Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2009 16:21:18 GMT
To be recognized! I have seen in some sites few co-masons would like it. But I am pretty sure that most don't crave for it. I myself do not believe that it should be forced down male craft masons throats.
I think there should be traditional, progressive and liberal masons and they all have a right to their belief.
But is recognition an issue for co-mason and female masons?
|
|
FireMist
Member
Then rally boys, and hasten on.To meet our Chiefs at the Green Dragon.
Posts: 293
|
Post by FireMist on Nov 28, 2009 21:24:47 GMT
No issue. Many of my friends are my Brothers from other obediences, though mostly male only obediences.
A link to a paper was sent to me today. In it the author says it very eloquently.
My experience is that this is not necessarily needed. However it would be nice.
The friends and co-worksrs in my life who are Freemasons are my Brothers. They do respect me and know I am practicing REAL masonry. The fact I don't sit in, or am allowed to sit in lodge with them is of no matter. Most of them don't visit other lodges than their mother lodge anyway.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 28, 2009 22:44:01 GMT
I wonder what the likes of Bros. Maria Deraismes and Annie Besant would have wanted?
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Nov 28, 2009 22:53:37 GMT
I wonder what the likes of Bros. Maria Deraismes and Annie Besant would have wanted? Integration? Just a wild guess ;D Love and Light,
|
|
FireMist
Member
Then rally boys, and hasten on.To meet our Chiefs at the Green Dragon.
Posts: 293
|
Post by FireMist on Nov 29, 2009 1:53:17 GMT
I wonder what the likes of Bros. Maria Deraismes and Annie Besant would have wanted? No clue, However, I do know one thing; Acceptance does not come by force. Look how long it has taken Prince Hall lodges to become recognized. I do hope the acceptance of our lodges occurs in my lifetime, but will not shed any tears if it does not. I am a mason, regular in my own obedience. My masculine only Brothers are regular in thier own obedience. We are all Brothers. We all have the attitude of ; Now let's go play and forget about all this political stuff.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 29, 2009 2:18:59 GMT
We all have the attitude of ; Now let's go play and forget about all this political stuff. Were it not for her cremation, I expect Bro. Besant would be rolling in her grave.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2009 1:37:43 GMT
Very good answer firemist!
The male craft masons do have a right to there beliefs but that does not mean that they should be disrespectful to co-masons or female masons.
In fact, I don't think that would be very masonic.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Nov 30, 2009 5:24:38 GMT
I'm with Firemist and Lynn on this matter. Yes. it would be agreeable were the Malecraft Bodies to say "We accept Co-Freemasonry as valid" even if they then added a caveat forbidding their members from attending our Lodges and us from attending theirs which would be to maintain the current situation.
However I would never wish to see Malecraft GLs etc forced to become mixed Lodges. As has often been said on this topic there is room in Freemasonry Universal for Co-Freemasonry and Female Only and Male Only Masonic Bodies.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Nov 30, 2009 7:28:12 GMT
I'm with Firemist and Lynn on this matter. Yes. it would be agreeable were the Malecraft Bodies to say "We accept Co-Freemasonry as valid" even if they then added a caveat forbidding their members from attending our Lodges and us from attending theirs which would be to maintain the current situation. However I would never wish to see Malecraft GLs etc forced to become mixed Lodges. As has often been said on this topic there is room in Freemasonry Universal for Co-Freemasonry and Female Only and Male Only Masonic Bodies. In concept my Brother that sounds wonderful, in practice it is borderline horrific. The fact that anyone would be turned away do to a condition of birth such as gender is a crime IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by bluecob on Nov 30, 2009 10:05:39 GMT
In my humble opinion allowing women into Lodges is not masonic.
I do not recognise any constitution that accepts women as masonic.
Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Nov 30, 2009 11:15:27 GMT
First, this is such a contentious issue that I have never seen it discussed without resulting in the thread being locked, This will prove no exception if people resort to a slanging match! In my humble opinion allowing women into Lodges is not masonic. Why? I do not recognise any constitution that accepts women as masonic. Sorry. Why not? And why are you sorry?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2009 12:23:15 GMT
In my humble opinion allowing women into Lodges is not masonic. I do not recognize any constitution that accepts women as masonic. Sorry. Thats perfectly acceptable. You don't have to. As long as your not ignorant or intolerant to co-mason and female masons.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Nov 30, 2009 13:50:20 GMT
...The fact that anyone would be turned away do to a condition of birth such as gender is a crime IMHO. Why? (Since Middlepiller opened the door for asking questions of others, I put forth mine to add to the mix.) Is this going to be another tit for tat? As it happens it is a good question, and there is nothing wrong with asking someone to expand on thier opinion, after all it is a Forum. It seems to me that it is only when it degenerates that it becomes not only a problem, it loses all sense and then goes full tilt into name calling etc. As I said in the first part of my reply. As long is it stays civil lets explore these opinions and why they are formed. I see Lynn has already offered a sensible way forward, thanks for that! Or do you think I am acting unreasonably asking for discussion without sarcasm and nastiness? What would you recommend on the Forum you moderate on?
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Nov 30, 2009 14:43:48 GMT
OK P
I am sorry to have doubted your integrity (although it was only a small doubt) I hope that we can get some honest opinions, answers and some stimulating discussion on this very tricky subject
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Nov 30, 2009 16:48:27 GMT
Gender, race etc. have no bearing on if a candidate is qualified for membership of if they will be able to improve themselves through Freemasonry.
If we as Masons say we value equality, liberty and fraternity we should mean it.
Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Nov 30, 2009 16:49:54 GMT
In my humble opinion allowing women into Lodges is not masonic. I do not recognise any constitution that accepts women as masonic. Sorry. 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,
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Nov 30, 2009 18:26:57 GMT
In my humble opinion allowing women into Lodges is not masonic. I do not recognise any constitution that accepts women as masonic. Sorry. It is sad your Flavour of Freemasonry prevents you experiencing a Masonic ceremony, where Men and Women build the temple of light without regard to gender. It is not the constitution that makes a Freemason. For example both my wife and I who are both 18 o Freemasons, accept that if you have been initiated, passed and raised as a Freemason. You are a Freemason also. When you sit in your lodge after it has been opened let the feeling of the esoteric temple you have helped build filter around you, look at the RWM and in your mind to get the feeling of whom the RWM is being assisted by. On a personal note which I have mentioned before, the utter completion of going home after an especially powerful ceremony, in which we both have held a significant office - sitting around a cup of coffee and discussing the evening is very very special. HGW
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Nov 30, 2009 19:36:30 GMT
In my humble opinion allowing women into Lodges is not masonic. I do not recognise any constitution that accepts women as masonic. Sorry. It is sad your Flavour of Freemasonry prevents you experiencing a Masonic ceremony, where Men and Women build the temple of light without regard to gender. It is not the constitution that makes a Freemason. For example both my wife and I who are both 18 o Freemasons, accept that if you have been initiated, passed and raised as a Freemason. You are a Freemason also. When you sit in your lodge after it has been opened let the feeling of the esoteric temple you have helped build filter around you, look at the RWM and in your mind to get the feeling of whom the RWM is being assisted by. On a personal note which I have mentioned before, the utter completion of going home after an especially powerful ceremony, in which we both have held a significant office - sitting around a cup of coffee and discussing the evening is very very special. HGW I envy you Brother, a Masonic couple is a beautiful thing. Very special. Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Nov 30, 2009 23:46:38 GMT
In my humble opinion allowing women into Lodges is not masonic. I do not recognise any constitution that accepts women as masonic. Sorry. 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.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Dec 1, 2009 0:13:51 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, it is the same thing. It was written into the GL of Alabama official constitutions that no black man could be a Freemason. They did this due to the fact that blacks where the decendents of "bondsmen" and therefor where not "freeborn" and could not qualify. Over 100 years of this traditional practice. A disgusting tradition, but traditional. There is no historical reason to deny women. If it is stated that Freemasons come from Stonemasons than understand and respect stonemasons traditions. One of them was gender equality. It is not freedom of choice if If a sincere seeker of light, who happens to be a woman is turned away because she is a woman. This takes the choice out of the hands of the lodge for fear of diciplinary action. So, in fact there is no choice avalible here, just a sexist status quo renforced by fear. It's sexism, plain and simple. No amount of white washing or apologetic rhetoric can excuse it. BTW: Morality is a reflection of two things. History and culture. In Western society women have the right to vote, they cannot be denied advancement in any career, they have equal status to men. So, one can conclude, according to 21st century standards gender exclsive Freemasonry is morally wrong. Love and Light,
|
|