|
Post by magusmasonica on Dec 1, 2009 3:07:09 GMT
The digest of my Jurisdiction states clearly that our "brand" of Freemasonry is a Religious/Charitable/Educational organization. (Yup! That's how it is defined!) The laws of our state recognize this and all that it entails. The federal and state tax codes recognize this and all that it entails. The other "brands" of Freemasonry also exist and operate under the SAME rules and guidelines of the state and federal government and tax codes. All these organizations abide by the laws and do not interfer with the operation of outside agencies, organizations or institutions. They also choose the genders who participate in their organization. Hence, single gender choice or both gender choice is legal, ethical and moral. So - What's the problem? May be legal, but is it moral? for an example, pornography is legal but how many would would argue that it is moral? Shouldn't Freemasonry be held to a higher standard? I mean Freemasonry was about equality when that very thing would get you killed. How can we practice a progressive science or claim to be enlightend when segregation against gender is practiced? Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Dec 1, 2009 3:49:47 GMT
May be legal, but is it moral? for an example, pornography is legal but how many would would argue that is it moral? Seriously? Pornography on the same level as gender choice lodges? The argument you present is apples and oranges. Always/absolutely/YES-SIR-REE! (take your pick!) The only thing is whose standards and is the standard being proposed one that is actually necessary or is it fabricated to prove a point at the expense of something that isn't required. I feel what you are proposing is superfluous. My EA Work points this out very well. Yup. It doesn't mean I want to share a bathroom with the other gender though. There are some things that are by choice. Single gender Lodges are a CHOICE. No one forces anyone on anyone else. What you propose does. Should Masonry uphold a higher standard here? How can we practice a progressive science or claim to be enlightend when segregation against gender is practiced? I don't see it as segregation. Not when what is being done is done by choice. I do see that you see it as segregation though. To each his/her own -- which is exactly what is currently practiced. Respect between Orders is a much more important issue for me. You earlier presented the legal = moral argument. I simply presented that the two are not synonymous. Pornography being legal while being judged by society as immoral is a good example of my argument. Segregation by choice? Who's choice? Not the female applicants nor the lodge that would wish to admit her that couldn't due to fear. Are you really going to use the Freemasonry = toilet argument? I have run into it before. Now, if people where to get partially nude and deficate on the altar I might be able to see your point. In a Masonic lodge, this is hardly the case. To deny a seeker do to a condition of birth is wrong, no matter how it is spun or sugarcoated. Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by happyzealot on Dec 1, 2009 7:21:10 GMT
Good points by all.
I can see where magus is coming from, on an emotional level, and to a point I can agree; because, as many here contend, there are many flavours of Masonry. Yet I'd never support an integration, either by force or by volition, of 'malecraft' lodges into 'mixed gender' entities, specifically because of the 'many flavours' argument. Why? Because there's a place for each.
You can express it either in terms of 'energies' in the Lodge-- recognising the theurgic import the Craft, when done right-- or in terms of (for lack of a better phrase) 'group psychology.' [No, I'm not a clinical psychologist, nor do I play one on TV.] In any case the group gestalt is going to be different. To homongenize the whole of all, to demand conformity in the name of fluffy-bunny sentiment, is to be guilty of the same partisan thinking of which so many are accused.
