By Carlos Antonio Martinez, Jr., J.D., PH.D., M.A., 33º
Read – Is CoMasonry the Antidote part 1
Read – Is CoMasonry the Antidote part 3
SPECULATIVE ERA
1. Alleged “Official Birth” in England
Symbolic or “Speculative Masonry” began to gradually develop during the XVI and XVII in Europe, particularly – though not exclusively – in the kingdoms of England and Scotland.
As the official history relates, on June 24, 1717, four Londonese Lodges gathered to celebrate the Summer Solstice, and to “constitute” the First Grand Speculative Lodge (“Grand Lodge of London”); But, not without the most indignant protest of The Grand Lodge of Operative Masons, which, denounced the “Speculative One” of being Illegitimate and Apocryphal, for many of its subordinate lodges and very leaders (including Anderson himself) had never been affiliated with the Craft – let alone initiated – as “Accepted Masons”.
From that moment on, however, the Grand Lodge of London became the creating source of numerous lodges around the world, which, in turn, were progressively creating their own national bodies (Grand Lodges or Grand orients in every country), all inter-linked by bonds of Solidarity and Mutual Recognition.
In September 1721 (four years later), as a result of the heterogeneity provoked by great errors that existed in all the copies of the Ancient Constitutions, and, at the same time, due to the expansion of Speculative Masonry to Europe and America, the assembly of The Grand Lodge of London charged Pastor James Anderson, chaplain of a subordinate Lodge, with “ordering the old constitutions with a new and better method”. Anderson finalized the assignment in three months and presented his finalized work at the festivity of Winter Solstice of that same year – being thereupon revised by a commission integrated by fourteen erudite masons, shorthly thereafter approved by the same group on March 25, 1722, and subsequently published by William Hunter the following year. In the third article of these “new constitutions”, there is a concrete clause prohibiting women to join the Order. In that sense, Anderson is very clear in stating such prohibition; But, he is rather indifferent in stating the motivations that drove him to such a pronouncement.
2. Emergence in Continental Europe:
Simultaneously, Speculative Masonry started gaining terrain in Continental Europe, mainly in France. In addition to the Irish Lodges that were constituted in Saint Germain in 1690, Free-Masonry attained much strength at the beginning of 1720, under the leadership of the Duke of Wharton, and, posteriorly, under that of Sir John MacLean. The first “londonese styled” election, of which there is historical constancy, was that of Charles Radcliffe, Count of Dervenwater, in 1736, as “Grand Master of the Most Ancient and Most Illustrious Society of Franc-Masons in the Kingdom of France”. The Duke of Anton was the first French Grand Master of the Order in 1738. Later came the Grand Mastership of Louis de Borbon, Count of Claremont and Abbot of Saint Germain from 1743 to 1771, whom at one point was even called “Grand Master of All Regular Masonic Lodges in the Kingdom of France”.
The first french translation of the “Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of London”, better known historically as: “Anderson’s Constitutions”, was made by the Marquis de la Tierce in 1742, twenty years after its first publication in London. In his translation he mentions:
“The famous festivities of Ceres in Eleusis, of Isis in Egypt, of Minerva in Athens, of Urania in Phoenicia, and of Diana in Sitia, had much in common with ours. The celebration of these mysteries contained clear vestiges of the ancient religion of Noah and other patriarchs; they concluded their ceremonies with a feast and libations during which, at the beginning, no one knew of excesses or intemperances, until later when the pagans fell into them gradually. The source of these infamies, was the admission of people from one gender and the other at the nocturnal assemblies of the institution. It was to prevent these abuses that women were excluded from the Order”.
This, could be interpreted as either a tacit or veiled admission that indeed women were admitted to work in Lodge in the past; as a rather poor and quasi-baseless argument to discriminate against women; or, as a political pretext – as the very de la Tierce points out – to keep Queen Elizabeth from joining the Order and using it to her benefit, as she so did with other guilds.
It is possible that due to this draconian transition between the established observance of the real constitution of the Grand Lodge of London and the reissuing of its new general norms (“Anderson’s Constitutions”) which lasted approximately six years, the lodges under its jurisdiction worked without rituals and unifying norms during the first half of the XVIII century, and this was, of course, reflected in the first Speculative or Symbolic Masonic Lodges of Continental Europe, many of which, due to their involuntary or voluntary disavow of Anderson’s Constitutions, welcomed the initiation of women.
3. Pseudo-Initiatic Androgynous Societies of Masonic Appearance:
In the Pre-Revolutionary French Society, there were many organizations created by the growing Bourgeoisie that participated in the process of creating the “Civil Court” which came to gradually substitute the “Imperial Court”; these organizations were circles, clubs, cafes, academies, literary societies, scientific societies, spiritualist societies, alchemical societies, chambers, halls of lecture and singing, etc. The vast majority of these societies were not only bi-gender, but, were also sponsored by women of great economical, social and political power – mainly the “philosophical halls”, a world of initiates that was dominated by the “Court of Seals” of the Duchess of Maine (1676 – 1753), Director ad vitam of the “Order of the Bee”; the hall of the Marquee of Lambert (1647 – 1733); the “Bureau of the Spirit” of Claudine Guerin de Tencin (1681 – 1749); the hall of the Marquee of Deffand (1697 – 1780); the “Kingdom” of Maria Teresa Geoffrin (1699 – 1777) and the “Philosophical Hall” of Julia de Lespinasse (1732 – 1776).
The pseudo-initiatic societies denominated as: “Androgynous” or “Hermaphrodite” that appeared along the XVIII century, have their origins in like organizations created at the end of Louis XIV’s rule, and other social entities of more profane roots where the openness of membership to both genders was not only normal, but, encouraged. These organizations can be divided in two groups:
Secret Societies which were gallant, licentious, fun-seeking and recreational, platonic and charitable.
“Orders” that parodied Free-Masonry and sought to become their competitors and/or substitutes – something that they did so well, that between 1730 and 1740 public powers/officials mistook them for actual Masonic Lodges in a number of occasions. Among these “Orders” were: the “Con-Fraternity of Figs” in Vienna, the “Order of Liberty“, “Order of Felicity“, and “Order of Anthropocentrism” in France. The “Order of Felicity” proliferated and got to be sponsored by high personages of French politics, economics and society at large. On the other hand, the “Order of Anthropocentrism” took its name from maritime language, a fact, which, in the eyes of the profane world, got them often misidentified with Masonic Lodges of naval origin – aside from having passwords and methods of recognition which made reference to bodily parts of men and women, and, that, as such, had erotic, sexual and licentious connotations.
The “Order of Knights and Nymphs of the Rose” was also famous; its membership was mainly constituted of aristocrats and well known free-masons, such as: the Duke of Chartres (then future Duke of Orleans) who was also Grand Master of the Grand Orient of France.
The “Order of Knights and Ladies of Perseverance” equally pseudo-initiatic, but, less “loud”, was created by notable figures such as: the daughter of Stanislav II, Augustus Poniatowski, Last King of Poland, Elizabeth Lubomirska and her daughters, the Countesses Rzewuska and Potocka, all members of the Masonic Lodge of Adoption “Catherine the Northern Star” which was conjoined with its male counterpart of the same name, constituted under the auspices of the Grand Orient of France, and propelled by Ignatius Potocki. Other notables who held membership in this Lodge of Adoption were the Duke of Chartress, the Count of Artois (future Charles X), the Prince of Ligne, Charles Joseph, future Marshall of Russia, the Austrian Duke of Lauzum. Knight Hospitallier of the Order, and a number of prestigious intellectuals.
