# Widows Sons



## Sk3tchNinja

I am in the process of interviewing this riding group of masons to see if we're a good fit for each other prior to petitioning.

I was wondering if anyone here is a part of it and what they feel about it.  

How has the group affected you as a rider?

How has it affected you as a mason?

How much time do you dedicate to your chapter?

If a lot of us are part of it, should a subsection be added for this masonic group too?

I apologize if this topic has already been covered. I couldn't find anything covering the Widows Sons within the forum. Thank you all for your insight!


----------



## Glen Cook

I would recommend you spend a season riding with them as a guest/hanger on to make sure you fit that chaper's culture and you won't be embarrassed by them.


----------



## Sk3tchNinja

Glen Cook said:


> I would recommend you spend a season riding with them as a guest/hanger on to make sure you fit that chaper's culture and you won't be embarrassed by them.



Thank you for your input. As stated in my original post, that's exactly what I am doing. I doubt it will take an entire season of riding to figure out its not meant to be, though.

You worded your statement in an interesting fashion. You used the word "embarrassed", why is that?  Have you any experience riding with them?  Perhaps as a innocent onlooker at a public ride?


----------



## Bro. Allen

I know that this doesn't apply to you, but FYI...the Widow's Sons are banned/clandestine in Texas.  I'm not saying that this is good or bad, and I'm not trying to start anything on your thread.  Like I said, FYI.  There's already a thread or two regarding the situation in Texas.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

In any situation there are two interesting viewpoints to consider.  There is Reality, and there is the Perception of Reality.  I have absolutely no idea what the Reality is concerning the Widows Sons.  I do however know how they are Perceived.  They are perceived by some as lacking respect; lacking respect for women, and lacking respect for authority.  I have no idea if this is actually true.  Whether or not it is actually true is not my concern.  My concern is how am I perceived.  And a part of how I am perceived is based on the behavior of those I associate with.

Rectitude does not mean getting as close to the line of dis-respectable behavior as you can and dropping a plumb line to prove that you have not actually crossed it.  If you have to drop the plumb line, you have already lost.


----------



## Glen Cook

Your original post said you were "interviewing" them, thus the caution to do more. 

They were not allowed to organize in Utah in 2008, as they had a logo with a woman (a widow) posed in what was deemed a lascivious manner, they had a forum section named MILF, they required members to wear their colours to Masonic funerals.  

Another group has the reputation of driving far too fast while wearing colors with Masonic devices on them (there is a reason I do not use emblems!).  They also brought some grief on themselves in a FB post showing a member making a rude gesture while wearing Masonic devices.


----------



## Sk3tchNinja

Very enlightening information; thank you all.  As of right now, they are a recognized group here in NJ. The chapter I am dealing with does a tremendous amount of charity work and fundraisers for many different causes.  Those reasons coupled with their passion for riding were the motivating factors in which I cared to join.

After speaking with the "Captain" of the chapter, he explained how they hold their masonic reputation high, and that they respect all laws, be it on the road or not.  He seemed very concerned for the image his chapter and wishes to maintain the positive view his chapter has earned.

I asked my local lodge brother's for their opinion on the group and they had nothing negative to say.

Please keep your comments coming.  They are appreciated.


----------



## Glen Cook

Note, 1% do charity as well.  

As for the logo, one of the reasons for the Utah declination, see http://www.widowssonsnj.com/, scrolling to the bottom.  I fail to see how that portrays a positive image for the Fraternity to the world.

Note, I ride and am a member of the American Legion Riders.


----------



## Sk3tchNinja

Glen Cook said:


> Note, 1% do charity as well.
> 
> As for the logo, one of the reasons for the Utah declination, see http://www.widowssonsnj.com/, scrolling to the bottom.  I fail to see how that portrays a positive image for the Fraternity to the world.
> 
> Note, I ride and am a member of the American Legion Riders.


Thank you again, Brother Glen.  It is easy to see how the image linked above could be a concern for some.


----------



## jvarnell

Sk3tchNinja said:


> Thank you again, Brother Glen.  It is easy to see how the image linked above could be a concern for some.


