|
Post by brandt on Aug 13, 2007 14:11:35 GMT
TWS, Brother, you may well have hit the nail directly on the head. Would you say that problems develop when we make the assumption that all internal hierarchies are the same and expect all to behave/believe as we do? This would not be a problem if we did not fall into the trap of attempting to force others to integrate themselves to our internal hierarchy. There is a great damage that can be done that way.
Brandt
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Aug 13, 2007 14:40:32 GMT
To my mind, where you see hierarchies, I see the concept of 'roles'. We all have competing roles in our lives, our duties in our roles as sons/daughters may sometimes put us in conflict with our responsibilites as wives/husbands/partners, and draw a parallel accordingly. So in my role as a UGLE mason I am bound to respect and follow the guidelines of my GL, and so I will not visit a constitution I am not permitted to. However, I also feel have a role as a 'mason' without UGLE and that is how I attempt to carry myself in the world, and also the role I use when on forums and the like.....
Thats how it works for me anyhoo.....
|
|
|
Post by tws on Aug 13, 2007 18:45:02 GMT
TWS, Brother, you may well have hit the nail directly on the head. Would you say that problems develop when we make the assumption that all internal hierarchies are the same and expect all to behave/believe as we do? This would not be a problem if we did not fall into the trap of attempting to force others to integrate themselves to our internal hierarchy. There is a great damage that can be done that way. Brandt If we bring our Will into conformity with that of the Divine Will, then all conflicts are resolved. All will sing from the same page, each in thier respective octave, to create a symphony of unsurpassed beauty.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 14, 2007 11:11:09 GMT
my dear Brother, I agree one hundred percent with what you are saying. That is the world that we all aim for, we do share that goal. Unfortunately there is a lot of work to do before we get there. Perhaps we should not spend time with unproductive works and focus upon those that accomplish the end of which you speak.
Brandt
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Aug 20, 2007 10:35:47 GMT
Wow - I have just read through this thread, and am rather astounded by the same issues Bro Tamrin/ichabod is!
But firstly, a quick comment on Bro Wayseer's reminder that in Lodge, should differences be such etc: This is a discussion Forum, not an open Lodge, and so would personally prefer to NOT see any member leave even if their differences are irreconcilable.
On this, I am truly astounded that a comment about the 'evil intent' of a Brother by another Brother is left without further ado. Perhaps Bro imakegarb is not using the term 'evil' in the literal sense, meaning no more than 'it would lead to directions with which I disagree' - but that is certainly not the meaning of the term. We can and often (unfortunately) do drop words here and there without implying their true meaning nor full connotations - but geez, were I to have received an accusation of my position being evil, I too would consider that more than a 'slight', and rather closer to an overshadowing and darkening of not only my character, but my participation.
As I said, I do not think that Bro imakegarb actually meant 'evil' to be applied to Bro ichabod's position, except in a sense that does not actually mean what it says... and I must admit that such comment directly, from my perspective, severely denigrates the character of Bro ichabod in an unwarranted fashion.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 20, 2007 14:12:47 GMT
This is a situation in which communication can serve well. We need to practice the Law of Love and learn to forgive each other and to try to understand each other.
Brandt
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 20, 2007 20:22:57 GMT
If you've read this thread, then you already know that I did not state Bro. Philip is evil, but that I do believe the forced integration of Malecraft lodges, which he supports, to be evil. That act, not the person, I believe, is evil.
Again, if you've read the thread, then you know this is what I've said.
Bro. Philip, without any help from me, has decided that, by that, I mean that he is evil. Bro. Philip also has made it very plain that, unless I'm willing to accept that premise - which I am not - there can be no further discussion.
So, nope, no communication.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 20, 2007 20:40:26 GMT
That really is too bad. Two people as intelligent as the two of you are should always be able to find some common ground. Of course that only works if both parties want to. This does not have to be a deal breaker though. There are several other areas in which I am certain the two of you are in great harmony. That by itself can mitigate most misunderstandings on other issues.
