|
Post by penfold on Aug 20, 2007 9:04:18 GMT
Seems like a good point to just remind people of one of the forum cornerstones:
This Forum was instituted to permit a free discussion of ALL aspects of Freemasonry and associated topics without fear or favour. Whatever the Affiliation of the posters may be, and that varies, the Forum does NOT bow the knee to any Grand Lodge nor any Commerical Undertaking. Be it "Regular", "Irregular", Male Only, Ladies Masonry or Co-Masonry, ALL are free to post here. HOWEVER due respect is to be shown to the various Grand Lodges and Masonic Bodies in existance and any criticism couched in polite and reasonable language. ************************************************************************
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Aug 20, 2007 9:57:42 GMT
And good to see that has been the case on the whole... and due respect to the Regular Grand Lodge is as due as to any other.
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Aug 20, 2007 9:59:29 GMT
Indeed, irrespective of individual feelings on the matter this forum will maintain its neutrality.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 20, 2007 11:03:18 GMT
...I furthermore promise... to obey....bylaws and edicts... As long as is it does not violate or interfere with more important duties. Brandt
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 20, 2007 11:12:42 GMT
I can empathise with Bro Blackadder.
I was in a situation which was similar in certain ways. I was becoming increasingly unhappy with many aspects of UGLE , its Governance, its apparent Mission and Values when I compared them to what I felt was the purpose of Freemasonry. Above all over the years I had felt that it was wrong to exclude women from The Craft.
In the end I Resigned from UGLE and all my various memberships which were in Amity therewith and became a Co-Mason, joining Le Driot Humain and I am far happier therein.
Accordingly I can find common ground with the feelings of Bro Blackadder and hope that he too finds a satisfactory resolution as I have.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 20, 2007 12:00:05 GMT
I can sympathize with your decision as well. It was moral and proper. Brother Blackadder will also make the decisions that are best for himself as we should all.
Brandt
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Aug 20, 2007 12:11:31 GMT
Well said brandt
|
|
|
Post by 2 BOWL CAIN on Aug 20, 2007 12:23:01 GMT
Remember, none of our oaths or obligations are to interfere with our duties to god, country and self. if the GLo FLa does not recognize PHA masonry, then they are making every mason go against their duty to God(all one family), and country(being united), so it is the moral duty of all Fla. masons to let their leaders know how their stance on PHA masonry intereferes with their duties to God and country.
Racism has no place in masonry.
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Aug 20, 2007 12:54:03 GMT
Neither does sexism.
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Aug 20, 2007 13:03:14 GMT
For as long as you are a member of a GL you are bound by it's rules, however, it is possible to resign/demit, at that point you are no longer bound by the rules of a particular GL, however, I do feel you are still bound by your obligations as a mason, but this is purely my personal view
|
|
|
Post by tws on Aug 20, 2007 13:13:00 GMT
Remember, none of our oaths or obligations are to interfere with our duties to god, country and self. if the GLo FLa does not recognize PHA masonry, then they are making every mason go against their duty to God(all one family), and country(being united), so it is the moral duty of all Fla. masons to let their leaders know how their stance on PHA masonry intereferes with their duties to God and country. Racism has no place in masonry. While it is true that PH lodges are not recognised as regular by several GLs in the US, this does not nessesarily imply racism. In my state, and under the GLoT, any man of good moal character, of legal age, and properly vouched for, is eligable to become a Mason. This includes EVERY man, regardless of race. Quite frankly, I am sick of Brother Masons implying that PH recognition is based on racism. There can be only one regular Grand Lodge in each state. This is the basis for the PH flap. ANY man can become a Mason regardless of race!! There are men of African-American ethnicity who are regular Masons under the GLoT. There are Caucasian Masons under the WPHGL as well. The two do not recognise each other, nor allow intervisitation. While I do not agree with this stance, and would like to see recognition and intervisitation, that is how things stand at this point in time. I have been a commercial truck driver for over 20 years, and have travelled all over the US, and, believe me, I have seen more blatant racism in so-called "enlightened" Northern and Western states than I ever see in the South. Let's not be so quick to apply the prejorative "Racist" every time we wish to make a point! This term is WAY overused, and innappropriately in the majority of circumstances. The overuse of this term lessens its impact when it is justly deserved.