 You are lucky you are in NJ where there is no edict against the WS.  I had this conversission with others on this forum but some only look at the 1 to 2% of the WS patches to discurage anyone for riding with them.  I meet  three group of WS in tha past and they are good guy and don't ware the patch these guys on the fourm point too.  The always say join the FMRC.  I have only found one really active chapter in Texas near Houston.  They were abunch of good guys but it is 5 hours away.  Good luck asking these guy about the WS they will never change there mind.  I say go with a MC or RC of Masons that has a active chapter near you like you did when you picked a lodge.  I joined the http://www.freemasonsrc.com/ but no one active in my area.  The WS had a group near me in Texas before the Texas 2007 edict.  I don't think there is any chance of getting the edict removed because they want us to start wareing suits again and not just bussiness casual to stated meeting.  If I sound bitter I maybe.....and going away from this converstion dissatifyed...


----------



## Sk3tchNinja

@jvarnell, I take everything on this and other threads with a grain of salt. Clearly this topic requires a spoonful.  I appreciate your unbiased opinion as well.

The chapter I'm considering is the most active in the state and is conveniently located a few miles away from my blue lodge. 

Thanks for all your input and info, Brother!


----------



## Glen Cook

jvarnell said:


> ....The WS had a group near me in Texas before the Texas 2007 edict.  I don't think there is any chance of getting the edict removed because they want us to start wareing suits again and not just bussiness casual to stated meeting.  If I sound bitter I maybe.....and going away from this converstion dissatifyed...



Don't get the connection: what does wearing a suit to a meeting have to do with approving the Widows Sons?


----------



## Joshua71

Brotherly love, relief and truth. The three principal tenants that apply to all Masons, Widows Sons or not. I'm very proud to be a Mason and associated with my brethren. I've recently joined the WS as well and as it turned out, most of them I already knew. My town has three lodges in it and we all visit each other's lodges regularly. I find it unfortunate that anyone would look at any legitimate Masonic organization with any view of a negative connotation. Once I joined the WS here in town, I recognized many of the brothers from lodge and made friends with a few I had not met yet. Our lodge goes dark for July and August which happens to coincide with the best riding months up here. I think it's fantastic I can get together with my brothers in the WS on organized rides to have fun and in many cases to raise money for worthy causes during these months. I don't know what caused someone to think that there was any embarrassing behaviour by any WS, however if a man or men are true and lawful brothers or brethren and the square is the guide of their Masonic conduct; then becoming a member of the Widows Sons should have no more bearing on how they are viewed and perceived than that of becoming a Mason in the first place. This is all designed to help make good men become better men and I would hope that we all view one another with open hearts, arms and minds. As Masons we owe it to ourselves and our fellow brethren to always put our best foot forward and to always strive to maintain a just and upright manner of conduct. 

Happy to meet, sorry to part, happy to meet again!


----------



## jvarnell

Glen Cook said:


> Don't get the connection: what does wearing a suit to a meeting have to do with approving the Widows Sons?


For some reason the same people that are now pushing for a suit to be proper attire think that leather vests and patches are not becoming to a Mason and use a patch that is used less than one percent in the WS as an excuse to stop them from being approved.  I have 8 suits 2 tuxes and don't ware them unless I really have to.  It is not the external but the internal.  I would rather ware my leather vest with my apron.


----------



## jvarnell

Because of the Texas edict I may be in trouble posting this link that shows how big the WS are.
http://www.wsmag.org/JUNE2014/INDEX.HTM


----------



## NY.Light.II

I am not yet a Mason, so please understanding the following in that light.  The external should be a reflection of the internal. Whether that is personal attire or invoking the name of an laudable organization, the external in both cases, I think, should reflect the internal nobility. By extension, dressing "up" to reflect that integrity, or not using certain derogatory symbols in connection with the name of an honorable society are not, IMHO, strenuous requests. To tie this back in with the above responses, I think the WS MC should be careful in both their conduct and perception.  It is not how many times a symbol is used, it is that the symbol is used at all that seems to be the central issue.  The WSMC should perhaps more cognizant of this, and those who oppose the symbol and/or the group should perhaps be less legalistic.  There is a common ground here.


----------



## Glen Cook

jvarnell said:


> For some reason the same people that are now pushing for a suit to be proper attire think that leather vests and patches are not becoming to a Mason and use a patch that is used less than one percent in the WS as an excuse to stop them from being approved.  I have 8 suits 2 tuxes and don't ware them unless I really have to.  It is not the external but the internal.  I would rather ware my leather vest with my apron.



