|
Post by Ziggy on Sept 21, 2007 4:32:40 GMT
Those irregular Masonic bodies, who choose to pick a fight, with the regular Masonic Grand Lodges of my country, can expect the Regular Grand Lodges to finish it. There has been court precedent set, within the federal court system, as well as a long history of case law, that gives us they claim to the name and titles, of Freemasonry, Scottish Rite, York rite, as well as Shrine. As well is the symbol that accompany these orders. You're more than welcome to look it up online, the Square and Compasses is trademarked by the Grand Lodge of New Jersey, been used in legal cases to shut down clandestine money lodges. If there's people will want to start a fight, their more than welcome to bring it on. Another post of your Avicenna from another thread... Avicenna you seem to be confused about all this court case business... you are contradicting yourself. But it is certainly clear that you intend to take heaven by storm .... Just a reminder here that many of our members are not Masons and can only form their opinions of us by what they see here. Maat What so confusing? I'm merely just calling Phil out on the floor. We have full legal right to be who we are! I don't go stick in my nose your organization's business and dictate on how you run it. I'm just sick of people making idle threats, and sticking their nose into my brotherhoods the business, in which it's none of Phil or anyone else that's not a part of my organization. Though, It seems obvious, that there are those who whine and cry about recognition, and don't even realize that were completely different organization with different values. Furthermore, fundamentally we do not have to have to recognize those who do not share our fundamental ideals, nor can we be forced to. If a brother doesn't like it, then Demit.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 21, 2007 7:25:01 GMT
After reading through this thread, all I have to say is that those who have used the threat of legal and political action, have just shown that we of the Regular Masonic Grand Lodges are you're better in every way. For it is us Regular Lodges that live comfortably and easily without your approval, as you suffer for ours. Hi Avicenna, Let me just clarify a couple of points for you, as I fear you may have gone off "half cocked". I, like you, am a member of masculine Masonry (a Past master under the UGLE in fact). The situation with this discussion is not Co-masonic bodies threatening to take masculine Masonry to Court but with one unnattached masculine Mason threatening to do so. As, for whatever reason, he seems to have decided that masculine Masonry does not deserve to continue. It has been clearly demonstrated that none of the actual Co-masons contributing here actually support his idea. In fact one considers it to be very very wrong. There is no sensible reason at all that Co- and Feminine Masonry should not co-exist alongside (as it has already done for 100 years over here) masculine Masonry. While both feminine and co-Masonry would like to be "recognised" by us neither would take such an un-Masonic route to get it. I would suggest that you subdue your passions and carefully look at the situation before firing off salvoes at all and sundry. This would avoid future "friendly fire" situations. M
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Sept 21, 2007 8:50:07 GMT
I would echo what Bro Mike has said. Co-Masonry is content as it is and although we are not "Recognised" by the Mainstream Malecraft GLs such as UGLE we are not taking them to Court or in any way interfering with their Right to be as they are.
Read back through the thread and you will discover that one unattached and disgruntled former member of an Australian Malecraft Lodge has his own "crusade" against his former Grand Lodge and speaks of taking them to Court under his area's Anti-Discrimination Laws. That's up to him.
That's it folks!
As for the remark that "we (Malecraft) are your betters" I will treat that as a joke. The concept of being "Betters" to another Branch of Freemasonry is nonsense! We are "different" but neither superior nor inferior to each other.
Oh and for Avicena's information, no longer accepting their exclusion of women from Freemasonry and having deep reservations about other matters involved in the Governance and Approach of UGLE, I "demitted" (Resigned in Good Standing) and joined Le Driot Humain, a Co-Masonic Order and I am far happier and more at ease with myself and am now in a Branch of Universal Freemasonry with which I am completely in accord. No fuss, no Court Actions , no Civil Rights involvements etc, and I am still friendly with many of my former colleagues who are in UGLE Lodges etc.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Sept 21, 2007 9:33:29 GMT
After reading through this thread, all I have to say is that those who have used the threat of legal and political action, have just shown that we of the Regular Masonic Grand Lodges are you're better in every way. For it is us Regular Lodges that live comfortably and easily without your approval, as you suffer for ours. Furthermore, recognition is not about coming in compliance with your views, but the irregular (meaning NOT of Regulus, or the laws laid down by Regulus) must comply with our standards in order to become recognized, not the other way around. People can make idle threats all they want, it's not going to change things, we in no way should be ashamed of being an all male fraternity, nor do we have to recognize your Irregular bodies as regular. The nature of this whole argument of forced recognition is fascist and dictictorial in its very nature, and undermines the idea of Liberty and Free Association. But if all feel the need to try and pursue such legal action, it only means that Regular Grand Lodge's and my countries will counter with trademark and copyright infringements, as well as accusations of fraud through misrepresentation, and the fact that he there is no legality to the argument, even if the ERA is ratified. People should read legislation before they go citing it, and threatening to use it. Your posts, the one quoted above, and subsequent ones, would suggest you didn't read through the thread thoroughly enough. If you had done you may not have responded with such ignorance. May I recommend you have another go at reading through it and perhaps then you'll realise just how far off the mark you are.