Brandt
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 20, 2007 21:07:06 GMT
I am quite saddened by it I agree with you, it seems to be a rare issue, indeed, where he and I don't agree. My preference (as stated earlier this thread) is to concentrate on those areas. But, yes, both have to agree to do that and . . . (shrug).
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 20, 2007 22:59:53 GMT
blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called the sons of God.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Aug 21, 2007 0:31:34 GMT
Have not been following this thread and just scanned the past few pages..
Re the various GL's - perhaps they are just a bigger version of us, as individuals. They have their good bits and their bad bits and they all, like us and the great empires of the past, have to die in due time - to make way for the next "G"eneration.
We can put ourselves on the Ark by listening to our intuition, and having the courage to follow thru on it's advice.
Maat
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Aug 21, 2007 1:25:38 GMT
How can it be considered evil to recognise and therefore hold the position that a current situation is not right, and thus support change to correct such?
I certainly likewise fully support, and am working to make a formal proposal to my GL accordingly (likely to be brought to a Q.C. within two years), for change in this matter. I certainly consider neither my intentions, nor the proposal, as 'evil', and am rather astounded that such can be considered such. Quite frankly, if it eventually takes the force of the law to make this change, then so be it: if something is not right, it needs to be changed, ideally, not by legal force, but by understanding and consent. If this appears to not occur due in part to fear and misdirection, than the force of the law may impact on such decisions - this does not make the act of change, nor the intent of change, nor those so motivated, in any manner evil.
How can the act of change towards Lodge decision as to membership, as opposed to GL forcing Lodges to exclude individuals based on either gender, belief or pigmentation be considered in any manner evil??
This of course is very much at the heart of considerations of regularity and co-freemasonry, the subject heading this very thread.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Aug 21, 2007 2:40:58 GMT
How can it be considered evil to recognise and therefore hold the position that a current situation is not right, and thus support change to correct such? I certainly likewise fully support, and am working to make a formal proposal to my GL accordingly (likely to be brought to a Q.C. within two years), for change in this matter. I certainly consider neither my intentions, nor the proposal, as 'evil', and am rather astounded that such can be considered such. Quite frankly, if it eventually takes the force of the law to make this change, then so be it: if something is not right, it needs to be changed, ideally, not by legal force, but by understanding and consent. If this appears to not occur due in part to fear and misdirection, than the force of the law may impact on such decisions - this does not make the act of change, nor the intent of change, nor those so motivated, in any manner evil. How can the act of change towards Lodge decision as to membership, as opposed to GL forcing Lodges to exclude individuals based on either gender, belief or pigmentation be considered in any manner evil?? This of course is very much at the heart of considerations of regularity and co-freemasonry, the subject heading this very thread. No one is saying that it is evil to support recognition or change. You are not understanding the beef between Bros. Phillip and Karen in its proper perspective. Phillip wants to force integration of male and female lodges, regardless of what either wants. That is what Karen thinks is evil. Perhaps not the best choice of words, but it is a way of charactarising a wrong headed position. No one should be forced to do anything against thier will. There are plenty of choices in Masonry, for all different tastes. Each should choose, of thier own freewill and accord, that which best suits thier needs. Freemasonry is a private organization, and as such, no one has the right to impose thier views on it. To do so would be tyranny, and flys in the face of the principles of the Enlightenment that modern Masonry came from.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 21, 2007 3:07:01 GMT
Bro. TWS has described my position quite perfectly.
Thing is, though, so have I. I have made it very, very, very clear that the forced integration (with heavy emphasis on "force") of Malecraft and Femalecraft lodges would be evil. I apologize not at all for that, for it would be evil. We are brothers, there should be no force among us.
And I have made this opinion of mine very clear.
Bro. JMD, I can tell by your posts that you are a very intelligent fellow. My position could not have been unclear to you. You *said* you read this thread. I honestly thought when you reopened this subject, after days and days of it being dormant, that you were trying to be a peacemaker, that you were truly interested in healing this breach between Bro. Philip and I (as am I). But now I see, you have some other motivation in mind. The truth matters not at all and . . .