I push for a suit in Lodge. I also ride with a vest and patch.  So, it would not be the "same people."


----------



## Glen Cook

Joshua71 said:


> ?..I don't know what caused someone to think that there was any embarrassing behaviour by any WS...
> 
> !



As noted previously, the organization maintained a public website with a "MILF" section.  I think it fair to say that reflects adversely on the organization and masonry has a whole.  The emblem then widely used and still used by some chapters was viewed as inappropriate.   That was the reasoning in Utah.  It had  nothing to do with vests or just patches. I note that I ride  and wear patches.


----------



## Joshua71

Thanks for the insight Brother Glen! I've only just recently joined the WS and our chapter does not, nor has ever used the emblem to which you're referring, nor has a "MILF" section lol. I agree that particular emblem you referred to is unbecoming, however what I can comment on is the fact that all the WS that I have met in person are just and upright men. The conduct themselves Masonically in their personal and professional walks of life. The emblem that I see most commonly is the use of the All Seeing Eye which I don't feel should offend anyone really. 

Sorry that you were left with a bad feeling based on what you'd observed brother. I certainly feel that is not the case organization wide though. 

I hope you're able to observe better behaviour from the rest of the WS you may meet in the future and hopefully change the connotations you've been left with. Should we ever meet and cross paths, I would enjoy riding with you as I would all my brethren. 

Safe travels Brother!


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

For those that aren't familiar with this, one of the best overviews of The Widows Sons was recorded and broadcast in July of 2009.  It contains (what I think is) a good over view of what it means to be a biker and a great interview with Brother Ted Hogan, who at the time was the president of the 3-5-7 Brotherhood Chapter of the Widows Sons in Chicago.  Perhaps those interested in this topic will want to give it a listen.
http://xoriente.com/?m=200907


----------



## Brother_Steve

Here is the feeling everyone seems to be dancing around.

Loyalty.

Every lodge has it's individual cliques.

However

Do you feel that a masonic riding club takes the clique environment one step further than it should and pits one mason against another?

Do you feel the bond to the riding organization is greater than that of the bond to the fraternity?

The colors of a jacket do not outweigh the apron or should we all go back to our EA degree and re-read the apron presentation.

If your colors mean that much to you then I think you need to rethink your obligations and involvement in the Craft.

It is unnerving to hear that some within the riding community lose their compass as a Mason and have thoughts of malice towards their Brothers because somehow being in the RC makes them a better man than those who are not.


----------



## Glen Cook

Just a clarification: my denial issued on the basis of the national organization's behavior, not individual members. A review of the national organization's most recent newsletter indicates they continue to use the particular emblem and continue to have organizational difficulties.


----------



## Glen Cook

Brother_Steve said:


> Here is the feeling everyone seems to be dancing around.
> 
> Loyalty.
> 
> Every lodge has it's individual cliques.
> 
> However
> 
> Do you feel that a masonic riding club takes the clique environment one step further than it should and pits one mason against another?
> 
> Do you feel the bond to the riding organization is greater than that of the bond to the fraternity?
> 
> The colors of a jacket do not outweigh the apron or should we all go back to our EA degree and re-read the apron presentation.
> 
> If your colors mean that much to you then I think you need to rethink your obligations and involvement in the Craft.
> 
> It is unnerving to hear that some within the riding community lose their compass as a Mason and have thoughts of malice towards their Brothers because somehow being in the RC makes them a better man than those who are not.



Don't know where that came from. Which posts are you referring to? You are the first person I recollect  to accuse me of dancing around issues.


----------



## Brother_Steve

Glen Cook said:


> Don't know where that came from. Which posts are you referring to? You are the first person I recollect  to accuse me of dancing around issues.


I did not quote you nor anyone else in the thread. I am not accusing you specifically. I chose carefully the way and manner I worded my reply to try to shed some light on the subject by coming at it from another angle as to why Riding Clubs might make some uncomfortable within masonry. Now that I reread my reply it seems a little ... posh... 

My reply comes from the general feeling I get when I read this discussion.

No offense meant, Brother.