During the kingdoms of Louis XV and Louis XVI appeared other pseudo-initiatic organizations of Masonic appearance, such as: the “Order of Medusa“, the “Extirpators of Palisades“, the “Knights of the Dove“, the “Order of the Green Apple“, etc.
Since 1730, aside from these more or less “light societies”, in all of Europe we are able to find fraternities (bi-gender or not) which, amused themselves parodying Masonic secrets and rituals out of mere jealousy, contempt, rivalry and/or imbecile humor.
The Order of Mopses (or Order of the Pug) is perhaps the most famous of the aforementioned organizations which used to mocker Free-Masonry. It was born in Strasburg in 1738, after the official prohibition of Masonry emitted by the Empress Mary Therese, as a consequence of the Papal Bull “In Eminenti”. It was presided by Wilhelmina, sister of Frederick II, King of Prussia. With the exception of the Grand Mistress Ad Vitam, all the Sisters may occupy all the “stations”. In every Lodge, every position or office has two titleholders, a man and a woman. Every six months the presidency of the Lodge is alternated between a Man and a Woman, and their ceremony of Initiation is carried out in accordance with the Inductee’s gender, be it by male or female officers.
It was within that context, in 1736, that Andre Michelle, Knight of Ramsay pronounced his over-misogynous speech before the General Assembly of Masonic Lodges in Paris, and which he later repeated in 1737. His public address had the eventually-failed objective of causing Free-Masonry to be under the control of the Monarchy and the Roman Catholic Church, in order to counterattack the incredulity and socio-political discredit in which the Craft had fallen, due to the turmoil and disorder provoked in considerable measure by these Pseudo-Initiatic Institutions of Masonic Resemblance and, of course, by the misconduct of actual Free-Masons.
All this agitation caused a great deal of tension between the Puritan and Orthodox Masonic Jurisdictions of England and their French counterparts. From then on, the English Free-Masons demonstrated an unbelievable efficiency in generating tidal-waves of anti-feminine literature aimed at justifying the non-admittance of women in Lodge. They had three basic arguments which had been tangibly proven in France, at the hands of the previously referenced “Mixed Pseudo-Initiatic Orders”. Such arguments were: the congenital Feminine Indiscretion which made the respect to Masonic secrecy Impossible; the disorders, conflicts and eventual loss of harmony that could be provoked by the “Beautiful Gender” in a Masculine Lodge; and the risks of being accused of Immorality, Lasciviousness and Libertinism by civil and ecclesiastical authorities.
From that moment forward, one of the most colossal anti-feminist campaigns was launched in all of Europe. These campaigns were clearly manifested in Literature, Music, Theater, and, of course, the Media… What’s new?!
In reaction to this, in 1774 the Grand Orient of France legitimized the Lodges of Adoption (Bi-Gender and Feminine Masonic Lodges). Pierre Louis Gouillard Aine, Parliament’s Attorney, Dean of the Faculty of Law in Paris, Royal Auditor, Officer of the Grand Orient of France and Venerable Master of Sophia Lodge prepared a document containing numerous points in defense of Female Free-Masons. Some of those remarks and arguments were:
“The association of both genders is founded upon Natural Law and one cannot separate from this Principle without rebelling against the tenets of this Immutable Law”;
” What a most satisfying spectacle to see a Lodge formed by Brothers and Sisters animated by the desire of practicing the fundamental virtues of our Institution”;
“Which Philosopher – even the most austere – can refuse the pleasure of contemplating in the same place the two most perfect artworks that were ever sculpted by the hand of Nature?!”
Then, he gives historical proof that indeed Women are capable of safe-keeping the most delicate secrets:
“… when being admitted in many of the Mysteries of Antiquity, like those of the Druids, to whom they were Deservers of all Confidence and Respect, even more so than that which they professed toward men, by having been assigned to the office and dignity of Prophetesses and Sages that were considered the elite of the nation …”
He continues on advocating for the innocence of Sisters in Lodge:
“Some of our Brothers, oblivious to the principles of Art and under false pretenses of creating a Lodge of Adoption, have gathered incorrigible females with whom to abandon themselves in orgies and the most uncontrollable excesses of libertinism; But, precisely because we have had the disgrace of nourishing in our bosom those unworthy monsters that I call “men” (for I wish not to call them Masons), these spurious brothers, abusing a title of which they are totally unworthy of, have succumbed to the most execrable superfluities; Can we actually think that the solution is to throw women out of our Temples?, No! Undoubtedly what must be done is to take measures against the perpetrators of these transgressions”.
He then suggested a number of regulative measures to stop the abuses in the Lodges of Adoption – such as the following two:
“To summon, by consent of the majority of the Brethren, to participation in all meetings and special gatherings, which will be indistinctively presided by either the Venerable Master, or one of the Wardens of the Adopting Lodge”;
“Scrupulous Examination of the conduct and state of all female candidates”.
And with this final comment, our French Brethren voted in favor of admitting women into our Order:
“… profiting from lessons of Wisdom that shall be vividly engraved in the hearts of men, when imparted by an amiable mouth which by the sweetness of its accents, shall make the austerity of precepts disappear, and will force us to think of ourselves and to practice virtue …”
From this very moment, many masculine lodges under the jurisdiction of the Grand Orient of France began to auspice Lodges of Adoption, and, at the same time, to enrich the arguments in defense of Free-Co-Masons (Women Free-Masons), thus creating the Perfect Unification of Human Energies and Labors toiling for the material, moral, spiritual and intellectual progress of Humanity.
All these events gave full or partial pretext or foundation to the “surfacing” or “devising” of an Anglo-Saxon System of Masonry which calls itself “REGULAR” and refuses to “recognize” others, and a “LIBERAL” F-R-E-E-MASONRY, integrated by all those other Sovereign Grand Bodies and Jurisdictions that are “Irregular” in the eyes of our English Styled/Controlled Masonry — An absolute contraposition which seems irremediable still in our days.
Reprinted by permission of Carlos Antonio Martinez, Jr.
On this subject I am torn. I believe in the good direction of the Lodges, I also believe that Women should have the same as I. Having stated that, I further believe the same as isn’t the same. Meaning: I believe a Co-Masonic lodge should be comprised of Women only. I am a firm believer that there are instances in which a man or a woman changes who they are in the presence of the opposite gender. For example: When the decision to exclude women from the Order was formalized, it was a time of extreme [compared to now] courtesy to women: A woman enters a man rises, a woman speaks a man bends the conversation to her, etc … everything from not displaying too much anger or aggression in front of a woman to proper decorum [exposing a Man’s chest hair to a woman back then would have made woman faint] but having sated that, remember the reverse was and is true. I talk to woman at ‘Woman’s Alliances’ and have found a token welcome but in reality a desire for the woman to be ‘free’ to conduct themselves in the presence of other woman w/o the reguard some or most may carry concerning a man being present.
1) A Woman’s lodger should be present and recognized.
2) The Lodges should be equal and hold the EXACT SAME information, ritual, etc as each other [with gender modified/counter parted phrases].
3) Appendant bodies should also hold separate and equal existences.
Equality doesn’t mean ‘the same’ it means equal. If it meant ‘same’ then there would be nothing of difference to celebrate … [a sphere is equal on all sides, but not the same otherwise it would be a plane.]
Just my hard earned penny.
You make some good points, talmont. I do have to have to wonder about one thing: considering the way we prepare our candidates, would degrees still be solemn occasions filled with rich symbolism or would they turn into a peep show?
I can just hear it now, “Woooah! Hey Ralph, you suppose she’d like to join the Jesters?!”
Bro.Martinez Jr.