I'm in tears just now. I honestly thought better of you.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 21, 2007 4:33:07 GMT
Bro. Karen,I have no wish for Bro. JMD or anyone, to stand alone in my stead. Just as when I resigned from my Grand Lodge I first discharged all executive offices, so too it seems I have duties to discharge here. In doing so I intend, for now, to limit myself to this outstanding issue. I suspect that at one level you already Know that, if there is any “evil” in relation to a position, it necessarily resides in the intent with which it is held and thus in that person, rather than in the position itself. I will not therefore dilate upon the issue further, except to remind you that "good and evil" are not synonymous with “right or wrong,” with “true or false,” etc., and not even with “good and bad.” I like you and I respect you but there remains this accusation between us which for you is slight but not for me. I wish you well in your Masonic career. Please be assured that my decision to withdraw from the forum has not been not solely because of you. For the record, I repeat that I would be reluctant to force integration on lodges, (legislation is a blunt instrument). I have stated repeatedly that, on the principle of Affirmative Action, I would not support the forced integration of women only lodges. I do support the principle of lodges deciding which applicants to accept, provided that, in the long run, it is in relation to individual candidates, rather than limited in relation to race or gender. Where I would support the use of force is in situations analogous to those lodges which, despite having no explicit rules excluding people on the basis of race, routinely black-ball non-whites. The nature of the force I would advocate, as a last resort, in such situations has Masonic precedence in relation to race. Even at such a point, I would support reasonable strategies for easing the blow, (for those who perceive it as such). For instance, in areas where women have reasonable access to Freemasonry, one or more lodges may be permitted to remain “men only” for a limited number of years. However, this may not be an option if resort to legislation is required.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Aug 21, 2007 5:46:33 GMT
Where I would support the use of force is in situations analogous to those lodges which, despite having no explicit rules excluding people on the basis of race, routinely black-ball non-whites. The nature of the force I would advocate, as a last resort, in such situations has Masonic precedence in relation to race. Even at such a point, I would support reasonable strategies for easing the blow, (for those who perceive it as such). For instance, in areas where women have reasonable access to Freemasonry, one or more lodges may be permitted to remain “men only” for a limited number of years. However, this may not be an option if resort to legislation is required. Bro. Phillip, exactly what legislation do you refer to? A World Court or some such nonsense? The US is a soverign nation. No world court, or some body claiming to represent some governing masonic authority, has any standing here. We have a Constitution, enumerating rights given not by men, but by God! Man has no authority to strip us of those rights. This is what I am talking about here! Try to impose anything here and you will draw back a nub. What part of "freedom" do you not understand,Sir?
|
|
|
Post by tws on Aug 21, 2007 6:03:15 GMT
And as to your link to Masonic precedence, that has no bearing on the issue of forced integration of male and female lodges. We do not disciminate on the basis of race here. Virginia's GL has no authority outside of the state of Virginia. Each state in our union is a soverign state with its own GL. There is no GLoUS. Bro. George Washington wisely turned down that idea, just as he declined to be made King.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 21, 2007 6:04:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tws on Aug 21, 2007 6:11:10 GMT
I don't believe the Grand Lodge of Tennessee is a signatory to any such agreement. Only the US State Department has the authority to negotiate treatys, which has to be voted on by both houses of Congress, passing with a 2/3 majority, and signed by the President, in order to become the law of the land. That agreement isn't worth the bandwidth it took to put it up.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 21, 2007 6:27:07 GMT
I don't believe the Grand Lodge of Tennessee is a signatory to any such agreement. Only the US State Department has the authority to negotiate treatys, which has to be voted on by both houses of Congress, passing with a 2/3 majority, and signed by the President, in order to become the law of the land. That agreement isn't worth the bandwidth it took to put it up. The USA signed the Convention on 17 July 1980, but apparently has not ratified it—let alone the Optional Protocol (BTW, the world is bigger than the USA).
|
|