----------



## Glen Cook

Brother_Steve said:


> I did not quote you nor anyone else in the thread. I am not accusing you specifically. I chose carefully the way and manner I worded my reply to try to shed some light on the subject by coming at it from another angle as to why Riding Clubs might make some uncomfortable within masonry. Now that I reread my reply it seems a little ... posh...
> 
> My reply comes from the general feeling I get when I read this discussion.
> 
> No offense meant, Brother.



Well, you were accusing someone of dancing around the issue. The comment to me is out of left field, noting you didn't quote anyone to explain where your general feeling came from. 
Which post have you the feeling there was malice?  Which post have you the feeling someone  was uncomfortable with riding clubs?


----------



## jvarnell

Glen Cook said:


> As noted previouMorganhe organization maintained a public website with a "MILF" section.  I think it fair to say that reflects adversely on the organization and masonry has a whole.  The emblem then widely used and still used by some chapters was viewed as inappropriate.   That was the reasoning in Utah.  It had  nothing to do with vests or just patches. I note that I ride  and wear patches.


So you think we all should be tared and feathered by the capton morgin affair even though we were not there?  Or should we be judged as individuals and what we do our selfs.


----------



## Glen Cook

jvarnell said:


> So you think we all should be tared and feathered by the capton morgin affair even though we were not there?  Or should we be judged as individuals and what we do our selfs.


Not the issue. The fraternity as a whole is judged by the public. Some of us have the duty to protect the fraternity's reputation. Many of us take duties seriously.  When we perceive an organization can harm the reputation of the fraternity, we have the duty to act. So far, no one has disputed that a MILF section in a web site is inappropriate.


----------



## jvarnell

Glen Cook said:


> Not the issue. The fraternity as a whole is judged by the public. Some of us have the duty to protect the fraternity's reputation. Many of us take duties seriously.  When we perceive an organization can harm the reputation of the fraternity, we have the duty to act. So far, no one has disputed that a MILF section in a web site is inappropriate.


You are right the MILF section is not right but do think the public uses your judgment or the judgment I have that Freemasonry is for all men of all type.  I have to play dress up and ware close that are appropriate for business everyday so someone can judge me as a good person.  As a Director in a multi billion dollar business I do that it pays the bills.  But I always know who is good or bad because of their actions and knowledge not their suit.  This is why it is the internal and not the external mason are to look at. If I see someone come in for a job wearing blue jeans but they can impress me with wisdom, knowledge and wit I will hire them over a person wearing a suit but doesn't have the spark I look for.  I also tell them they must also play the business dress up game when I know they are like me a blue jean black leather wearing biker at hart like me.  As Freemasons we are not trying to limit people that join to one canadate like for a job, but except all that want light.

So by judging groups because of the content of a web site and saying we don't want you we limit our influence and teaching moments of what is appropriate.


----------



## NY.Light.II

jvarnell said:


> You are right the MILF section is not right but do think the public uses your judgment or the judgment I have that Freemasonry is for all men of all type.  I have to play dress up and ware close that are appropriate for business everyday so someone can judge me as a good person.  As a Director in a multi billion dollar business I do that it pays the bills.  But I always know who is good or bad because of their actions and knowledge not their suit.  This is why it is the internal and not the external mason are to look at. If I see someone come in for a job wearing blue jeans but they can impress me with wisdom, knowledge and wit I will hire them over a person wearing a suit but doesn't have the spark I look for.  I also tell them they must also play the business dress up game when I know they are like me a blue jean black leather wearing biker at hart like me.  As Freemasons we are not trying to limit people that join to one canadate like for a job, but except all that want light.
> 
> So by judging groups because of the content of a web site and saying we don't want you we limit our influence and teaching moments of what is appropriate.


 
I may have misunderstood this post as it was difficult to read (multiple grammatical errors).  

I cannot agree that an individual or group of individuals cannot judge something by its consequences. Actions are the best indicator of inner character and intention.  As you rightly point out, it is the inward that constitutes goodness.  Outward expressions, therefore, should speak to that inner goodness. Whether it is dressing professionally or communicating respectfully, individuals should at least give pause when they notice improper action. When something needs to be condemned, like the MILF grievance, it should be condemned, and I applaud any man who has the strength to publicly address such an issue. There is nothing, IMO, inherently wrong with motorcycle clubs or with the WSMC.  I do think there have been excesses in the group, and it is the duty to of any mason to ensure that a group that uses the Masonic name/symbols act in accordance with the ideals it claims to uphold.