Thank you so much for this well reasearched and composed article. IMHO this is a landmark event for a forum such as this. I commend you for your courage and composure. Most of all I commend you on taking the human position in such a Masonic manner that you have displayed. You honor our gentle Craft with your membership.
S&F,
Raum
Raum,
It isn’t that I don’t understand how the ritual would change, enhanced or otherwise. My response was one of acceptance with temperance. I am not opposed to women knowing the rituals, quite the contrary… but I have spoken with Women s’ Alliance groups who feel as I had stated, I also know men who will not feel comfortable for the same reasons. I am not speaking in ignorance, I am speaking as one who sees the opposition from BOTH genders. Not stating there are not those who wish for Unity in a lodge, but I am addressing the side where NEITHER gender wishes to cross that boundary, why would that be unacceptable? The rights of others cease at my rights, why would I wish to force MY will on others or have their wills forced on me?
I appreciate that you have felt something wonderful to you in Lodge with women and men contributing to ritual. But I suggest you might want to allow those of BOTH genders who prefer separation. We have the same right to the desire for separation as you have for merging… and most people I know who not besmirch you for it, I ask the same of you to us. Without belittling or high handed comments. Remember ALL Mankind may call upon you.
F&AM
I understand, Girl Scouts are not equal to the Boy Scouts, and I feel that as you do. BUT I don’t want the mingle, not due to inequality but due to safety issues. I WANT the same knowledge and skills for the Girl Scouts as I do the Boys, We fought for it and lost in our Girl Scout Counsel in this area. I do understand.
What I don’t understand is why Equal HAS TO BE integrated. I fight integration because integration USUALLY means ‘the same’, lacking of difference, conformity… that is where my resistance to the stance above comes from. I don’t want equality to EVER mean exactly the same, lacking difference … because that is the path for difference to become illegal or perversion. Sometimes separation keeps differences and thus culturally enriching. BUT that is off track [slightly] and I will agree to disagree with you. [btw you have sparked this discussion between myself and my wife :)]
Thanks!
~Alex Talmont
Raum,
My sincere Gratitude is yours for such kind words. In like manner I commend you on your own labors. Do feel free to contact Bro: Stewart at your convenience and have him furnish you my electronic address, as I would be very pleased to communicate with you in the near future.
Ever fraternal,
Carlos Antonio Martinez, Jr., 32º, P:.V:.M:.K:.
Let’s look at several arguments that are useful in examining this subject.
1. Language of the ritual: The language of the ritual implies that Freemasonry be a male only organization. We refer to each other as brother. Not friend, not sister, not companion. We refer to each other using the masculine term for a sibling. Why would the ritual use the male only term for sibling if it was not meant to be for men only?
2. Societal barriers: American society as well as many other societies throughout the world have a nuanced view of gender equality because there are perceptible biological differences between the sexes. We have seen a recent backlash against coeducation as the study into brain science continues to show differences in the way the female and male brain develop. An amendment to the No Child Left Behind law, co-authored by Senators Clinton(D-NY) and Hutchinson(R-TX), allowed public schools to have single sex education. This amendment increased the number of schools with single sex classes from 11 in ’02 to 514 in ’08. The #4 liberal arts college, as ranked by US News, is a private women’s college, Wellesley College. There is an obvious belief and it would seem, a resurgence in many parts to celebrate the differences of men and women and a resurgence in the belief that the sexes should be allowed to exist in their own space in certain instances.
3. Male bonding: There is nothing wrong with men seeking other men’s company. In Sociology, the phenomenon of members of the same sex finding meaningful, non-sexual relationships is known as Homosociality. Other terms include male bonding or Bromance. The best source material for examining the theory of male bonding comes from the controversial but very interesting book “Men in Groups” by Professor Lionel Tiger. Sadly, the term “homosociality” has been been used unfavorably to describe an untenable situation of male love as to exclude female love or that it is a part of the glass ceiling. I believe that this is not the case. There is nothing wrong with seeking the company of other men; it is hardwired into the biology of both sexes. That has been and will always be the hurdle in gender discussions.
I agree with Worshipful Brother Davis’ theory that Masonry is a male rite of passage. I go to Lodge to experience male bonding. I want to be in the company of other men. What I see is the problem is that male bonding is under attack because it is seen as “wrong”. Why? The only argument I have heard is that segregation is wrong. That isn’t an argument but a conclusion. There are many instances where segregated facilities or clubs are considered okay and desired by both sexes including locker rooms, bathrooms, sororities, fraternities and in Mexico, even buses. Gender is a very different category and should be treated as such instead having a blank “no separation” affixed on it.
Brotherly love, in the context of Freemasonry, is alright and is an extension of being male. I am not going to be ashamed that I am a man and I am not going to be ashamed that I belong to a male-only Fraternity.
I will differ with you on the issue of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts not applying.
I will agree with you on the racist analogy.
I will differ with you on Separate but Equal not being able to exist, men and women are equal and separate [I can not have a child, thus I am separate from a woman’s capability, a woman can not get someone pregnant thus we are equal but separate]. But we truly are digressing now.
I would love to continue this in a more appropriate location, but do not know of one outside of private email [meaning I do not know of an appropriate board]. And thank you for opening the way you talk about those with differing opinion, [my afore accusing ‘high handedness’]. My email for here isn’t a personal one, it is a protecting one, but let me know if you have a venue for us to continue.
Thanks!
Raum,
Following your logic on venues.
Fred,
I agree forcing the issue isn’t going to solve anything. But not bringing it to light changes nothing.
A three tiered solution can be done, by the same means three appendant bodies meet in a blue lodge.
But FORCING it wouldn’t be fruitful. And what happens when a woman wishes to join a lodge and only a male’s is available… the same thing that happens when I wish to sit in on a PrinceHall Lodge, I drive. The same thing would happen if I were to be allowed to visit a Co-Freemason Lodge, I would have to drive. And/Or form one here. [It is called pioneering :D].
I contend. My right to have stops at your right not to have, and the reverse. If separation is desired, by EITHER or BOTH, the laws of Society would state that as a norm. If conformity is desired by all side involved that would be the norm. But one should not be forced on the other. You SHOULD be able to have conformity, and I should be able to have separation. [Of gender mind you], and I do believe MY line is drawn at gender. [maybe I am a half step].
My penny.
Having worked with gender equality in the lodge I can say without reservation that our candidate preperation are done with the solemn dignity and grace they require. Anyone interested in a “peep show” in the lodge has no place amongst us.
I am trying to understand that most of you “don’t know what you don’t know.” You gentlemen have never experienced transformative ritual with both sexes represented. Asking you guys to speak on it with any degree of accuracy would be incorrect.
I understand the fear of change but there comes a point when it is just plain ridiculous.
S&F,
Raum
Bro.Carlos,
You honor and humble me. Email is on it’s way.
S&F,
Raum
Talmont,
I’m sorry, but segregation ofany kind abcolutley fills me with contempt and disgust. If some of my remarks come across as “high handed” that may be the underlying reason behind it. On this I will seek to improve.
I think I stated before that I don’t care on what side of the gender aisle the segregation comes from, both are equally as repellant. I get that there are those who are more “comfortable’ in amongst certain company but pardon me here, they are going to have to learn to work outside their “comfort zone.” Just as when you have a child who will not socialize you don’t reinforce the negative.
Why is segregation unacceptable? Frankly because it is. It is the very definition of a profane practice. Freemasonry is not a profane domain so it has no business here. Equality is one of the main Masonic messages, a cornerstone if you will. The fact that those who espouse equality would then not practice it amongst all of humanity is at the best hypocritical. I have always despised hypocrisy, even as a young boy.