Bottom line: there is a place for men to be men, among men; a place for women to do the same; and a place for both to blend. Each has its merits. To label one mode of practice as 'immoral' goes beyond a non sequitur of thought, it is intellectually dishonest. To recommend an integration, or absorption, of two groups, is to advocate the loss of the lesser group ('lesser' by numbers or other quantifiable criteria) of its peculiar identity and subsequent dissolution.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Dec 1, 2009 7:31:19 GMT
Good points by all. I can see where magus is coming from, on an emotional level, and to a point I can agree; because, as many here contend, there are many flavours of Masonry. Yet I'd never support an integration, either by force or by volition, of 'malecraft' lodges into 'mixed gender' entities, specifically because of the 'many flavours' argument. Why? Because there's a place for each. You can express it either in terms of 'energies' in the Lodge-- recognising the theurgic import the Craft, when done right-- or in terms of (for lack of a better phrase) 'group psychology.' [No, I'm not a clinical psychologist, nor do I play one on TV.] In any case the group gestalt is going to be different. To homongenize the whole of all, to demand conformity in the name of fluffy-bunny sentiment, is to be guilty of the same partisan thinking of which so many are accused. Bottom line: there is a place for men to be men, among men; a place for women to do the same; and a place for both to blend. Each has its merits. To label one mode of practice goes beyond a non sequitur of thought, is is intellectually dishonest. Good post. I would argue that the theurgy of a single gender lodge would be unbalanced. There are required masculine and femine in all Masonic Rites. In basic Masonic symbolism. I do agree that there are places for men to be men etc. etc. I just don't believe that place is in a school dedicated to the improvement of universal humanity. I have a hard time dealing with the (justifiable) outrage over racism while discrimination against 50% of humanity is not only tolerated, but fiercly defended. That just doesn't jive with enlightenment. Also, isn't it a bit of a stretch to say that women have their own, and those who wish to work together have theirs when those groups are routinely labled as "bogus" "psuedo" etc? It's hardly a level playing field. Kind of reminds me of the Negro Leauge arguments of the 1920's. Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Dec 1, 2009 7:47:28 GMT
I can agree with Happy Zealot. (I don't understand all the psychological stuff though). I am a Co-Freemason by choice. I deliberately left a very well known Male-only Grand Lodge and joined LDH which is Co-Masonic. Nobody forced me to make this move and nobody tried to prevent me.
I feel that there is room in Freemasonry for all three opinions and would not like to see UGLE for example forced at point of law to admit Women if this was not the wish of the majority of its members, (How one would accurately ascertain those wishes is another point as they do not AFAIK have the mechanism to poll their members as individuals although I assume the Electoral Reform Society could arrange such a process for them if they paid for it).
I detest such expressions as Clandestine, Bogus, Sham, Irregular etc when applied to Masonic Bodies, consider them as an insult, and I refuse to use them.
|
|
|
Post by happyzealot on Dec 1, 2009 8:35:46 GMT
Well, there's unbalanced, and then there's focused. If you've done ceremonial work you should know there's a difference. A time for the g-ddess and a time for the g-d, a time to employ the chisel and a time to hone with the rasp. A time to every purpose under heaven, so sayeth the apostles Simon and Garfunkel.
That is only the half of it. You and I only grasp one half of that universality. We could not better teach a little girl to be a woman than my wife could teach our son to be a man.
This is an emotionally based argument. Consider the foci of purpose vs. the blinders of prejudice. Ne'er the twain shall meet.
Likening Freemasonry to baseball is a non-sequitur. Regarding the usage of such appellations as "bogus," "sham," etc.... are all, within a certain spectrum, appropriate. As has been posted elsewhere there are documented instances of Freemasonic hucksters peddling some kind of shite under the guise of the Craft. While inter-masonic politics are certainly a part of it, the other side is a simple matter of quality control. I know and can verify that certain brands of Freemasony are practicing the same, even if according to their own rites and methodology. But I cannot say that of those who will make the claim yet offer no verifiable proof. Therefore I cannot and will not give my 'mark of approval' as it were to groups who do not measure up. I cannot verify, therefore I will not authenticate. There are times to gently tread the chequered pavement and there are times to delineate the light from the benighted.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 1, 2009 9:12:43 GMT
...there are many men who simply would not go to Lodge if a woman was allowed in... Here may be the crux of the issue: Why is the prospect of exercising the professed equality and universality of the Craft by sitting in Lodge with a woman considered such a big deal by some?