----------



## Glen Cook

No, there is nothing inherently wrong with the organization  

I agree it is the internal and not the external. Yet again, dress is not the issue involved. 

A group is made up of members. The members of the group were not rejected, the are still Masons;  only their desire to use the Masonic emblem to their own ends.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

NY.Light.II said:


> There is nothing, IMO, inherently wrong with motorcycle clubs.





Glen Cook said:


> No, there is nothing inherently wrong with the organization.


For me the best comment on this topic came from Van Halen who said:

"you know I've been to the edge, and I stood and looked down
I lost a lot of friends there baby, I got no time to mess around"

I own a two wheeled motorized conveyance and a set of black leathers.  But I no longer refer to it as a bike, or to myself as a biker, and I do not belong to a MC.  There are three reasons for this.  First, being a "biker", whether we like it or not, is associated with being an outlaw.  While it is true that 99% of riders are not outlaws, the public still clings to the perception that we might be.  Second, Riding a motorcycle gives one a sense of freedom and danger.  I enjoy this feeling, that's why I own a motorcycle.  But, while I enjoy the danger, I do not wish to appear dangerous.  I simply do not wish to appear to be part of a "gang", even a benevolent gang.  Third, well, I have been to the edge, and I have lost friends there.  I have no wish to do so again.  My friends deaths do not represent my "Glory Days", they are the mistakes of my youth. 

If there are Masons who wish to get all "patched up" and ride as a group, well, I understand that.  I am sure they are no different than suburban youths wear lots of bling, sag their pants, speak urban slang, and throw gang signs.  I'm sure 99% of them aren't bad people, they just want to have fun and enjoy a little danger.  I have no problem with that.  But neither do I wish to be associated with it.

I no longer dance on the edge claiming "hey, I look like a bad guy but technically I am not".   Today I stay back from the edge.  I think that is what a role model does.

As I stated in this thread on March 26, 2015: Rectitude does not mean getting as close to the line of dis-respectable behavior as you can and dropping a plumb line to prove that you have not actually crossed it. If you have to drop the plumb line, you have already lost.


----------



## jvarnell

NY.Light.II said:


> I may have misunderstood this post as it was difficult to read (multiple grammatical errors).
> 
> I cannot agree that an individual or group of individuals cannot judge something by its consequences. Actions are the best indicator of inner character and intention.  As you rightly point out, it is the inward that constitutes goodness.  Outward expressions, therefore, should speak to that inner goodness. Whether it is dressing professionally or communicating respectfully, individuals should at least give pause when they notice improper action. When something needs to be condemned, like the MILF grievance, it should be condemned, and I applaud any man who has the strength to publicly address such an issue. There is nothing, IMO, inherently wrong with motorcycle clubs or with the WSMC.  I do think there have been excesses in the group, and it is the duty to of any mason to ensure that a group that uses the Masonic name/symbols act in accordance with the ideals it claims to uphold.


Go read my profile and you will see why I had so many gramitical errors.  Nothing a mason does with his brothers out side of lodge has anything with the duties as a mason. So why should a group of brothers  riding motorcycles have an edict writen about not putting on th patch of the WS.  The FMRC is excepted.  My problem is the way the 2007 edict was writen.


----------



## Glen Cook

jvarnell said:


> Go read my profile and you will see why I had so many gramitical errors.  Nothing a mason does with his brothers out side of lodge has anything with the duties as a mason. So why should a group of brothers  riding motorcycles have an edict writen about not putting on th patch of the WS.  The FMRC is excepted.  My problem is the way the 2007 edict was writen.



I am unaware of any GL which would accept this statement

1.  If one commits crimes outside  of Lodge, it is very much impacting their duties as a mason and may result in expulsion. Your Grand Lodge code ( and every regular grand Lodge of which I am aware )  indicates this.

2.  If you use the Masonic emblem and you note your status as a mason, it is very much involved with your duties as a mason.  Most  Grand Lodge codes have language regarding bringing the fraternity into disrepute.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

jvarnell said:


> Nothing a mason does with his brothers out side of lodge has anything with the duties as a mason.


