|
Post by cosmicthought on Aug 23, 2008 5:13:12 GMT
This has been my biggest hurdle in the Craft.. was the fact that past BB owned Slaves , what Light can be shed on this??? L,L,L etc:George Washington was born into a world in which slavery was accepted. He became a slave owner when his father died in 1743. At the age of eleven, he inherited ten slaves and 500 acres of land. When he began farming Mount Vernon eleven years later, at the age of 22, he had a work force of about 36 slaves. With his marriage to Martha Custis in 1759, 20 of her slaves came to Mount Vernon. After their marriage, Washington purchased even more slaves. The slave population also increased because the slaves were marrying and raising their own families. By 1799, when George Washington died, there were 316 slaves living on the estate.
|
|
|
Post by chrispt on Aug 23, 2008 8:36:07 GMT
Dear Cosmic
You have answered your own question. "George Washington was born into a world in which slavery was accepted." This doesn't mean the practice isn't reprehensible it is simply the state of a particular society at a point in time.
The British colonial war to keep Hong Kong was due to the valuable docking and trade routes for the laudenum trade (opium/herion). This was legal at the time.
Also, Freemasonry didn't own slaves, George Washington owned slaves. You could as easily say poker players owned slaves, cyclists owned slaves, trumpet players owned slaves. it sounds ludicrous when put in context. Freemasonry when all is said and done is a passtime, a hobby. And as with any hobby can be taken to various levels of involvement.
As Freemasons we are bound to adhere to the laws of the land and our own moral compass. If it is not illegal and we are brought up to believe something is natural and true (no matter how misguided) then it takes a strong will recognise and change public opinion.
what are your thoughts on owning animals? Should we be allowed to own a living being for our own gain? this was the same question asked before the abolition of slavery and to many the same moral dilema was faced.
We are not responsible for the sins of our elders, we can however try to change things for the better for our children.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Aug 23, 2008 8:59:38 GMT
>the fact that past BB owned Slaves
In 100 years you could ask the same question about the exclusion of women and in some areas non-whites
How does the brotherhood of man under the fatherhood of God exclude women and various races (in some parts of the world)?
Hopefully Masonry is progressing and will increasingly live up to its aspirations
|
|
|
Post by cosmicthought on Aug 23, 2008 17:50:42 GMT
But some would say Masonry should not "Evolve", which is a Law of Nature...it do not sound like "Strict Moral's" was the norm durning slavery,Frater Jefferson had this same moral question!Matter of fact PH Mason's helped with the underground railroad! but thank's for your opinion's. B:.L:.R:.T:.
|
|
|
Post by 2 BOWL CAIN on Aug 24, 2008 11:17:16 GMT
Brother Cosmicthought, Another thought, how many presidents and american leaders have been masons throughout american history, and when did women and blacks finally receive equal rights? Not until the 20th century. Why did it take so long for the masons to influence the general american public on equality of all mankind? The western world has been ruled by White Anglo christians for along time, and they slaughtered anybody that did not conform. The revolutionaries and the men of enlightenment were initially trying to free themselves so that they could make changes for the universal whole. Asking the question how masons could own slaves in the 1700's is interesting, but what I would like to know is how can a mason belong to the KKK, and exist as an organization in America and still be a racist(eg. southern grand lodges refusal of pha recognition). it is the 21st century and masons still want a seperate but not equal freemasonic org's? One for whites and one for blacks and never for women. God bless America. What enlightenment and progression we have made ! Crispt quote:"Freemasonry when all is said and done is a passtime, a hobby. And as with any hobby can be taken to various levels of involvement." In the 1700's it was more than a hobby to the revolutionaries of America, France, Prussia, Hague and other countries within continental europe.. It would have gotten you killed in some places, and in america, if you were not a loyalist mason(to britian), you could be strung up. The men of the 1700's were putting their lives on the line when joining masonry. So it was more than a hobby. Today in america it is a volunteer hobby, not doing much outside of donating cash to various charities and acting pompous because of belonging and gaining titles. It is nothing like what jefferson and franklin were about. Real men with real agenda's. Not southern men trying to figure out how to keep the others unlike them out!
|
|
|
Post by cosmicthought on Aug 24, 2008 18:04:02 GMT
Interesting!!!thank's for the response you just made me ask more question's! Doing the "Right" thing is a Re-volutionary act!
|
|
|
Post by maat on Aug 24, 2008 23:52:48 GMT
Some could argue that Masonry, because it restricts freedom of association, does have an 'ownership' issue to address.