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Dec 1, 2009 9:13:24 GMT
Well, there's unbalanced, and then there's focused. If you've done ceremonial work you should know there's a difference. A time for the g-ddess and a time for the g-d, a time to employ the chisel and a time to hone with the rasp. A time to every purpose under heaven, so sayeth the apostles Simon and Garfunkel. That is only the half of it. You and I only grasp one half of that universality. We could not better teach a little girl to be a woman than my wife could teach our son to be a man. This is an emotionally based argument. Consider the foci of purpose vs. the blinders of prejudice. Ne'er the twain shall meet. Likening Freemasonry to baseball is a non-sequitur. Regarding the usage of such appellations as "bogus," "sham," etc.... are all, within a certain spectrum, appropriate. As has been posted elsewhere there are documented instances of Freemasonic hucksters peddling some kind of shite under the guise of the Craft. While inter-masonic politics are certainly a part of it, the other side is a simple matter of quality control. I know and can verify that certain brands of Freemasony are practicing the same, even if according to their own rites and methodology. But I cannot say that of those who will make the claim yet offer no verifiable proof. Therefore I cannot and will not give my 'mark of approval' as it were to groups who do not measure up. I cannot verify, therefore I will not authenticate. There are times to gently tread the chequered pavement and there are times to delineate the light from the benighted. I could by the focused argument if we where let's say dealing with a male only system of ceremonial magick. One derived from the symbolism of Smiths for an example. That is just not the case here. I have never experienced real focus until I entered a mixed quarry. I wouldn't say that it is the Crafts job to teach a boy to be man or a girl to be a woman. That would be a role for parents to play. Now, IMHO it can teach a man to be a Godman and a woman to be a Godwoman but that my friend is another topic all together. Comparing Freemasonry to segregated baseball is non-sequitur, I'll give you that. I did think it was more appropriate than the toilet comparison found earlier in this thread. ;D On another note it really isn't up to you (or me) brother to validate for anyone other than ourselves. You know as well as I that Freemasonry is a not (nor ever has been) a trademarked brand under the control of any central body. Masonic law is a myth so the "quality control" argument really has no legs to stand on. Have there been "huckster" who used the symbols of Masonry in order to serve selfish motives? Sure. But, and this is a big but here. You know as well as I when terms like "bogus" "Sham" "Psuedo" "fake" etc. etc. are used, 99.9% of the time those using them are not talking about a huckster who is going to sham someone on the boardwalk playing 3 Card Monte on the boardwalk. They use it to prejudge and precondem women Masons, men who work with women Masons, Atheist and Agnostic Masons, those Orders who allow them on and on. That is why the "many flavors" argument is not 100% the case. In a vanilla world it takes a lot of intestinal fortitude to the like the Pralines & Cream. It takes even more fortitude to sick by your choice and to show others who may love ice cream but not vanilla that Pralines & Cream is out there, tastes great and it belongs in the same freezer and in fact came from the same creamery as the vanilla. Unless we can truley be honest with ourselves and the ugliness that is the recognition game and 17th century thinking in the 21st is how can we really improve ourselves through Freemasonry? Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by happyzealot on Dec 1, 2009 9:37:55 GMT
As to the former: you can buy male-only focused ceremonial magick, but not male-only focused Freemasonry? Why does it work for one model but not the other? As to the latter: purely experiential, and therefore anecdotal. Not to diminish the validity thereof, mind you, but to put things in perspective.
As to the rest, the arguments of 'prejudice' et al are but attempts to tug at emotional heart-string rather than offer any real content. Prejudice and precondemnation are issues, yes, but that does not detract from the need to distinguish between Pralines & Cream and Pralines & Crap.
Yet that is the very argument many 'Pralines & Cream' types use to bolster their worth. Why does that argument work there and not here?
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Dec 1, 2009 10:10:55 GMT
To me, by forcing a brother who has no interest to sit in a Lodge with a woman or else he cannot be a Freemason is as equally wrong as denying a woman the chance to become one. Luckily this is not the case and hasnt been for several years.
The point that I believe we should really be looking closer at is the reason as to why Some male only Grand Lodges do not recognise Co-masonry or Women only masonry as being 'regular'. because I believe this is where there is far more contention, I persoannly do not understand any good reason for it. I am sure there atre many who can!
Magus, I have to say that I am involved in many esoteric orders and can agree with you that the energy created when you have men and women involved in ceremonial ritual is very different from an all male group. However I have experienced both types many times and although different so far all the experiences I have had have been balanced and 'correct'.
Now, I can say this from experience, and it is my opinion, I am happy to read your opinion but I respectfully disagree with a lot of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2009 16:51:35 GMT
[glow=red,2,300][/glow]When comes to black masons they were going to have to form there own lodges anyway because of how they were viewed by people who were racist in the past. Now today, yes there still is segregation in male craft masonry, which is no good. I would even go as for to say that even some female and co-masonic groups could be lacking in the diversity department.