In this one sentence you have spoken an entire novel about what Freemasonry means to you.


----------



## jvarnell

Glen Cook said:


> I am unaware of any GL which would accept this statement
> 
> 1.  If one commits crimes outside  of Lodge, it is very much impacting their duties as a mason and may result in expulsion. Your Grand Lodge code ( and every regular grand Lodge of which I am aware )  indicates this.
> 
> 2.  If you use the Masonic emblem and you note your status as a mason, it is very much involved with your duties as a mason.  Most  Grand Lodge codes have language regarding bringing the fraternity into disrepute.


I did not say "commit a crime" I said do something wrong which can be legel but not ethical. so your 1. is an odd


----------



## Glen Cook

jvarnell said:


> I did not say "commit a crime" I said do something wrong which can be legel but not ethical. so your 1. is an odd


Your statement is below.  I am unaware of any GL which would accept it. 

_
Go read my profile and you will see why I had so many gramitical errors. Nothing a mason does with his brothers out side of lodge has anything with the duties as a mason. So why should a group of brothers riding motorcycles have an edict writen about not putting on th patch of the WS. The FMRC is excepted. My problem is the way the 2007 edict was writen_.


----------



## Companion Joe

OK, I felt sure someone would bring it up, so I will: 
(I have basically stalked this thread because I am and Mason, and I do ride a Harley)

The events this past weekend in the Texas biker community should be reason enough why Masons shouldn't dress up like hoodlums. Whether you like it or not, public perception _is_ reality. If the public sees a bunch of guys dressed up like wannabe OMC members with a S&C on their cuts, the public lumps Masonry in with the Bandidos and the Cossacks. 

If the public sees a group of guys dressed in suits and ties and holding down positions of prominent community members, Masonry is lumped with the elite of society.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

I hadn't heard about this, but google says:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/20/us/texas-biker-shooting/


----------



## MarkR

Companion Joe said:


> OK, I felt sure someone would bring it up, so I will:
> (I have basically stalked this thread because I am and Mason, and I do ride a Harley)
> 
> The events this past weekend in the Texas biker community should be reason enough why Masons shouldn't dress up like hoodlums. Whether you like it or not, public perception _is_ reality. If the public sees a bunch of guys dressed up like wannabe OMC members with a S&C on their cuts, the public lumps Masonry in with the Bandidos and the Cossacks.
> 
> If the public sees a group of guys dressed in suits and ties and holding down positions of prominent community members, Masonry is lumped with the elite of society.


I've tried to bring this exact thing up in the past, and have been called a "fuddy duddy" and told to "get off your high horse."  I don't think the vests with rocker panel patches convey a good image at all.


----------



## HumbleTXMason

Regarding the incident in Waco this past Sunday: let's see what the investigation finds, but looks like things didn't happen as initially reported by Waco PD. The event was a meeting of the Texas Confederation of Clubs and Independents, not just a gathering of one "gang" that was crashed by another "gang" as described in the press after the incident.


----------



## Companion Joe

For this discussion, the chronology of events and why they happened are not important. What is beyond dispute is what did happen: nine people were killed in a shoutout, and nearly 200 others were arrested; bikers were involved. The general populous doesn't know they difference between an OMC and a RC. If they see a group of guys wearing leather vests with patches on the back and billfolds on chains, everyone gets painted with the same brush. 

To me, this is the image the Craft should have: 






Not this:


----------



## Companion Joe

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against Harleys and leather vests. It's Memorial Day weekend. Tomorrow my wife and I will jump on my Harley and take off. There is a real good chance we will wind up somewhere where folks are weathering leather vests (although I personally won't be). What I won't do is have a S&C on display.


----------



## HumbleTXMason

Bro. Joe

I think the chronology and what has been reported is important, because people are passing judgement based on what they see on the outside and not what's in the inside (i.e. the facts). Don't get too hung up on appearances... I don't have an issue with either of those pictures you posted...

I am not a biker, I don't even have a bike, and I don't dress like the second picture, but assuming those guys have been regularly initiated, those guys are my brothers.