Talmont, I often read posts of sheer joy when a Mason’s son inquires about joining his fathers lodge. Those should be joyous and proud moments. What about daughters? Why deny her? Because she ws born with internal plumbing?
This is an outrage.
I’ll be damned if anyone tells my daughter she can’t do something because of her gender. Like being born a female is an accident of birth.
I don’t get why it is so difficult for “enlightened” men to grasp this basic concept.
S&F,
Raum
Talmont,
I am very glad that I have helped light the spark of conversation on this topic between you and your wife. Revolutions start with conversations so I will chalk that up to a positive first step.
Who knows, someday (the sooner the better) you may decide to help Freemasonry enter the human era. You may become that revolutionary.
As to your other point, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are not compareable to the situation of segregation in the Craft. Those are childrens organizations, not an elightenment society for adult initiates. I am afraid those are apples and oranges.
Equal has to mean intergrated in order for true equality to take place. For the same reason you can’t say you are not a racist and still not allow a black man to eat at your dinner table you can’t say you are pro-equality and yet turn away a female seeker from your lodge. Seperate but equal just does not exist.
The Craft has been turned away from by the mainstream in favor of an old boys club and we wonder why times are tough? That is like sitting in half a car and wondering why we are not going down the road. I mean you can make engine noises with your mouth all day long you still won’t move anywhere.
S&F,
Raum
Nick,
I will address your points one at a time.
1.) Language of Ritual.
This one is rather easy to deconstruct. Exotericly,proper English language
does only pocess the masculine. Given this is the language that the Rituals have been written it is obviously that male terminology would be used.
Esotericly, the language and contructure of the Rituals are very important and specific. The root is masculine, the cosmology is feminine and together you have transformative synthesis.
2.) Societal Barriers.
It would seem that Freemasonry as progressive science has be an intrument of societal change. This can be clearly seen as Freemasonries initiatic structure allowed men of all backgrounds to come together, meet on the level, act by the plumb and part on the square. In this day and age it is difficult for us to imagine just how socio-revolutionary it was. In fact I would argue that it changed the world forever.
In keeeping with this tradition, why would a progressive science now embrace regressive societal barriers.
3.) Male Bonding.
I’m sorry but break out the violin here. Freemasonry is not a father figure and a replacement an individuals training in masculinity. There remain plenty of outlets for male bonding, few if any have a transformative or transmutive initiatic effect. A bowling team, a poker game. Hunting, martial arts. Join he Clampers.
I totally disagree with Bro.Davis that Freemasonry is a male “Rite of Passage.” First of all, rites of passage typically take place during adolesence. Freemasonry initiates adults, that part of life should already be complete by the time the initiatic experience is sought.
Nick, no one ever stated you shouldn’t “be proud to be a man.” Even though I don’t understand how someone can be proud of something they had nothing to do with. If you want to be full of male pride be my guest. That still has zero to do with the justification of forced segregation.
I am not about to compare the Craft with a locker door or toilet.
S&F,
Raum
What I am hearing is -“it’s got to be my way.” “No, it has to be my way.”
1) It is true that not allowing integration is discrimination.
2) On the other hand forcing association throughout is not really a moral position.
If an organization allows the opportunity of free association or not, then it is non discriminatory. The people may be discriminating but forcing them to associate with those they do not wish to will not cure them of their prejudice. It is when an organization declares that there will be no integration that it as an organization is discriminating.
The best course of action for a Grand Lodge would be to allow mixed gender Lodges, and same sex only Lodges. You join what you want. The organization makes everything available.
As far as running into women who do not want to associate with men or who find it difficult, I don’t see. In today’s world of women’s liberation I see more same sex than I do yearning for separation.
Talmont,
I believe this is an appropriate venue seeing we have not heard otherwise from our hosts. I tend to stay away from Masonic forums, they usually have a vibe I find unattractive.
S&F,
Raum
Fred,
The problem with a “three tiered” approach is that what if a seeker who happens to be female lives only in the vicinity of a all male lodge? They turn her away than they are failing her, themselves and the Craft.
S&F,
Raum
@Raum:
The problem with a “three tiered” approach is that what if a seeker who happens to be female lives only in the vicinity of a all male lodge? They turn her away than they are failing her, themselves and the Craft.
How badly does she want to be part of the Craft?
I have friends in various religious groups who are willing to drive six hours to meet with their co-religionists, because there aren’t any nearby.
Why do they choose to do so? Because that which they are seeking is worth the extra effort. They could have joined a different sect that was closer, but what they wanted isn’t offered by that sect.
I know of women Masons who drive from DC to NYC for Lodge meetings.
Being part of Masonry shouldn’t be easy, it should be something for which one is willing to make a sincere, strong effort.
I think that we are back to the “Collectivist Freemasonry” versus the “Individualistic Freemasonry” argument that The Euphrates expressed so well.
There is a world of difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The difference lies in the use of force and the the adherence to the concept of freedom and liberty.
Take the Internet. There are those who would like to tax it and control it to remove the smut, the con men, the rip offs and the vulgarity. But the very fact that Internet is free and untethered also allows it to rise to great achievements. Unfortunately with liberty comes the right of individuals to make fools and asses of themselves.
There is a bit of a difference between private groups and those open to the public as well as government. Do we want to use the power of the state to demand of the Roman Catholic church that it ordain women Priests?
I see too many do gooders out there who with the best of intentions who end up being petty tyrants. That being said there is much that can be done to combat discrimination. Ostracizing, boycotting and the power of the bloody pulpit are only a few examples.
I see American Freemasonry totally unable to deal with the racial situation in Freemasonry. And the fact that it refuses to be concerned and turns a blind eye is only killing American Freemasonry by a slow death. The majority of the younger generation today will not join a society that discriminates. Yet American Freemasonry continues to shoot itself in the foot. All it would really take would be for those jurisdictions that practice racial equality to withdraw Recognition from those who don’t. The battle would be over in a flash. But American Freemasonry will not do that.
This is where you and I come in and the various venues like Freemason Information that allow us the opportunity to freely express our desires for a better fraternity. With logic and sound reasoning I will badger and embarrass those who claim to practice an ideal but in reality offer only lip service while they trod on peoples Civil Rights and inalienable rights of a free society.
Raum,
Why do we separate locker rooms in police stations? But MANDATE UniSex Bathrooms in cities like Boston?
Why does Separate HAVE TO mean unequal? In gender equal does not mean the same, Separate does not mean UNEQUAL. Texas is Separate from Oklahoma but not unequal. The United States of America is separate from Canada but not Unequal.
Why does separate mean unequal. My home is separate from my neighbors, why is that any different? I repeat, equal but separate is not only possible, but common. AND is not abnormal or evil. If I want to see a woman in Lodge, I know where to go, if I don’t I know where to go [be nice :)].
I am opposed to the fact that unified means same and that equal CAN BE different and yet STILL equal.
My penny.
If a woman is worthy of marriage to a Mason, she is also worthy of your lodge.
OFGS – it is a real stretch to take you seriously on your opinions (and answers) as to what is “wrong” with mainstream Masonry when you a) don’t belong to a regular lodge, b) don’t actually even have a physical lodge for your organization, and c) don’t have much of a membership in the club which you created.
Do you believe that men and women *should* sit in lodge together, and that no lodges should be single-sex? Great – go start one, or join one. There are dozens of mixed lodges around the US; I’ve no doubt that you wouldn’t mind driving a few hours to the one nearest you. Or attract a few more members to your club and Skype your own meetings; I’m sure that will give everyone else a warm, friendly, good-fellowship feeling.