As for women we know for a fact that their were some women who were initiated in the past and they eventually formed co-masonry because of their status. Soon some of these women who were co-masons branched out on their own to form their own female lodges.
Now, all of the female only lodges of today don't allow men into their craft and male masons don't allow women into their craft not because of segregation on the base of I don't want you here because your women and I don't like you. No, I don't think it has anything to do with that today.
Even if recognition would come to past I believe it be would be like this, male craft masons would recognize female mason and co-masons but it would not be mixed or integrated because their already is a mixed group and thats co-masonry. There still would be the male craft for men and the female craft for women for those who preferred it that way. It would be like the trinity three but one.
[glow=red,2,300]But recognition is far off in the future[/glow] and this was only an idea.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Dec 1, 2009 17:22:07 GMT
Now simply replace women with black man into these sentences and I wonder how many forumites would endorse this point of view? Love and Light, But it is not the same. Most Freemasons would be horrified to think that a Lodge would be prejudice against a man from a different ethnic background. You cannot simply write off hundreds of years of practice just because you think it is morally wrong. There is no problem for women who wish to practice Freemasonry they have a much choice as a man does. You cannot force an organisation to change its whole ethos because you want it too, there are many men who simply would not go to Lodge if a woman was allowed in, you cannot make them accept something they do not want. belive me, if enugh members of UGLE wanted change it would happen, you have to accept there are 3 distinct flavours and embrace them all. Where I do agree with most 'Pro' women supporters is that UGLE should recognise the legitimacy of both Women only and Co-freemasonry, I believe sometime in the future this will happen (not for a long time though) However, I will defend the right of my GL to decide whether we should admit women or not and until they say yes, I am 100% behind them. Freedom of choice. I have prposed 3 women into Freemasonry and they are all enjoying it, I have another female friend who seriously wants to join Co-Masonry none of them want to force themselves onto my Freemasonry. Yes, you can write off hundreds of years of practice if it is morally wrong or just not compatible with the times. What happened to the progressive science? Freemasonry used to be on the forefront of revolution and change. Now it is just stale status quo because of "tradition?" Amongst Hermetics this is thought of as Osiran thinking. Stasis. Not a good thing. Women don't have the same options. There aren't Co-Masonic lodges in every town and let's face the facts. Co-Masons themselves face harassment and discrimination from there own "Brethren." I would guess the reason why recognition is not granted to Co-Masonry is because the UGLE, US mainstream GL's etc. are afraid they will loose membership. They are already trying to steer the ship after it hit the iceberg. If they are to survive and patch the holes in the bow (or in the bucket, thank you Brother Bryce) eventually they will have to intergrate. Those are just the numbers and the situation they face. Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Dec 1, 2009 18:28:37 GMT
I can remember English Working Men's Clubs which would not have Blacks (of any Nationality) as members. This was once Legal and was "Tradition" .These days and for decades this discrimination has been illegal in the UK.
As to Freemasonry, I would not wish to see it forced to integrate on grounds of gender. Yes. I personally would be delighted if I could go to some of the UGLE Lodges etc that I used to attend and take a suitably qualified female Brother along as another visitor. However I am realistic enough to understand that this is not likely to occur in my lifetime.
Often the pulling down of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Empire of vassal states is used as an analogy for the ban on female members by UGLE and those GLs in Amity therewith. I would however say that the Berlin Wall was brought down from within and not by the guns and tanks of NATO or the US and UK. Likewise, if there ever is a change in the policy of UGLE etc it is likely to come from within and that is what I would wish in time to see, rather than at the hands of some politician and backed by the sanctions of Criminal Law.