Let's look at this from a different angle. I drive a truck and have the S&C on the tailgate... I get off-road a lot and with all the rain we're getting in SE Texas, my truck is always dirty/muddy... I can't keep it clean! Does this make the Craft look bad? Should I wash my truck every week? Should I sell my truck and get a BMW instead?


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

HumbleTXMason said:


> people are passing judgement based on what they see on the outside and not what's in the inside


Yes, that is exactly what people do.  From a scientific point of study it is called Social Psychology.  People believe what they see, even if what they see is wrong.  Interestingly, social psychology teaches us that _people themselves actually act differently depending on how they are dressed.   _I *do* own a bike and a set of leathers.  I can tell you that _I feel differently when I am wearing leathers and riding my bike than when I am wearing a suit and driving my car_.  The point is that what is on the outside affects what is on the inside.   As Above, So Below.


HumbleTXMason said:


> Let's look at this from a different angle. I drive a truck and have the S&C on the tailgate... I get off-road a lot and with all the rain we're getting in SE Texas, my truck is always dirty/muddy... I can't keep it clean! Does this make the Craft look bad? Should I wash my truck every week? Should I sell my truck and get a BMW instead?


Please tell me we are not comparing a deadly shootout in a public parking lot with 9 dead and 180 arrested to a dirty truck.


----------



## BroBook

jvarnell said:


> For some reason the same people that are now pushing for a suit to be proper attire think that leather vests and patches are not becoming to a Mason and use a patch that is used less than one percent in the WS as an excuse to stop them from being approved.  I have 8 suits 2 tuxes and don't ware them unless I really have to.  It is not the external but the internal.  I would rather ware my leather vest with my apron.


 In Florida, we (PHA) 
All wear black and white to all stated meetings, and when I was on the other side thru did also, since at least 1984.


----------



## HumbleTXMason

@pointwithinacircle2 

I'm just comparing a biker wearing the S&C to my dirty truck...

So, are you saying that wearing a leather vest makes you feel like something you are not? hmmm... the clothes don't make the man. Yes, obviously when you're wearing your leathers you feel like you wanna ride... but that is who you are.


----------



## MarkR

HumbleTXMason said:


> I don't have an issue with either of those pictures you posted...


Really?  You're okay with projecting the second picture as the image of Freemasonry?  If someone wants to look like that on their free time, that's fine with me, but why drag Masonry into it?


----------



## Companion Joe

Before people started freaking out about numbers and membership decline, flinging the doors wide open to anyone who was willing to join, this would never have been a topic of conversation. Those who believe the second photo is an appropriate representation of Masonry would have never gotten a petition or at least never made it past the investigation committee.


----------



## HumbleTXMason

@MarkR 
I (personally) wouldn't project that image, as I said before, I am not a biker, do not own a bike, don't have leather vests, etc. I wear business casual at work, and that is how I dress for lodge. If the occasion dictates, I would wear a coat, suit, or Tux... that's me, others may do according to their means. I would have a problem with the second picture if they had a bottle of booze in their hands (drinking and riding?), and/or were grabbing the lady in a disrespectful manner,or doing something illegal. These guys have not crossed the line for me. Is that fair enough? 

Bro. Joe,
With all due respect, welcome to the 21st Century. Don't know how things are in East Tennessee these days, but here in SE Texas people go to church wearing shorts and t-shirts (yeah, some of the more upbeat churches, and during the summer). And have you been to a high school recently? Well... things have changed a lot since the late 19th Century. Is it right or is it wrong? I don't know, but these are the times we live in.

So, to my knowledge, the requirements to be a mason are:
1. you are an adult male (18-21 depending on jurisdiction) or good character and recommended by other mason(s).
2. you believe in a Supreme Being
3. you petition on your own "free will an accord"

That is what brothers in an investigating committee need to investigate. I've missed the part where been a biker disqualifies you...


----------



## Companion Joe

I have been in a high school recently. I am a teacher and a coach, and I do a pretty good job of teaching our next generation that when you go to job interviews, church, weddings, funerals, etc. that dressing like you are going to the beach or out in the yard to work is not acceptable. Rather than throwing up our hands and saying, "Oh well, that's the times in which we live," maybe we should be saying, "Things have gotten out of hand, and as Masons we should be the ones leading the charge to turn things back in the right direction." Yes, things have changed, but they haven't all changed for the better. Just because societal norms have degraded, we don't have to live with it. If you haven't noticed, things are falling apart. Instead of riding the downward spiral, let Freemasonry be the shining example.