But some of us want to socialize with like-minded men (or women), who are honest, philosophical, and spiritually inclined. That’s not poker night nor the guys at the saloon, nor a spa-treatment day with the gals; that is a situation in which the fellowship of your Masonic brothers or sisters is entirely appropriate. To equate such desire with racist segregation is either puerile or disingenuous on your part.
Serious seekers somehow manage to find their path, yes, even using public transportation.
Interesting read I really enjoyed everyone’s comments so far, however I must point out that if you are not part of a regular lodge and do not follow a regular lodge’s precepts you are not a mason, yes you can pretend to be one, you can borrow and change rituals in hopes of achieving what ever end it is your trying to gain, but this will not make you a mason. There is no such thing as co-masonry.
If your group consists of like minded men and women who are seeking enlightenment through rituals and charitable efforts I commend you as this is a very noble goal. I wish you the best in your endeavors but you are still not masons unless you are part of a regular lodge that adheres to the traditional precepts.
MP,
Do you yourslef drive 6 hours to lodge? What if we are talking about a serious seeker who happens to be a working student who relies on public transportation? I find it interesting that others say that some people should have to “buck it up” when they known damned well that an average Mason would never even think of driving six hours to lodge.
Fraternally,
Raum
Fred,
This isn’t a collectivist vs. individualist argument. It is a right vs. wrong argument.
You yourself have fought tirelessly to end racism in the Craft. And I am sure that you agree that all lodges should be FORCED to accept any worthy man regardless of race. Am I safe to assume that?
If the answer to that is yes, why shouldn’t they be FORCED to do the same for women? After all every man or every race Mason and non Mason alike owe their very LIVES to women.
If a woman is worthy of marriage to a Mason, she is also worthy of your lodge. If she is worthy enough to bare a Mason’s children then she is also worthy of your lodge. If she is worthy enough to raise a Masons sons and daughters she is also worthy enough to be Raised as a Widow’s daughter.
Segregation is a relic of the past. If the progressive science is going to continue to be such those who practice her must also be progressive.
S&F,
Raum
Now we are truly going down the path of degradation. discussion of difference of opinion will lead to heated arguments, and throwing of stones. When this happens those involved loose the enlightenment they may have possessed previously.
The merits of each argument need to be presented and considered, name calling is beneath this posting set. And bringing race into call doesn’t help.
Back to the merits.
[My positions are above and haven’t changed, I remain as I was and stopped commenting when the comments turned aggressive. I agree discounting a person who is having a discussion freely brought to this board isn’t the proper path, but responding in kind will only make everyone involved lose.]
My penny’s worth.
Ohh Tom, now you are decending. One always know when someone is out of bullets when they resort to throwing the gun at you. 🙂
A.) Regularity is an inner jurisdictional designation. We are regular in accordance to our requirements. So your assesment of Lodge Napoleon Bonaparte as “irregular” is not factually correct.
B.) Don’t have a physical lodge. Yes, that is true. That is by choice. We saw no need to waste the resources when they can be better served elsewhere. We found that one of the great weaknesses was geography. We where getting interest from all over. How is that best to be served? It wasen’t one physical lodge. We exist only to service seekers, we did what we thought most conducive to that goal.
C.) Don’t have much of a membership. Now this is your speculation. This reads like something typed in spite. I’ll leave it at that.
Tom, do you really feel any man should just sit by while others who claim to be of the illuminated behave in an inhuman manner? Really? I should just “mind my own business?”
What if everyone followed that advice? Condering the revolutionaries, herectics and iconoclasts that make up to roster of Freemasonry past I don’t think I am out of line.
This is simply a debate. I hope a force for change but as of right now a simple conversation.
S&F,
Raum
Brethren and Gentlemen:
It appears that most of you who have posted opinions/feedback are in dire need of some basic historical background regarding the UNMASONIC issue of Masonic “Regularity” and/or “Irregularity”. That neo-aristocrat post 1717 English strategized “controversy” is, to this very day, one of the most detrimental schemes that have backfired at the so called “UGLE” and is rapidly bringing about Organized “Mainstream” Anglo-Saxon Masonry’s inexorable demise. It is also lamentable to see how one or two of you have dared to call Bro:. Sariel “Not A Mason” simply basing your imbecile and disrespectful assertion on nothing else, but your evident poor dominion of Masonic history and clear lack of discerning abilities. How dare you pick-up a stone and aim it at a fellow Free-Mason, “Brothers”?! Are you even somewhat aware of your “Regular Masonic Lineage”, or should I accurately say BASTARDSHIP? As my late Father used to say: “Ignorance is Audacious; It makes a Blind-Man censure Michael Angelo and Bernini”… and some of the statements left here prove so and more. Well, as I mean NOT to convert this forum into a uneven debating arena, I will only commit myself to enlighten some of you a “little”, by writing on the issue of “Regular”-Anglo Saxon Conservative-Dogmatic Masonry VS “Irregular”-Liberal Anti-Dogmatic Global F-R-E-E-MASONRY in the near future. Until then, may the G:.A:.O:.T:.U:. guide your steps toward the True Masonic Light!
Bro.Carlos,
Thank you for your post and for coming to my aid. I would like to point out that many think the same way as Derrick. It is a bad situation. They are dellusional and the worst part is that they expect all others to be as dellusional. They are aggressive and territorial over something that they do not own and is actually free-domain.
This type of situation can quickly lead from the net into your “real life” and I would hate to see that happen to you as it is no fun. I am in no way
telling you to abandon the human position, just be aware of the pitfalls of doing the right thing. 🙂
Derrick, you can believe anything you would like. Co-Masons exist all over the world and they have for a very long time and they always will. You can believe that isn’t true you can also choose to believe that the world is flat.
Belief doesn’t equal fact.
S&F,
Raum
Raum,
As you know I am very sympathetic to your point of view. I do agree that racial integration in American Freemasonry will have to be forced. After all it is the law of the land and Freemasons obey the civil authority. White only organizations are supposed to be illegal. However, when it comes to private organizations and the mixing of sexes I disagree somewhat. Certainly an organization that refuses either gender always is discriminating. Yet I don’t believe single gender groupings to be illegal.
Certainly if a man wants to go out with the guys one night or a woman out with the girls one night, I don’t think that forcing an individual to congregate at all times with both sexes is a position that I would enforce. I do believe in freedom of choice and if I want a night out with just the guys I don’t believe that is a bad thing or necessarily discriminatory. But if an organization will not offer both same sex and mixed gender experiences leaving the choice to the individual then you have a point. It is discrimination.
Fred
MP,
I never said that anything should be handed to anyone without effort so don’t put words in my mouth. I am unaware of any intergrated system of Freemasonry
that has “drive through” one day Masons as do the American segregated mainstream. I am not aware of any integrated system that has weekend session that grant someone sitting in the third row a 32nd. I am not aware of an integrated system that hands out degrees based on a simple open book test like they do in at least 3 mainstream segregated GL’s.
To imply that I am for things being easy you are 100% incorrect. We work on the creation of total Craftsmen. A candidate must show that they have the skill set to earn an increase in wages and they must also proove that they still have the skill set in order to maintain that wage.
Public domain is not really a license, it’s the lack of applicable copyright. Do some investigation and you will find that Freemasonry falls under this definition.
S&F,
Raum
Fred,
I appreciate your well thought out post. And you do make a point and under that point you would need to point out that the mainstream Freemasonry system as well as PHA are practicing discrimination. Neither offer a mixed or feminine only system within their own.