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Sept 21, 2007 11:36:44 GMT
It should be pointed out that Bro ichabod is still a member (and Past Master) of the male Craft in a constitution in amity with UGLE. He remains in good standing and with a clearance certificate that entitles him to visit Lodges in theory not more than once a year for any one Lodge (as he would then be expected to join a Lodge).
From what he has written, he has no intention on bringing to an appropriate judicial US-based body any foreign Masonic GL. What he has said is that should the Australian Government become signatory to a convention that has legal ramifications (within Australia), he would bring the current situation with regards to the ongoing prohibition of a woman being balloted in an open Lodge (I am paraphrasing here). This would, if successful, have the consequence that GLs that currently exclude individuals on grounds of gender would have to cease doing so.
I personally doubt that UGLE and other constitutions would cease amity-relations with GLs in Australia if the above scenario became the case. But if they did, it would be to their loss. It would be more likely that amity relations would be retained, but that visiting rights for travelling brethren are re-written to exclude certain members (ie, women).
Were this to happen, it may even be a blessing in disguise - though must admit that I would personally vastly prefer that we address this issue internally and make the appropriate changes rather than such being made on our behalf by court of law.
Also, for what it's worth, I am aware of quite a number of Freemasons who would very likely testify in court that there is nothing within Freemasonry that prevents a women being made a Mason - and that is without even going down the path of involving LDH as a precedent!
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 21, 2007 12:28:44 GMT
It should be pointed out that Bro ichabod is still a member (and Past Master) of the male Craft in a constitution in amity with UGLE. He remains in good standing and with a clearance certificate that entitles him to visit Lodges in theory not more than once a year for any one Lodge (as he would then be expected to join a Lodge). He did state that he had resigned which would mean he is not a member and therefore what we term "unattached". If he is still a subscribing member I (and I am sure the others that saw what he wrote) apologise for downgrading him to "unattached" status. M
|
|
|
Post by gaslight on Sept 21, 2007 12:37:33 GMT
It should be pointed out that Bro ichabod is still a member (and Past Master) of the male Craft in a constitution in amity with UGLE. He remains in good standing and with a clearance certificate that entitles him to visit Lodges in theory not more than once a year for any one Lodge (as he would then be expected to join a Lodge). Are you talking about visiting lodges of other constitutions? My lodge issues clearance certificates very rarely and it's always in connection with an affiliation. The Brother requiring the certificate signs it, then it begins its long trek up the admin ladder of one constitution, then down the ladder of the other. I'm glad you brought up the topic of visitation. I'm looking for guidance on the question of multiple visits. You say 'not more than once' (in theory) but is this part of your constitution or bye-laws? There's no such stipulation in either of mine, so I'm not sure what to do about a Brother from another constitution who shows up from time to time but has made no move to affiliate.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Sept 21, 2007 12:45:52 GMT
It should be pointed out that Bro ichabod is still a member (and Past Master) of the male Craft in a constitution in amity with UGLE. He remains in good standing and with a clearance certificate that entitles him to visit Lodges in theory not more than once a year for any one Lodge (as he would then be expected to join a Lodge). Are you talking about visiting lodges of other constitutions? My lodge issues clearance certificates very rarely and it's always in connection with an affiliation. The Brother requiring the certificate signs it, then it begins its long trek up the admin ladder of one constitution, then down the ladder of the other. I'm glad you brought up the topic of visitation. I'm looking for guidance on the question of multiple visits. You say 'not more than once' (in theory) but is this part of your constitution or bye-laws? There's no such stipulation in either of mine, so I'm not sure what to do about Brother from another constitution who shows up from time to time but has made no move to affiliate. I have started another thread on this subject. staffs.proboards37.com/index.cgi?board=General&action=display&thread=1190378584Please respond to that specific post there as we'd like to keep this on topic. Thank you.
|
|