scout Association that maintains male only troops. My question qould be how is the Guide movement exempt from such integration. Yes, seem an unequal application of standards, does it not. This should tell everyone something about the agenda behind such movements.I have stated repeatedly that, on the principle of Affirmative Action, I would not support the forced integration of women only lodges. BTW, Bro. TWS, What is this agenda to which you refer?
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 21, 2007 14:51:29 GMT
Goose and Gander.
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Aug 21, 2007 15:43:15 GMT
It is certainly one of the easier conspiracy theories to believe, that there is a feminist inspired agenda that is targetting male societal groupings with the express intent of forcing integration of womeon, without allowing the reverse to happen, in the name of 'sisterhood'.
I'm not saying I believe it, or its true, but it is one of the conspiracy theories doing the rounds.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Aug 21, 2007 15:48:29 GMT
BTW, Bro. TWS, What is this agenda to which you refer? What have we been discussing? There is an agenda to "right" precieved "wrongs" by overcompensating, and in doing so, creating a new form of oppression. Can you not see the logic in this? Let people live according to thier own freewill, freely associate with those whom they wish, without interference from crusaders. If you want a cause that will actually accomplish something vis-a-vis feminism, take your efforts to Muslim countries, where there is genuine oppression of women.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 21, 2007 16:09:23 GMT
Indeed there is much greater oppression in certain Middle Eastern countries, Saudi Arabia for example. I think that this issue is far less about the oppression of women as it a matter of even application of ethics. The "crusade" to forcefully integrate male lodges is wrong as is the idea of forcing integration on female lodges. Lodge sovereignty again seems to be a workable solution. I think Freemasonry can handle it.
Brandt
|
|
|
Post by tws on Aug 21, 2007 16:40:08 GMT
Indeed there is much greater oppression in certain Middle Eastern countries, Saudi Arabia for example. I think that this issue is far less about the oppression of women as it a matter of even application of ethics. The "crusade" to forcefully integrate male lodges is wrong as is the idea of forcing integration on female lodges. Lodge sovereignty again seems to be a workable solution. I think Freemasonry can handle it. Brandt So do I, Brother.
|
|