I am not in favor of discrimination as I feel it goes against the core of Masonic values. There is still a ton of racial segregation on both sides of the aisle. It may be impossible to find a Brother of Afican American heritage in a deep south mainstream lodge. At the same time I must have visited 100’s of PHA websites and I think I could count on my fingers the total amount of non black faces that I saw on all of those websites combined.
In the mainstream we have lodges that are racially or culturally specific. In California we have the “Acacia Club” an Asians only Masonic lodge. In Washington State we have Lodge Alpa, a lodge based on the celebration of “Scottish heritage.” Both of those things are flat out WRONG. Freemasonry is not a racial or cultural heritage outlet!
Total intergration of all seekers based aptitude should be the order of the day.
S&F,
raum
Do you yourself drive 6 hours to lodge?
If the Lodge I wanted to join, that would have me, were 6 hours away, yes, I would drive. As it is, I spend four hours in traffic every two weeks, to go to religious instruction; why? because the people from whom I’m receiving the instruction moved away, to a place that has very little public transit opportunities. They do not OWE me convenience – they owe me the instruction they have promised to give me, and I owe them the effort to get to them.
Freemasonry, and the ability to join it, is not right to which everyone in the world has a claim.
What if we are talking about a serious seeker who happens to be a working student who relies on public transportation?
They’d find a way. If it’s that important to them, they’d find a way.
I find it interesting that others say that some people should have to “buck it up” when they known damned well that an average Mason would never even think of driving six hours to lodge.
I find it interesting that you seem to think everyone who wants Masonry automatically deserves to get it handed to them with no effort.
Sometimes that effort means going out of one’s way to get to the Lodge.
I’m all for more female Lodges existing, and for more mixed Lodges, and for the GL’s to quit saying to their members where they may or may not visit – I think GL’s should only rule over what happens IN their Lodges.
They are aggressive and territorial over something that they do not own and is actually free-domain.
It has never been free-domain: it always took work to join Masonry, of some form or another.
I am not saying women’s Masonry does not exist, I am saying it cannot, must not, force itself into men’s Masonry – to do so would be to destroy any hope of trust or familial spirit, and would be the destruction of both sides.
FYI: the Acacia Club is a CLUB and a degree team of high distinction, not a chartered lodge.
AK,
I Acacia club racially specific? Does it matter if they are a club or a lodge?
S&F,
Raum
This is such a common tactic as to become totally transparent. We are not talking about the Hibernians, Sons of Italy, rest rooms, locker rooms or anything else. We are talking about segregation as is being practiced by a initiatic society who supposedly values equality.
Enough with the gaslighting. Do I agree with racial, cultural, religious or gender segregation in Freemasonry, absolutley not. I find segregation a vile and profane practice, period. Especially vile under the guise of a progressive science in the 21st century.
S&F,
Raum
Brad,
Because it is a specialty club and highlights the Chinese culture–which has been severely marginalized in California for over a century–then it has been allowed to exist. While it may have been a hold-over from when even corporations could sponsor degree teams (and those have been made illegal or un-P.C.), it does not discriminate based on ethnicity and I have never heard of an Anglo being denied entry, nor would it be impossible for them to confer a degree on any ethnic group if asked. However, it being a Chinese association of Freemasons, I can understand why an Anglo or whatever would find it of little personal interest, although I do remember meeting a Caucasian brother who did belong. Nevertheless, they’re not doing anything wrong and to state that they are because you yourself feel that it is discriminatory, despite the fact that it seems you know little about it, is totally unfair in light of the fact that all of the facts have not been obtained. Would you apply the same accusation to the Hibernian Club, the B’nai B’rith, or the Sons of Italy? How about the Native Sons of the Golden West (who actually had nativist sentiment against the Chinese, but now take the role of a an historical fraternal organization barring only those not born in California).
Caution must be exercised when throwing the word *discriminate* around because it does not necessarily mean a bad thing. We must also be equally careful not to use it carelessly in regard to what we feel is bad–to do so may unlawfully accuse someone of something they are not. It is best to have the facts before taking some moral high ground.
FYI for all: The Acacia Club should not be confused with the Chinese Freemasons, which is a group who really are not actual Freemasons and do not practice any form of Freemasonry.
We must also exercise caution when applying speculative and subjective interpretations of history as a determinant for a rational conclusion. This series is rife with incorrect assumptions on both ancient religious and Masonic history, so I recommend to the readers to use their own discrimination (the good kind) in regard to the assertions of this paper.
Raum,
While I respect your right to your belief, you must understand, our differences and diversity make us who we are, and integration is wonderful for those who DESIRE it.
You seem to feel that EVERYONE HAS TO integrate, no choice. Well I am sorry, I still live in a [relatively] free country and you do not have the right force anything on me and are MORE wrong for that attempt then separation that is desired by both sides [gender in a number of cases]. I personally despise racial separation, and have a personal animosity toward racists [even given the racist standing of our current president], but I don’t go to the racists churches [black or white] and demand they close, I choose to allow people to approach me for my opinion and we discuss it, if they change well and good … if they don’t I don’t associate with them. No one has the right to force another, your right to your belief STOPS at my right to retain mine. I have a number of Christians in a constant stream approach me to change my Faith and will badger me for HOURS on the subject, they believe forcing me into their way of thinking and believing is not only proper but their DUTY. As I have stated I believe in equal but separate. Simple, a pine tree holds different qualities then an Oak and is superior in some ways, and oak holds different qualities then a Pine and is superior in some ways … yes they are trees, they are equal and separate. Humans are the same. I don’t have the deep dark skin that would allow me to remain in the sun for hours without too much ill effect, but I have the light skin that allow me to fair better in the colder areas and seasons. Equal but different.
Many schools in this ‘enlightened’ day are going back to gender separated schools, why? Less distraction and both gender do better in school separated from the opposite gender! Think on it.
As to just anyone being allowed into Lodge, I strongly disagree!
There is a thing called standards, and the first one if the MORAL and ethical standards that would prevent a thief and a murder from entering Lodge and besmirching the entire name and reputation of good men [see recent Jester news]. From the beginning standard who whom we let in we HAD gone further into ensuring the members of a Lodge knew why they were there, that has Changed in my state, in all bodies not just Blue Lodge. I don’t want just anyone joining Lodge, that is one of the reasons I am not a member of a different type of lodge, lower standards. I am not a snob, I don’t care how much money a person has, if they are married, what their religion is [as long as they believe in God], but I also don’t want the local head of the KKKK sitting in Lodge with me [yes they are public enough where I live to be very known], I also don’t want someone in Lodge who has a strong reputation for dirty dealings in the public venue or business venue to sit next to me in Lodge. The motto is Making Good Men Better; not Making Questionable Men, Less Questionable.
On the issue of Prince Hall, I am dismayed to find the separation, and dismayed to find it strongly requested and enforced on BOTH sides. Concessions have been made, a Brother of one may visit another with the visiting Lodge giving permission. To me that is horrible [but the PHL are F&AM and the Blue are AF&AM so there is SOME, small, precedence that goes beyond race], Grand here is trying to change that, but there has been resistance in the PHL Grand, though not from the recent past PHL GM, but from other PHL Grand Members. I further know of Blue Lodges who would remove their charter should PHL and Blue ever unquestioningly accept the other into Lodge [to them my message is ‘bye’, I won’t try to stop them, or change their minds …. but I sure as heck won’t follow them!] But note, I didn’t state: I wish PHL and Blue Lodge would merge …. I don’t want that. PHL holds a long and proud heritage, and to mess with that would be criminal, PHL merging means they would have to lower some of the standards they hold in Lodge …standards I wish we still retained, as Blue Lodge.