Maat
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Aug 25, 2008 0:46:15 GMT
Asking the question how masons could own slaves in the 1700's is interesting, but what I would like to know is how can a mason belong to the KKK, and exist as an organization in America and still be a racist(eg. southern grand lodges refusal of pha recognition). it is the 21st century and masons still want a seperate but not equal freemasonic org's? One for whites and one for blacks and never for women. God bless America. What enlightenment and progression we have made ! Brother, I call to your attention the following quote from your signature: "Tolerance, humility and respect for others... There is implied in this phrase the idea that perhaps, just perhaps, one does not know everything or that one is not singularly blessed with divine guidance in all things" Bro. 2 Bowl Cain, I am asking you to tone down your rhetoric, please.
|
|
|
Post by Mikepm on Aug 25, 2008 7:16:01 GMT
Dear Cosmic You have answered your own question. "George Washington was born into a world in which slavery was accepted." This doesn't mean the practice isn't reprehensible it is simply the state of a particular society at a point in time. The British colonial war to keep Hong Kong was due to the valuable docking and trade routes for the laudenum trade (opium/herion). This was legal at the time. Also, Freemasonry didn't own slaves, George Washington owned slaves. You could as easily say poker players owned slaves, cyclists owned slaves, trumpet players owned slaves. it sounds ludicrous when put in context. Freemasonry when all is said and done is a passtime, a hobby. And as with any hobby can be taken to various levels of involvement. As Freemasons we are bound to adhere to the laws of the land and our own moral compass. If it is not illegal and we are brought up to believe something is natural and true (no matter how misguided) then it takes a strong will recognise and change public opinion. what are your thoughts on owning animals? Should we be allowed to own a living being for our own gain? this was the same question asked before the abolition of slavery and to many the same moral dilema was faced. We are not responsible for the sins of our elders, we can however try to change things for the better for our children. I think the above comment sums it up nicely.Every country is different in it's views regading Freemasonry. You are looking to deep for something thats not there. And i'm sure that the Southern states of America are different to the rest of the country ;D
|
|
Harmony
Member
The Craft ; 1241 & 1386 & 1706 (Hon) (SC). OSM - Polnoon Castle Conclave. HRA - Rockmount & Camphi
Posts: 337
|
Post by Harmony on Aug 25, 2008 11:23:49 GMT
The western world has been ruled by White Anglo christians for along time, and they slaughtered anybody that did not conform. I happen to be a "White Anglo christian", and have not slaughtered anyone. I find the terminology slightly insulting, and verging upon being racialist.
|
|
|
Post by 2 BOWL CAIN on Aug 25, 2008 11:42:31 GMT
The western world has been ruled by White Anglo Christians for along time, and they slaughtered anybody that did not conform. I happen to be a "White Anglo Christian", and have not slaughtered anyone. I find the terminology slightly insulting, and verging upon being racialist. Harmony, what in the western world do rule, so that you might feel the need to enforce some type of belief structure to control the masses? I was specifically talking about the rulers of the western world over the last 1000 years or so............ if I have offended you, none meant, again, it was a generalization against the RULERs(church and crown) and their modes of enforcing THEIR ways and BELIEFs. Which were that women and people of color were not equal and considered property of the white rulers, whether catholic, protestant but of some christianesque derivative. Since William the conquerer, western world's influence was done by tyranny and despotism.. I am a white Anglo ex Christian/catholic as well, but recognize how our society was molded and how the battle to FREE all humans against the Status Quo was fought on the blood and tears of brave men and women of all colors and nationality. So brother harmony, if you have not ruled over individuals within the last few centuries and have not slaughtered anyone, I apologize, because that was who I was referring to, not you or yours.
