|
Post by Smithee on Dec 3, 2012 17:54:10 GMT 10
I do not think it appropriate for the Grand Lodge to concern itself with the complexion of any lodge. We provide the material. they provide the program with which our material may use. The "material" you "provide" is at issue.
|
|
|
Post by Torence on Dec 3, 2012 23:20:57 GMT 10
Like the stones of any building, it is our material gaining admission that will determine what sort of structure that we will make for our Twenty-first Century Lodges.
FreeMasonry was never designed to be a static and unchanging thing; but rather, like an engine, it flourishes when it behaves highly dynamically. Neither is it intended to be altered by some administrative process such as an annual election of Officers filling out names on a slate for non-participants. FreeMasonry itself, and more especially our own Local Lodges, are inextricably altered each time there is a knock at any of our preparation room doors. As a matter of survival, our Local Lodges must remain in control of whose knock gets answered.
Should a profane man's skin color serve him as some sort of passport with which to gain admission? Is allowing for this new condition somehow "better" than the condition imposed upon us by generations who kept useful material out considering the same criteria? Where would we find then, our improvement?
The idle who have flooded the fraternity during the last half of the twentieth century were at least dues payers and many of them were kind enough to pay dues faithfully and for life. Few of them participated or provided Us with the Labor which is the thing that makes Lodges go.
Those qualities are is not true of the sort of petitioner who now seeks admission after seeing a show on the Discovery Channel or reading a popular piece of fiction too many of whom petition with someone else paying their degree fees and then their dues for them, at least for a little while.
What will sort of club will it be for the Twenty-first Century FreeMason entering Our fraternity and What will it then be for them to do? I know this..., I will not be the Brother decide the answer to that question for them. It will be the next batch of candidates rapping on our preparation room doors who will determine those conditions. Must we "envision" upon them some of our collective guilt from the past?
Torence Evans Ake Secretary - Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois Chaplain - Triluminar Lodge No. 767 - Lansing, Illinois MIGS - Illinois Lodge of Research PM - Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lansing, Illinois City and Country Steward
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 4, 2012 5:46:52 GMT 10
Should a profane man's skin color serve him as some sort of passport with which to gain admission? No one is suggesting that merit would no longer be a valid criterion for membership. The question is, should a worthy applicant's skin colour serve as some sort of barrier to admission?
|
|
|
Post by Torence on Dec 6, 2012 1:42:27 GMT 10
Freemasonry transcends all this.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 6, 2012 5:53:09 GMT 10
Indeed, the principles of Freemasonry are contrary to any irrelevant discrimination. However, being a human institution, while our principles are perfect, our policies and practices may be misguided. For instance, please consider the circumstances behind why in 1989 it was necessary for a Grand Master of Virginia to set aside a ballot.
|
|
|
Post by Torence on Dec 6, 2012 6:50:03 GMT 10
An aberration... a Grand Mater cannot"successfully" invade the sanctity if our sacred ballot boxes, at least not in any meaningful way that would stand the test of time; but neither is it conceivable that he need to ever consider doing so.
Fraternally, Torence Evans Ake Secretary - Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois Chaplain - Triluminar Lodge No. 767 - Lansing, Illinois MIGS - Illinois Lodge of Research PM - Arcadia Lodge No. 338 - Lansing, Illinois City and Country Steward
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Dec 6, 2012 9:57:56 GMT 10
Despite what you say is possible the Virginian Grand Master successfully did what he had to do. Do not suppose every current policy with which you are familiar must be a time immemorial landmark among Freemasons. See bessel.org/ballotar.htmThe Australian Ballot may be a welcome innovation to Freemasonry but it should never be used as a cover for bigotry. See www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/43932/Australian-ballot
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 7, 2012 5:30:57 GMT 10
... but neither is it conceivable that he need to ever consider doing so. I beg to differ. Apart from the obvious point whereby he not only felt the need to consider doing so in this instance but acted on that consideration, there is the point that the Grand Master and through him the Grand Lodge (especially the DGIWs) has a duty to protect the reputation of the fraternity both within its own jurisdiction and among other Grand Lodges with which it wishes to remain in amity. Where there is a policy, practice or perception of unmasonic discrimination the Grand Master must act.
|
|