Please also note Raum, I have never questioned your affiliation with Mixed/Co or similar non-‘regular’ Freemasonry, and many of the people responding to your comments are doing it in Brotherly means, not treating you as if you were unenlightened, even if they strongly dislike your choice. Your Freedom to choose and stick by that choice hasn’t been encroached upon, but I do see a LARGE response to what appears to be your desire to push your beliefs on others …. zealously. I have rambled enough, just my penny’s worth.
Talmont,
Let me give you a hypothetical. Let’s say you had a set of twins, one boy and one girl. Lets say that you did an outstanding job of raising them and they grew up to be fine young adults. Both have their eyes and minds open and are seekers of light. They both express to you what an influence you have been along with other Masons from your lodge and they both want to join your lodge and continue their growth and share it with you. What would you do? Pat your son on the back and turn your daughter away? Is that right? Why, because she has internal plumbing?
There just simply is no good argument for segregation. The first one I heard was that we come from operative stonemasons and that women weren’t stonemasons. This point has been proven historically untrue. You should read the extensive papers on this very subject authored by Bro.Philip Carter. By the 17th century women actually outnumbered men in all skilled trades in Europe other than blacksmiths. Blacksmiths where the only gender exclusive trade by that time and our symbolism as Speculative/Operative (magickal) Freemasons does not come from smiths.
So much for what would be the strongest argument for segregation. It does not hold up to historical investigation. The rest of the arguments are even weaker.
I’m really sorry if someone prefers to be amongst a certain group as opposed to another. That is not the Crafts issue. I am also sorry for those Masons who have shakey marriages and jelous wives this is also not the Crafts problem. I also would like to say that any Mason who cannot act professionaly and with virtue in the lodgeroom in the presence of the female gender should be thrown out of the west gate on their ear.
Talmont, please, please do not put words in my mouth. I have never, ever stated that “just anyone should be allowed in lodge.” This is a common tactic against me and it really stinks. Do you guys not get the point of inclusion
but stringent? Believe me when I tell you that we have strict membership criteria. Such as all of our prospective candidate MUST have an occult background and that is the sphere of our work. We are not looking for men or women who are simply looking to either recapture or recreate their experience on Greek Row.
Talmont, I get where you are coming from. The concept a gender exclusive lodge is not what I take the most issue with. I take extreme issue if and when any sincere seeker of light is turned away for any reason not under the candidates control. Gender would be one of these. Being born a female is not an accident of birth and we should not treat our daughters, sisters and mothers that way. It’s just wrong.
S&F,
Raum
So, Raum, driving for a long period of time is too much work to require, is that what you are trying to say?
If so, then you are spitting on the effort which I know is made by several women Masons on the east coast of the USA.
They routinely drive from DC to NYC and beyond, just to go to Lodge.
Why?
Because the people they have met in Lodge, with whom they wish to continue to share their esoteric initiatic experience, have their Lodge meeting in the NYC area – these women go to where their Masonry is.
Is it inconvenient?
Yes.
Is Masonry supposed to be convenient?
I do not think so.
Raum, I agree with you that women and men should be able to sit in Lodge together.
You seem to be ignoring that part, so let me say it again:
I agree with you that women and men should be able to sit in Lodge together.
However, I also think that in the United States of America, in a private organization, the members of that organization have every right to exclude whomever they want to exclude, from that group.
Currently, the private organization we are talking about, has rules that say its members cannot visit in mixed Lodges.
I disagree with that rule.
But we are not talking about a public accommodation like a bus, drinking fountain, or a restaurant.
We are talking, in the eyes of the law, about a private club.
You will possibly suggest that I am comparing apples to oranges, but I want to know – when is it acceptable for a private club to make rules for who may be a member, and who may not, and have those rules respected by the law of the land?
Don’t come back with the line about “Freemasonry being about equality” and thus, Masonry is failing its own goals by not admitting women – you’ve beaten that dead horse left right and center.
Come up with an externally verifiable, objectively determine, rational decision, based in current law, that supports telling a private organization what its membership rules should be.
To me that is horrible [but the PHL are F&AM and the Blue are AF&AM so there is SOME, small, precedence that goes beyond race]
No, no, no, no!
I really wish each jurisdiction would give some better Masonic history education.
Blue Lodge is Blue Lodge is Blue Lodge, whether it’s PHA or mainstream.
There are a number of mainstream GL’s which title themselves F&AM.
The old three letter vs four letter thing MAY be valid for the issues between PHA, PHO, Compact, International Mason Inc., etc, but it has NOTHING to do with mainstream GL’s and their foundation/origins.
http://bessel.org/origins.htm
MP,
I was wondering when someone was going to accuse me of being against free will. I am all for free will. If you want to hang out with the boys there are plenty of ways to get that done that have nothing to do with being a member of an initiatic enlightenment society. The fact is that by excluding the female energy you are robbing the ritual of half of it’s spiritual power. Think about that. Is that actually fair to those spiritual alchemists and
esoterics in the lodge?
What would I do if my son wanted to join a male only lodge? In a perfect world there would be no such thing. In a realistic sense I would be disspointed and I would be honest and upfront to him about that. He would not be joining my lodge and that would also be a disspointment. Sometimes our children dissaopoint us as parents, all parents known this. All I can do is blaze the trail I cannot make them follow it.
Now, how about you answering my hypothetical?
S&F,
Raum
I’m really sorry if someone prefers to be amongst a certain group as opposed to another.
There, you admit it – you do NOT care what someone’s personal private choice of association is.
You do NOT care about free will – you care about forcing others to accept what you want.
So much for equality – so much for liberty.
Raum – what will you say when your son tells you he wants to be in a male only Lodge?
MP,
Boy oh boy. Choice is all well and good. Free will is all well and good. But choice and free will don’t always fit into Masonic virtue. Freemasonry is a very specific grab bag of esoterica and arcane arts. The rituals are full of female symbolism. The lodge room is laid out in the way as to channel feminine and masculine energy. The Square and Compass is the symbol from antiquity for joined man and women.
Why are we to ignore these facts? Why are we to cut off a whole side just because we “choose” to be in a single sex setting? Doesn’t this seem a bit like cutting off one’s nose despite their face?
Don’t you understand that the “private organization” argument was the same used against the civil rights movement?
I don’t see why being against people having a choice when that choice goes against the virtue of the Craft is an issue.
If someone advocated for an all WASP lodge would you support that as an issue of free will and choice?
MP, fair is fair. I answered your hypothetical and you should have the courtesy to answer mine.
S&F,
Raum
There’s nothing for me to answer, Raum.
I will allow my children to go where their free will takes them, until their free will encounters rules, in private groups, which prevent them.
I am all for free will.
That is a flat out lie, based on what you have said below:
If you want to hang out with the boys there are plenty of ways to get that done that have nothing to do with being a member of an initiatic enlightenment society.
If someone chooses to be a part of a PRIVATE initiatic enlightenment society, which excludes one gender or the other – you think they should not have that choice.
You think that in a perfect world, there would be no Lodges which choose to have only one gender present.
You are telling us all, that in YOUR perfect world, you DON’T want people to have a choice.
The people I know who are in mixed Lodges, and the ones who are in female only Lodges, do not want to get rid of male only Lodges.
They recognize that doing would rob men of having the choices that members of mixed Lodges have – to associate with whom they choose.
Dear Raum
I think the thing that really troubles me about your position on this whole topic is the utter blindness to others opinions that you display in your posts. This is exceptionally rich seeing as you are not even an actual Freemason.