|
|
|
Post by 2 BOWL CAIN on Aug 25, 2008 11:49:40 GMT
Bro Maximus, I tolerate racism no longer, whether within the craft or without. Sorry I take a strong stance on this inequality and injustice still alive in the 21st century but that is my nature and I am working on controlling my rhetoric when it comes to racism and freemasonry. Could you show me an example of the proper tone of rhetoric to use when discussing racism and freemasonry today? I thank you in advance.
Bro Mikepm, the southern states are different than the rest of the country and still have no resistance to their modes of operations. The rest of the country kind of bury their collective heads in the rough sands, ignoring the negative that which is portrayed upon our craft?
I think it is a valid question about “owning” another individual, but yet professing Liberty, Equality and Fraternity for all mankind……. I understand the time in which one lives has a bearing upon what an individual believes, but these men professed these truths existed since time immemorial, but struggled with the implementation of it. I understand as well that changes come slowly, and that Freedom of conscience for all mankind came at a baby steps pace, but how long did it take America to see blacks as equal? 1960’s + and it still has not permeated the south yet. Even within the craft!
On one southern states codes it states that freemasonry is for Caucasians only, from the 1800’s! Still there…… Only “rhetoric” may influence change? What do I know though, a good portion of American freemasonry see no need for change and resist it at all costs….. Rhetoric was a weapon utilized by the men trying to destroy tyranny and despotism centuries before, sorry I have picked up a little on it through my readings………. Voltaire I believe was a Master of Rhetoric(one of our 7 liberal arts and science taught in masonry), a freemasonry, and despised by the Keepers of Status Quo in his time.
The 1700's were filled with Humans who took it no more and stood up for what was right, and if their Rhetoric and attitudes were a little short, I understand it and conquer....They were tired that the "annointed" leaders refused to recognise the Equality of All Mankind! period. And that 200 + years later we still deal with that mentality.
|
|
|
Post by 2 BOWL CAIN on Aug 25, 2008 13:02:38 GMT
GIORDANO BRUNO THIS glorious martyr of Freethought did not die in a quiet chamber, tended by loving hands. He was literally "butchered to make a Roman holiday." When the assassins of "the bloody faith" kindled the fire which burnt out his splendid life, he was no decrepit man, nor had the finger of Death touched his cheek with a pallid hue. The blood coursed actively through his veins, and a dauntless spirit shone in his noble eyes. It might have been Bruno that Shelley had in mind when he wrote those thrilling lines in Queen Mab: --
I was an infant when my mother went To see an Atheist burned. She took me there The dark-robed priests were met around the pile, The multitude was gazing silently; And as the culprit passed with dauntless mien, Tempered disdain in his unaltering eye, Mixed with a quiet smile, shone calmly forth The thirsty fire crept round his manly limbs; His resolute eyes were scorched to blindness soon His death-pang rent my heart! The insensate mob Uttered a cry of triumph, and I wept. Giordano Bruno was born at Nola, near Naples, in 1548, ten years after the death of Copernicus, and ten years before the birth of Bacon. At the age of fifteen he became a novice in the monastery of San Domenico Maggiore, and after his year's novitiate expired he took the monastic vows. Studying deeply, he became heretical, and an act of accusation was drawn up against the boy of sixteen. Eight years later he was threatened with another trial for heresy. A third process was more to be dreaded, and in his twenty-eighth year Bruno fled from his persecutors. He visited Rome, Noli, Venice, Turin and Padua. At Milan he made the acquaintance of Sir Philip Sidney. After teaching for some time in the university, he went to Chambery, but the ignorance and bigotry of its monks were too great for his patience. He next visited Geneva, but although John Calvin was dead, his dark spirit still remained, and only flight preserved Bruno from the fate of Servetus. Through Lyons he passed to Toulouse, where he was elected Public Lecturer to the University. In 1579 he went to Paris. The streets were still foul with the blood of the Bartholomew massacres, but Bruno declined a professorship at the Sorbonne, a condition of which was attending mass. Henry the Third, however, made him Lecturer extraordinary to the University. Paris at letigth became too hot to hold him, and he went to London, where he lodged with the French Ambassador. His evenings were mostly spent with Sir Philip Sidney, Fulke Greville, Dyer and Hervey. So great was his fame that he was invited to read at the University of Oxford, where he also, held a public debate with its