mre
Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by mre on Nov 4, 2010 8:23:01 GMT
Hi!
Does the UGLE recognise the Unitarian Universalist church, and UU beliefs as "sufficient/valid" expressions of a belief in God?
Regards Mre.
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Nov 4, 2010 9:17:03 GMT
To be honest, I doubt the Unitarian Universalist church would be too concerned either way I am not with UGLE, but I imagine they wouldn't care which church one chooses to worship in as long as they personally believe in a Supreme Being .... I know many UUs who fit such a criteria.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Nov 4, 2010 11:03:52 GMT
United Grand Lodge of England does not accept or reject any religious group or Church.
There is no requirement to be a member of a Church, only that you believe in a supreme being. Which one is your choice.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Nov 4, 2010 14:51:03 GMT
There are no specifics concerning which viewpoint an individual has or what church they belong to or do not belong. Yes, the UU would be fine or any church, synagogue, sweat lodge, no-church-at-all &c. would be fine as Brother Bill suggested. The only thing necessary is integrity.
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Nov 5, 2010 8:27:53 GMT
The only thing necessary is integrity. Even if the person does not believe in a Supreme Being?
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Nov 5, 2010 9:25:14 GMT
Those who have Faith should never be made to feel they have to provide an excuse for having it.
In that sense , yes Integrity is an absolute requirement.
To join My Lodge you would need to have a belief in a supreme being, for those who have no Faith contact the many Grand Lodges that are being created.
It does not make my Freemasonry any better, it just makes it the one I choose. Hence I exercise my personal LIberte'. I have no wish to force my choice on anyone else and i will not allow others to force their choice on me.
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Nov 5, 2010 11:42:27 GMT
Those who have Faith should never be made to feel they have to provide an excuse for having it. No one has suggested they should. Integrity is perhaps the most important virtue, but isn't dependant on whether someone believes in God or not. I know Freemasons who are either agnostic or atheist who are people of immense integrity. I also know Believers in a Supreme Being with the same integrity. Lodges that do not require their members believe in a Supreme Being have been around for quite some time. The Grand Orient de France (GOdF) was founded in 1733. Well stated. The freedom to choose is there for all.
|
|
|
Post by auratorium on Nov 5, 2010 11:57:25 GMT
Lodges that do not require their members believe in a Supreme Being have been around for quite some time. The Grand Orient de France (GOdF) was founded in 1733. Being unfamiliar with the history of the GOdF, have their views on a Supreme Being been this way since their formation?
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Nov 5, 2010 12:02:41 GMT
But Leo
you laid down that foundation when you posted
I am just expanding on what seemed to me to be a mix of apples and oranges.
As soon as you say "Even if", you put a qualification on the previous posters statement that was not there in the first place.
What he said was and it seems very clear ....
Maybe adding "The only thing necessary is integrity. " is what is causing confusion. I took it to mean, you declare you believe in a supreme being and we trust in your word, you do not have to have a specific religion.
If I have it wrong I am sure i will be corrected.
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Nov 5, 2010 13:22:32 GMT
Lodges that do not require their members believe in a Supreme Being have been around for quite some time. The Grand Orient de France (GOdF) was founded in 1733. Being unfamiliar with the history of the GOdF, have their views on a Supreme Being been this way since their formation? Interestingly, at their formation in 1773 there was a requirement for a belief in a Supreme Being. However since 1877 the requirement was lifted and this remains the case.
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Nov 5, 2010 13:34:15 GMT
But Leo you laid down that foundation when you posted . Bill, that is a misunderstanding on your part. However, I am happy to clarify. I posed the question, "Even if the person does not believe in a Supreme Being?" in response to: The only thing necessary is integrity. My understanding is all GLs affiliated to UGLE do require a belief in a Supreme Being, yet the comments: "The only thing necessary is integrity" seem contrary to this, so I was simply seeking clarification. Now, why anyone would assume I was questioning someone's integrity by that question is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by auratorium on Nov 5, 2010 14:30:35 GMT
Interestingly, at their formation in 1773 there was a requirement for a belief in a Supreme Being. However since 1877 the requirement was lifted and this remains the case. Thanks. I realize you are in a different masonic body, but do you, or any Orient masons on the forum, know why it changed?
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Nov 5, 2010 15:02:39 GMT
Interestingly, at their formation in 1773 there was a requirement for a belief in a Supreme Being. However since 1877 the requirement was lifted and this remains the case. Thanks. I realize you are in a different masonic body, but do you, or any Orient masons on the forum, know why it changed? I don't know too much about it but according to Wiki: In 1877, at the instigation of the Protestant priest Frédéric Desmons, it allowed those who had no belief in a Supreme being - which the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) and related Lodges regarded as a Masonic Landmark - to be admitted.
It was this decision that has been the root cause of the schism between the Grand Orient (and those lodges that followed it), and the rest of Freemasonry. It is a schism in Freemasonry which continues to this day. It is argued that the definition is ambiguous, that Anderson's Landmarks are his own collection and interpretation of the historical landmarks, and that changes in both interpretation and practice have occurred before and since. The decision was not universally approved in France.
By 1894 many lodges had split off in protest and formed the Grande Loge de France (GLdF) In addition, a third Grand Lodge, the Grande Loge Nationale Francaise (GLNF) was founded by the United Grand Lodge of England in 1913 (GLNF is the only one of the three that is recognized as being "regular" by those Freemasons that follow the Anglo tradition of requiring a belief in Deity.)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Orient_de_France
|
|
|
Post by auratorium on Nov 5, 2010 15:05:35 GMT
Interesting that this was instigated by a holy man.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Nov 5, 2010 15:12:10 GMT
This was a reactionary movement impelled in the interests of appeasing the Catholic church. In my opinion, the appeasement of any church or thought-movement is a very bad reason for doing anything if your interests are Freedom of Conscience. That's just my opinion, reading and understanding of matters from my Free Conscience. Serving Justice and Fairness is the best starting point.