Yes, yes I know that you profess to be practising ‘real freemasonry’ by following your own particular rite and that your organisation truely embodies the principles of Freemasonry, but I am afraid to say that it simply isn’t. Don’t presume to lecture those who are Freemasons on the way we do things. If you want to make it up as you go along, fair enough, but keep it to yourself.
From a brother to a neophyte
L
MP,
If you where unwilling to get circumcized then you would not be willing to join an Orthodox Jewish temple as circumcizion IS orthodox. Is it relevent to the 21st century? No. it is mutilation based on stupid superstition.
I am not a fan of “orthodox” anything as that means regressive by nature. As a Freemason I have taken the road of the progressive.
I don’t care if you do not agree with the fact that Masonic ritual is full of female symbolism. They ARE. Just as you may not feel that the world is round. It IS. Period.
I am talking about changing something that already exists, that is right. I want to take a progressive science into a progressive state of being. The human state. You are 100% right on this.
Now, I don’t like to comment too much on existing Orders. The Soveriegn Sanctuary has it’s good points but it also siffers from the stranglehold of attempting to build out in the traditional geographical manner. That means if you live in California (arguably the most important state in the whole USA) you are as they say S.O.L. Now that is something that does not present any option for a vast amount of female seekers so it is effectivley off of the table.
Besides, even if a woman where to join a “female friendly” Order how would they be treated as a out of the closet member of the Craft? Would male members of the lodge down the street make them feel at home, accept them as a Brother? Ahhhhh haaaaaa!!!!
By your rational you make no observence of the fact that female Masons and those male Masons who enjoy work with females are treated like total dog crap by those “enilghtened” men of the “malecraft” fraternity by and large. I know of female Masons who are afraid to come out of the closet so to speak beacuse they do not want to loose their jobs, be made fun of at the grocery store or have their children face Hell at school. I’m serious MP, this happens. So don’t tell me that women can just choose a Co-Masonic or Feminine Masonic Order and all will be grand and they will be treated as equals among peers.
That is crap and I think you know it.
S&F,
Raum
Don’t you understand that the “private organization” argument was the same used against the civil rights movement?
Not for public accommodations, it wasn’t.
I did, in fact, answer your question:
I will allow my children to go where their free will takes them, until their free will encounters rules, in private groups, which prevent them.
If you are right, that the rituals are full of female symbolism, (which I am not agreeing with – I think the rituals are filled with whatever symbolism the viewer finds in them – some find Christ in the allegory of Hiram, others do not), that does not mean that to understand them requires women to be present.
There are countless priesthoods (and I’m not talking about Christianity) the world over which practice gender segregation in their various mysteries.
Why are we to cut off a whole side just because we “choose” to be in a single sex setting?
Why are we to cut our nose off to spite our face in order to come to the equality YOU want for everyone, without any liberty for anyone?
If someone advocated for an all WASP lodge would you support that as an issue of free will and choice?
We aren’t talking about the making of a new Lodge, though, are we, in terms of the Lodges/Grand Lodges which choose not to have women.
You are the one talking about changing something which already exists – which would, for a great number of people, men and women both, ruin their experience of Masonry.
And you don’t seem to care about that, so long as you get what you want – a Lodge with no gender separation.
Those Lodges already exist, Raum, and the wonderful world of free will means that everyone is free to join whichever type Lodge they want – all Male, all Female, or Mixed.
In fact, one esoteric obedience in the USA, the Sovereign Sanctuary of AAPRMM, has all three: there are Lodges and Triangles for Men, for Women, and for mixed genders. The single gender Lodges sometimes welcome visitation by the opposite gender, but sometimes they choose to work segregated.
Are they wrong for their choice?
Quit comparing this to the civil rights movement – it’s an insult to those who actually worked on it; this is not about denying people access to basic necessities of life (food, water, transport) nor about creating separate but equal (which isn’t equal) access to those necessities: it’s about the right to belong to whatever organization, freely entered into, that provides no tangible life necessities, one chooses to belong to.
If I want to join an Orthodox Jewish temple, but I am not willing to get circumcized, are they unjustly discriminating against me because of an accident of birth?
Freemasonry is not something to which all people, everywhere, are entitled as a right.
It is a privilege, and there are opportunities for anyone to join, if they are willing to make the effort.
MP,
Have you Bother checked out The Sanctum Sanctorum, Mastermason.com, Freemason Pride, Freemasonryforums.Com, MySpace Cyberlodge #1 to see how the mere idea of a female Freemason is treated? Can you tell me that based upon how those Masons act twards female Freemasons and those male Freemasons who treat feminine Brethren as equals that everything is peachy keen?
Would your daughter be welcome there?
It is a fact MP that Co-Masons in Charelston West Virgina change their place of meeting every two weeks and are under a strict vail of secrecy under threat of real life retribution by their own male “Bretheren.” MP, if you care to believe it or not. It happens.
Is this your system of freedom of choice and free will? Free will is wonderful as is freedom of choice as long as you get to practice it. You know damned well that female and non gender Masons are not welcome under the mainstream even for civil Masonic discourse. Quit trying to make anti-segregationsists as myself as the bad guys when the system that you guys have enforced simply isn’t working at anything except driving the good guys underground.
The Hell with that my friend. It is about damn time someone stood up.
Now, if I where a selfish and self serving man (as I am so often excused) I would back the present system. Everytime a woman is ridiculed for attempting to be a Mason that would be a potential recruit for us. Everytime a man is made to feel a traitor for advocating the human position that would be a potential recruit for us. In fact it is in my/our best interest for me to keep my fingers from the keyboard and my damned mouth shut. Those whould be wise marketing positions.
Now I am a keen marketer. I am also one hell of a recruiter and an organizer. I do also believe that my lodge has a value proposition that is unmatched. So let’s not think for one second that I do not have the best interest of my lodge in mind. As we all should.
The thing is that even more than I love myself, or my lodge; I love the Craft. Segregation hurts the Craft. It is killing it at it’s very core. So, for good or bad for myself and my lodge I will speak out against gender injustice.
That is just as they say “the way it is.”
S&F,
Raum
By your rational you make no observence of the fact that female Masons and those male Masons who enjoy work with females are treated like total dog crap by those “enilghtened” men of the “malecraft” fraternity by and large.
And one of the reasons, though, of course not the only reason, nor even the biggest reason, is because of people like you, Raum, whose only response to not liking how the current system works, is to say we should force your way of doing things on everyone.
You don’t seem to care too much for harmony.
I’m on a number of discussion board with Masons of many different obediences, to include GM’s of mainstream GL’s, and they do not treat any of the women Masons or Co-Masons like dog crap.
If you get what you want – forcing male Lodges to admit women, exactly how will that change the opinions of those who think women aren’t real Masons?
have their children face Hell at school. I’m serious MP, this happens.
Frankly, I don’t believe you, on this one. This sounds like an exaggeration attempting to liken the situation to the civil right movement, again, and I think it’s an insult to the entire civil right movement.
As someone who has actually faced discrimination by a Lodge, as well as having a burning cross placed on my front door step, Raum, I know this:
all the force in the world will not change the opinion of someone who is bigoted; I got a Grand Lodge to censure a sitting WM, and the attitudes in the Lodge NEVER changed – I’m the one to blame, not the religious bigot.
Now that is something that does not present any option for a vast amount of female seekers so it is effectivley off of the table.
And there are NO AFHR Lodges on the west coast, Raum?
Come now, you are being intentionally disingenuous.
Are you ever going to admit that this is nothing like the civil rights movement, which dealt with PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS, not private, voluntary organizations?