orthodox professors on the Copernican astronomy. Leaving London in 1584, he returned to Paris, and there also he publicly disputed with the Sorbonne. His safety being once more threatened, he went to Marburg, and thence to Wittenberg, where he taught for two years. At Helenstadt he was excommunicated by Boetius, Repairing to Frankfort, he made the acquaintance of a nobleman, who lured him to Venice and betrayed him to the Inquisition. The Venetian Council transferred him to Rome, where be languished for seven years in a pestiferous dungeon, and was repeatedly tortured, according to the hellish code of the Inquisition. At length, on February 10th, 1600, he was led out to the Church of Santa Maria, and sentenced to be burnt alive, or, as the Holy Church hypocritically phrased it, to be punished "as mercifully as possible, and without effusion of blood" Haughtily raising his bead, he exclaimed: "You are more afraid to pronounce my sentence than I to receive it." He was allowed a week's grace for recantation, but without avail; and on the 17th of February, 1600, he was burnt to death on the Field of Flowers. To the last he was brave and defiant; he contemptuously pushed aside the crucifix they presented him to kiss; and, as one of his enemies said, he died without a plaint or a groan.
Such heroism stirs the blood more than the sound of a trumpet. Bruno stood at the stake in solitary and awful grandeur. There was not a friendly face in the vast crowd around him. It was one man against the world. Surely the knight of Liberty, the champion of Freethought, who lived such a life and died such a death, without hope of reward on earth or in heaven, sustained only by his indomitable manhood, is worthy to be accounted the supreme martyr of all time. He towers above the less disinterested martyrs of Faith like a colossus; the proudest of them might walk under him without bending.
American Freemason's who also belonged to the KKK did similar things to black men in the 1950's in America. All god fearing men torturing and killing, whether the 1500's or the 1900's.. some progression
|
|
Harmony
Member
The Craft ; 1241 & 1386 & 1706 (Hon) (SC). OSM - Polnoon Castle Conclave. HRA - Rockmount & Camphi
Posts: 337
|
Post by Harmony on Aug 25, 2008 13:07:12 GMT
I happen to be a "White Anglo Christian", and have not slaughtered anyone. I find the terminology slightly insulting, and verging upon being racialist. Harmony, what in the western world do rule, so that you might feel the need to enforce some type of belief structure to control the masses? I was specifically talking about the rulers of the western world over the last 1000 years or so............ if I have offended you, none meant, again, it was a generalization against the RULERs(church and crown) and their modes of enforcing THEIR ways and BELIEFs. Which were that women and people of color were not equal and considered property of the white rulers, whether catholic, protestant but of some christianesque derivative. Since William the conquerer, western world's influence was done by tyranny and despotism.. I am a white Anglo ex Christian/catholic as well, but recognize how our society was molded and how the battle to FREE all humans against the Status Quo was fought on the blood and tears of brave men and women of all colors and nationality. So brother harmony, if you have not ruled over individuals within the last few centuries and have not slaughtered anyone, I apologize, because that was who I was referring to, not you or yours. No - I'm afraid I don't accept that. What you are describing is not a "white anglo christian" phenomenum, but a world-wide one where those "in charge" have oppressed those who are not. Example - coloured rulers in Africa, the Chinese, the Japanese etc, etc, etc.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Aug 25, 2008 13:28:18 GMT
Bro Maximus, I tolerate racism no longer, whether within the craft or without. Sorry I take a strong stance on this inequality and injustice still alive in the 21st century but that is my nature and I am working on controlling my rhetoric when it comes to racism and freemasonry. Could you show me an example of the proper tone of rhetoric to use when discussing racism and freemasonry today? I thank you in advance. I would avoid broad generalizations such as: Question: Which Southern state? What section of code? Proper attribution would be appropriate. No need to apologise for reading. One must one's passions in check, however. Is this not one of the primary lessons we learn as EAs? The art of rhetoric should properly be used as a pursuasive tool, to win over others to an argument through the application of logic coupled with a honeyed tounge is more effective, I think, than the equivalent of a 2 x 4 alongside the skull. The Rhetoric to which you refer was political in nature, and had to do with the governance of the people by despotism and/or religious oppression..These blights have been, in the West, mostly eradicated. The equality of mankind is universally acknowleged, and is the Law of the land in the civilised world. That there remains those who do not recognise this is regrettable, but keep in mind that the old generation, in which the prevailing attitudes were those which you find distasteful, are passing with each day. In time those who's viewpoints are in line with the values that you hold dear will be able to effect change without opposition. It is difficult, I know, to "wait a time with patience." We, being short lived humans, want change now, immediately. But it behooves us to use such language as would further our efforts without alienating a large part of our audience.