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Nov 5, 2010 15:16:12 GMT
This was a reactionary movement impelled in the interests of appeasing the Catholic church. Would you care to expand on this?
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Nov 5, 2010 15:35:07 GMT
This was a reactionary movement impelled in the interests of appeasing the Catholic church. Would you care to expand on this? Brother, I would love to expand on this. tracingboard.com/PDF/Alain%20Bauer%20Address.pdfQuote from 2002 speech from the Grand Master of the Grand Orient of France in the Calfornia GL: "One must today realize that this happened in the context of French post-revolutionary society which had fought successfully for a separation of the State from the Catholic Church."This clearly shows how the reasoning was because of anti-Catholic sentiment, a justified sentiment in my opinion. Still, it was to appease the Catholic church, an injust motive (again, my opinion). Unfortunately, I cannot find the original 1877 speech, yet I will and will post its contents verifying the reasons were to appease the Catholic church. Also, the claim of Anderson's 'Liberal viewpoints' in writing the constitutions is not correct. Anderson was very much dedicated to his faith, to the embarrassing and unfortunate extent (in my opinion), of authoring two decidedly intolerant religious tracts in the same year as the release of the Constitutions. After the French Revolution, Napoleon worked hard to re-establish the temporal power of the Catholic church. Again, this is another injustice. Two of them do not equate to right action. The slaughter of defenseless Catholic priests without trial in the Revolution is entirely revolting, and is merely a remnant of the brutality imposed by the Roman Catholic church, before that being a remnant of the brutality of Pagan Rome.
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Nov 5, 2010 16:13:18 GMT
Would you care to expand on this? Brother, I would love to expand on this. tracingboard.com/PDF/Alain%20Bauer%20Address.pdfQuote from 2002 speech in the Calfornia GL: "One must today realize that this happened in the context of French post-revolutionary society which had fought successfully for a separation of the State from the Catholic Church."This clearly shows how the reasoning was because of anti-Catholic sentiment, a justified sentiment in my opinion. Still, it was to appease the Catholic church, an injust motive (again, my opinion). Unfortunately, I cannot find the original 1877 speech, yet I will and will post its contents verifying the reasons were to appease the Catholic church. Also, the claim of Anderson's 'Liberal viewpoints' in writing the constitutions is not correct. Anderson was very much dedicated to his faith, to the embarrassing and unfortunate extent (in my opinion), of authoring two decidedly intolerant religious tracts in the same year as the release of the Constitutions. After the French Revolution, Napoleon worked hard to re-establish the temporal power of the Catholic church. Again, this is another injustice. Two of them do not equate to right action. The slaughter of defenseless Catholic priests without trial in the Revolution is entirely revolting, and is merely a remnant of the brutality imposed by the Roman Catholic church, before that being a remnant of the brutality of Pagan Rome. Interesting. But I am not sure I understand. Are you claiming the GOdF decided to remove their requirement of a belief in a Supreme Being because of the above?
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Nov 5, 2010 16:18:39 GMT
Brother, I would love to expand on this. tracingboard.com/PDF/Alain%20Bauer%20Address.pdfQuote from 2002 speech in the Calfornia GL: "One must today realize that this happened in the context of French post-revolutionary society which had fought successfully for a separation of the State from the Catholic Church."This clearly shows how the reasoning was because of anti-Catholic sentiment, a justified sentiment in my opinion. Still, it was to appease the Catholic church, an injust motive (again, my opinion). Unfortunately, I cannot find the original 1877 speech, yet I will and will post its contents verifying the reasons were to appease the Catholic church. Also, the claim of Anderson's 'Liberal viewpoints' in writing the constitutions is not correct. Anderson was very much dedicated to his faith, to the embarrassing and unfortunate extent (in my opinion), of authoring two decidedly intolerant religious tracts in the same year as the release of the Constitutions. After the French Revolution, Napoleon worked hard to re-establish the temporal power of the Catholic church. Again, this is another injustice. Two of them do not equate to right action. The slaughter of defenseless Catholic priests without trial in the Revolution is entirely revolting, and is merely a remnant of the brutality imposed by the Roman Catholic church, before that being a remnant of the brutality of Pagan Rome. Interesting. But I am not sure I understand. Are you claiming the GOdF decided to remove their requirement of a belief in a Supreme Being because of the above? To my reading, that is what the 2002 speaker and the 1877 speech says. They state in no uncertain terms that the 1877 ruling was a direct result of pressures from the Catholic church.
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Nov 5, 2010 17:04:48 GMT
Interesting. But I am not sure I understand. Are you claiming the GOdF decided to remove their requirement of a belief in a Supreme Being because of the above? To my reading, that is what the 2002 speaker and the 1877 speech says. They state in no uncertain terms that the 1877 ruling was a direct result of pressures from the Catholic church. For those interested here is an explanation from the GOdF's own website: "Hence – with the combined legacy of deism, Enlightenment and the spiritualism of 1848 – the Constitution of the Grand Orient stated that the principles of Freemasonry were "the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.” In an era when the intellectual elites were profoundly influenced by the philosophical agnosticism of Auguste Comte, in practice, this requirement of a religious nature was in fact no longer followed. Thus the General Assembly of the Grand Orient de France abolished this requirement in 1877. Accordingly liberal – or non-dogmatic – Masonry was born; considering that Masonic duty is not of a religious nature, allowing its members the freedom to have a faith or not. To date, this decision maintains the distinctiveness of the Grand Orient which according to some, places the Order at the forefront of Universal Freemasonry and according to others, an outlaw."Source.
|
|