Until then we will continue to work with Co-Masonic Bodies such as LDH etc, Female Only like OWF and HFAF, and Male Only such as UGLE and those in Amity therewith.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Dec 1, 2009 18:34:44 GMT
I can remember English Working Men's Clubs which would not have Blacks (of any Nationality) as members. This was once Legal and was "Tradition" .These days and for decades this discrimination has been illegal in the UK. As to Freemasonry, I would not wish to see it forced to integrate on grounds of gender. Yes. I personally would be delighted if I could go to some of the UGLE Lodges etc that I used to attend and take a suitably qualified female Brother along as another visitor. However I am realistic enough to understand that this is not likely to occur in my lifetime. Often the pulling down of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Empire of vassal states is used as an analogy for the ban on female members by UGLE and those GLs in Amity therewith. I would however say that the Berlin Wall was brought down from within and not by the guns and tanks of NATO or the US and UK. Likewise, if there ever is a change in the policy of UGLE etc it is likely to come from within and that is what I would wish in time to see, rather than at the hands of some politician and backed by the sanctions of Criminal Law. Until then we will continue to work with Co-Masonic Bodies such as LDH etc, Female Only like OWF and HFAF, and Male Only such as UGLE and those in Amity therewith. Yes Brother, the Berlin Wall fell due to economic collapse. ;D In the USA mainstream Freemasonry looses overall 10% of their membership every 10 years. They are going ot have to do something soon. Look at the Oddfellows here in WA state. They where all but dead until they decided to intergrate. Now, we are seeing their resurgence. Seems like a no brainer. Love and Light,
|
|
Augur
Member
Travelling salesman. Roamin' profit.
Posts: 184
|
Post by Augur on Dec 1, 2009 19:06:19 GMT
Amongst Hermetics this is thought of as Osiran thinking. Stasis. Not a good thing. 'Amongst Hermetics'? Nonsense. People in the hermetic tradition don't speak this way. 'Osirian thinking' is Temple of Set dogma. It's not hermetics at all.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Dec 1, 2009 19:15:50 GMT
Amongst Hermetics this is thought of as Osiran thinking. Stasis. Not a good thing. 'Amongst Hermetics'? Nonsense. People in the hermetic tradition don't speak this way. 'Osirian thinking' is Temple of Set dogma. It's not hermetics at all. Whatever you say chief
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Dec 1, 2009 19:15:51 GMT
In this matter I have always had extreme misgivings about people being forced at Point of Law and thus by threat of imprisonment and/or fines . Obviously the State had to intervene at some points for the good order and discipline of Society and to protect the weak and vulnerable. However one cannot legislate people to love each other. I would hate to attend a Lodge, say under UGLE, GL of S, one of the US GLs etc and find it 2/3rds empty as I was accompanied by a Female Brother.
Freemasonry must be left to sort this out for itself.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Dec 1, 2009 19:27:41 GMT
In this matter I have always had extreme misgivings about people being forced at Point of Law and thus by threat of imprisonment and/or fines . Obviously the State had to intervene at some points for the good order and discipline of Society and to protect the weak and vulnerable. However one cannot legislate people to love each other. I would hate to attend a Lodge, say under UGLE, GL of S, one of the US GLs etc and find it 2/3rds empty as I was accompanied by a Female Brother. Freemasonry must be left to sort this out for itself. Brother, My argument for this would be, those who left simply because the other 50% of humanity is now eligible for membership where not there for the right reason anyway. I have read posts by Masons who have stated the day their lodge integrated would be the day they quit. This is sad but it is also very telling of true motivation. Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by mrmason on Dec 1, 2009 19:30:18 GMT
Freemasonry must be left to sort this out for itself. With this Steve I agree. Those who wish to join a male only body should, those who wish to join a female only body should, and those who wish to join a mixed order should. Why should anyone dictate that gender specific orders are wrong. We all have choices in life and it would become a very sad day when those choices are withdrawn from us.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Dec 1, 2009 19:35:56 GMT
Freemasonry must be left to sort this out for itself. With this Steve I agree. Those who wish to join a male only body should, those who wish to join a female only body should, and those who wish to join a mixed order should. Why should anyone dictate that gender specific orders are wrong. We all have choices in life and it would become a very sad day when those choices are withdrawn from us. Brother, Can't that same argument apply to race or religion? If someone wants to join a whites only lodge why shouldn't they be able to? If someone wants to join a Christian only lodge, why shouldn't they be able to? My answer, the reason why they shouldn't be able to is that all of those situations directly violate the Masonic virtue of equality amongst the Brothehood of mankind. As does gender discrimination. Love and Light,
|
|