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 25, 2008 14:55:47 GMT
GIORDANO BRUNO THIS glorious martyr of Freethought did not die in a quiet chamber, tended by loving hands. He was literally "butchered to make a Roman holiday." When the assassins of "the bloody faith" kindled the fire which burnt out his splendid life, he was no decrepit man, nor had the finger of Death touched his cheek with a pallid hue. The blood coursed actively through his veins, and a dauntless spirit shone in his noble eyes. It might have been Bruno that Shelley had in mind when he wrote those thrilling lines in Queen Mab:
I was an infant when my mother went To see an Atheist burned. She took me there The dark-robed priests were met around the pile, The multitude was gazing silently; And as the culprit passed with dauntless mien, Tempered disdain in his unaltering eye, Mixed with a quiet smile, shone calmly forth The thirsty fire crept round his manly limbs; His resolute eyes were scorched to blindness soon His death-pang rent my heart! The insensate mob Uttered a cry of triumph, and I wept. Giordano Bruno was born at Nola, near Naples, in 1548, ten years after the death of Copernicus, and ten years before the birth of Bacon. At the age of fifteen he became a novice in the monastery of San Domenico Maggiore, and after his year's novitiate expired he took the monastic vows. Studying deeply, he became heretical, and an act of accusation was drawn up against the boy of sixteen. Eight years later he was threatened with another trial for heresy. A third process was more to be dreaded, and in his twenty-eighth year Bruno fled from his persecutors. He visited Rome, Noli, Venice, Turin and Padua. At Milan he made the acquaintance of Sir Philip Sidney. After teaching for some time in the university, he went to Chambery, but the ignorance and bigotry of its monks were too great for his patience. He next visited Geneva, but although John Calvin was dead, his dark spirit still remained, and only flight preserved Bruno from the fate of Servetus. Through Lyons he passed to Toulouse, where he was elected Public Lecturer to the University. In 1579 he went to Paris. The streets were still foul with the blood of the Bartholomew massacres, but Bruno declined a professorship at the Sorbonne, a condition of which was attending mass. Henry the Third, however, made him Lecturer extraordinary to the University. Paris at letigth became too hot to hold him, and he went to London, where he lodged with the French Ambassador. His evenings were mostly spent with Sir Philip Sidney, Fulke Greville, Dyer and Hervey. So great was his fame that he was invited to read at the University of Oxford, where he also, held a public debate with its orthodox professors on the Copernican astronomy. Leaving London in 1584, he returned to Paris, and there also he publicly disputed with the Sorbonne. His safety being once more threatened, he went to Marburg, and thence to Wittenberg, where he taught for two years. At Helenstadt he was excommunicated by Boetius, Repairing to Frankfort, he made the acquaintance of a nobleman, who lured him to Venice and betrayed him to the Inquisition. The Venetian Council transferred him to Rome, where be languished for seven years in a pestiferous dungeon, and was repeatedly tortured, according to the hellish code of the Inquisition. At length, on February 10th, 1600, he was led out to the Church of Santa Maria, and sentenced to be burnt alive, or, as the Holy Church hypocritically phrased it, to be punished "as mercifully as possible, and without effusion of blood" Haughtily raising his bead, he exclaimed: "You are more afraid to pronounce my sentence than I to receive it." He was allowed a week's grace for recantation, but without avail; and on the 17th of February, 1600, he was burnt to death on the Field of Flowers. To the last he was brave and defiant; he contemptuously pushed aside the crucifix they presented him to kiss; and, as one of his enemies said, he died without a plaint or a groan.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 25, 2008 16:53:38 GMT
I'm with Bro 2BC on this topic. I find the attitude of those in White Only Lodges in the Dixieland States which will not recognise PHA Lodges to be totally un-Masonic and I would not wish to sit in Lodge with them.