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Aug 20, 2007 13:22:37 GMT
Remember, none of our oaths or obligations are to interfere with our duties to god, country and self. if the GLo FLa does not recognize PHA masonry, then they are making every mason go against their duty to God(all one family), and country(being united), so it is the moral duty of all Fla. masons to let their leaders know how their stance on PHA masonry intereferes with their duties to God and country. Racism has no place in masonry. While it is true that PH lodges are not recognised as regular by several GLs in the US, this does not nessesarily imply racism. In my state, and under the GLoT, any man of good moal character, of legal age, and properly vouched for, is eligable to become a Mason. This includes EVERY man, regardless of race. Quite frankly, I am sick of Brother Masons implying that PH recognition is based on racism. There can be only one regular Grand Lodge in each state. This is the basis for the PH flap. ANY man can become a Mason regardless of race!! There are men of African-American ethnicity who are regular Masons under the GLoT. There are Caucasian Masons under the WPHGL as well. The two do not recognise each other, nor allow intervisitation. While I do not agree with this stance, and would like to see recognition and intervisitation, that is how things stand at this point in time. I have been a commercial truck driver for over 20 years, and have travelled all over the US, and, believe me, I have seen more blatant racism in so-called "enlightened" Northern and Western states than I ever see in the South. Let's not be so quick to apply the prejorative "Racist" every time we wish to make a point! This term is WAY overused, and innappropriately in the majority of circumstances. The overuse of this term lessens its impact when it is justly deserved. While agreeing with you a little, the territorial jurisdiction thing vis a vis PH GL recognition is something that is able to be resolved if there is a will to do so from both the PH GL and the GL of the state. One has to ask oneself what are the real reasons why mutual recognition has not been extended in some of the states yet to agree - and one also has to wonder how much their curren and past societal outlook is affecting things. The other measure, tws, would be to ask you how many men of colour you have actually seen as members of lodges in those areas where the PH GL has not been given the common respect of mutual recognition.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Aug 20, 2007 13:43:54 GMT
It is not common, but not unheard of. Most African-Americans choose to be affiliated with PH. There are many reasons, chief of which is that they see PH Masonry as part of thier cultural heritage. PH GLs, even in those states where recognition is extended, often do not allow intervisitation. PH Masonry wishes to stand on its own, and the fear is that they would be eventually absorbed by the State GLs and lose thier unique identity.
My main point in my previous post was that the accusation of Racism should not be tossed about lightly. Save it for when it is justly deserved, not to attack the motives of individuals or institutions that you do not agree with, in order to demonize them in the eyes of others.
Can we not agree to this? Please?
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 20, 2007 14:11:28 GMT
Brother, I do agree with you, the issues are more convoluted than they appear. Regardless racism is not the issue - malevolence is. This Brother has run into a serious issue and it does him no good service to reduce it to a matter of racism or alcohol.
Brandt
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Aug 20, 2007 14:18:05 GMT
I must confess that from where I stand the reluctance to recognise PH GL's in some states does appear to be predicated on colour, and not down to territorial exclusivity, however, I do appreciate that there is quite often far more to a situation than that which hits the headlines.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 20, 2007 16:24:13 GMT
It does seem odd but I am sure that they have a really good reason and the appearance of color having anything to do with it is purely coincidental and any anecdotal evidence is hearsay. All is well.
Brandt
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Aug 20, 2007 17:16:11 GMT
Prince Hall is singularly Odd in Freemasonry. It is the only Order that has been founded upon colour. Prince Hall Freemasonry derives from historical events which led to a tradition of separate, predominantly African-American, Freemasonic fraternal organization in North America. Prince Hall Masonry has always been regular in all respects except constitutional separation.
Is it reasonable then to hold it in a special light ? to the best of my knowledge there is no US GL that states they will not initiate a man of color, however it is in some mainstrean GL's not done.
The question therefore should be applied, if you object to Prince Hall Freemasonry, as an institution then do you clearly demonstrate that a Black man is welcome in your Lodges. If this can be done then the issue of racism has no foundation. If not, would it then not be wiser to accept the presence of a Prince Hall GL.
But I can also see that the same objections can be levied upon a Prince Hall GL as can be against say UGLA, or indeed any GL that would care to start a Lodge in the UK or any other GL's jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 20, 2007 20:37:06 GMT
It seems that discussions such as this always return to the concept of territorial exclusivity. Perhaps it would be a good idea to discuss that concept in a logical and reasoned light.
Brandt
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 20, 2007 21:32:47 GMT
Personally, I would wish to see this idea abolished totally and Lodges of various GLs etc allowed to operate where they wish and there is a demand for them. In any event it is already void in that there are Lodges affiliated to the various UK GLs in former British Colonies so one can have GL of Scotland, GL of Ireland and UGLE Lodges all happily meeting in the same overseas country and no doubt intervisiting.
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Aug 20, 2007 21:59:01 GMT
Totally agreed with Bro lauderdale's comment on this!!!
So-called territorial exclusivity is a late-comer to Freemasonry and very much, it seems to me, a Anglo-Saxon concept. There are no such difficulties on the Continent of Europe, except for some situations with who seek amity with UGLE.
Germany has numerous GLs that happily co-exist, as do France and Italy. Even in the USA, the very concept has been (thankfully) slowly eroded by acknowledging that if two GLs within a state (even the concept of the State as distinct to nation is foreign in terms of Masonic jurisdiction in continental Europe!) recognise each other, than both will likely be recognised by other GLs with which either is in amity.
This has nothing to do with regularity.
|
|