It is highly likely that Hiram a Biff, Hiram King of Tyre and King Solomon all had darkish skins, to say nothing of Our Lord Jesus Christ who, contrary to some artists etc, was NOT a W.A.S.P.
I as you know hope that Obama wins the Presidential Election in November and would dearly love to see their faces if the next President, C in C of their Armed Forces etc is BLACK!
BTW I am White, British and a High Church Christian.
I am reminded of an incident which occurred many years ago when I was Assistant Secretary and thus arranged the dining etc in the UGLE Lodge to which I them belonged. One of the members was also a Racist and didn't hide his opinions. I had invited a couple of guests to our Festive board one of whom was a Ugandan . As nobody else liked sitting with the bigoted member I sat him next to myself and opposite the black Mason and seeing this on the seating plan he came up to me in the bar and said "You've sat me with the N*****!" To which I replied "Oh, I'm sure he won't mind!"
If Freemasonry is anything it is blind to Race, Colour , Creed and in the case of my Masonic Body, Gender.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Aug 25, 2008 17:19:01 GMT
I'm with Bro 2BC on this topic. I find the attitude of those in White Only Lodges in the Dixieland States which will not recognise PHA Lodges to be totally un-Masonic and I would not wish to sit in Lodge with them. Your impression of Southern states seems to come from bad Hollywood films. The Lodges under the GL of Tennessee are open to men of all races. Most black men choose to join the PHA Lodges from thier own choice, not because they are not allowed in the so-called "white" Lodges. We opened the question of mutual recognition with the MWPHGLoT, and were rebuffed. So, now what? So? It would have been hard for Jesus, if he existed, to have been a Protestant - no Christians yet. And the Angles and Saxons were still Germanic tribes living on the Continent at the time. I hope he does not, because of his Marxist/Socialist policies. Who cares what his skin-tone is? Most of those who are voting for him are doing so because of his skin color, seemingly because it makes them feel, somehow, superior, rather than nominating the more qualified Hillary Clinton. This seems to fly in the face of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's vision of a society that does not tale skin color into consideration. Ironic, isn't it? Obama has about 145 days experience as a US Senator, so is hardly qualified for the highest office in the country. Don't gloat so soon, the election has yet to be held, and I suspect Obama will not be elected. You were a Hillary man not long ago, I seem to remember. Oh, I'll just point out that Colin Powell was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Condelzza Rice is Secretary of State, not to mention Clarance Thomas on the Supreme Court, and I didn't see any Southerners throwing themselves out of windows.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 25, 2008 17:51:34 GMT
I just thought I'd point out, again, that PHA Obediences also accept white Candidates.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Aug 25, 2008 17:58:57 GMT
I just thought I'd point out, again, that PHA Obediences also accept white Candidates. Yes, they certainly do. I think sometimes an issue is being made to simply stir up controversy.
|
|