Our Grand Master said this year, "When you wear a ring or put stickers on your car, you are someone's opinion of Masonry." I take that to heart. I make sure my students' opinion of Masonry is that of a clean-cut, well-educated, respectful, contributing member of our community.

The only people I recall ever attending church while wearing shorts are the ones who go up front for the children's sermon. I only recall a couple of times seeing someone come to lodge dressed like they were going to the beach, and both times they were taken out by PMs and shown the error of their ways.


----------



## HumbleTXMason

Bro Joe,

First, I'm not just throwing my hands in the air and giving up... I try hard to lead by example. That's how I've been with my children and my nephews and nieces and their friends (the youth that I can influence). BTW, I agree with most of what you said in your last post... just disagree with your stance on the bikers wearing the S&C.

My stance continues to be that people shouldn't judge a book by it's cover... Yeah, I know that is human nature, but I disagree that you should change who you are just to keep appearances. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## LAMason

It has nothing to do with someone being a biker, it is the display of the S & C in conjunction with an image that evokes association with a life style, and the lifestyle that most people would associate with the second photo is one of an outlaw motorcycle gang.  At the very least it gives the impression that those involved condone or even admire that lifestyle.  “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” Charles Caleb Cotton.  That is not to say that I do not believe that a group of Masons that want to ride together and wear the S & C should not do it, but they can do it without giving the impression that they are an outlaw motorcycle gang.

An example of the association of a symbol and the different impressions it can evoke is the iron cross.  It is a symbol that is used in the Knights Templar, but it is also a symbol used by neo-nazi groups.  If a group of Knights Templars shave their heads and dress like neo-nazis it will give the uninformed public a very different image of Knights Templar than what it really is. 

“To preserve the reputation of the Fraternity unsullied must be your constant care.”
http://www.masonicworld.com/education/files/artnov01/The reputation of the Fraternity.htm


----------



## Companion Joe

I'm not against bikes (because I'm about to go get on mine) or even bikers. I'm not even against Masons riding together in organized groups. I ride with guys from my lodge. Sometimes we even ride to go visit other lodges. If they want to display Masonic emblems, I don't even have a real problem with that. What I would like to see, though, is that instead of trying to copy the OMC look, they go out of their way to _not_ look like outlaws. That, in turn, could use Masonry as a tool to not give all motorcycle enthusiasts a bad rep.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

HumbleTXMason said:


> I disagree that you should change who you are just to keep appearances. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.


Yes, we shall have to agree to disagree.  But please allow me to clarity the point on which we disagree.  I am in agreement with what you said, "I disagree that you should change who you are just to keep appearances".  The point on which we disagree is the degree to which the environment affects persons actual thoughts, beliefs, and actions.  Commonly most of us think we are immune to these influences.  However the science of Social Psychology tells us we are fooling ourselves.  The Milgram Experiment, the Stanford Prison Experiment, and of course the famous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_phone_call_scam all show that we are much more susceptible to outside influences than we think we are.

I believe that the lesson of the Plumb is two-fold.  First, that by adherence to absolute uprightness of character we safeguard ourselves from those outside influences which might tend lead us astray.  Second, that through upright behavior we safeguard ourselves against becoming a negative influence in the lives of others.  How interesting then that the Plumb is associated with the JW, who is also associated with the Pillar of Wisdom.


----------



## Browncoat

Companion Joe said:


> Before people started freaking out about numbers and membership decline, flinging the doors wide open to anyone who was willing to join, this would never have been a topic of conversation. Those who believe the second photo is an appropriate representation of Masonry would have never gotten a petition or at least never made it past the investigation committee.


Maybe you should stop and think that this may be one of the reasons that membership declined in the first place. You're placing far too much importance on appearances. This is a Catch-22 discussion. One of our founding beliefs is basically "it's what's inside that counts", that the clothes don't make the man, and all that jazz. Then there's the other saying, that the outer is a reflection of the inner, and there's certainly some value to that also. But I think you're taking it way too far.

This is the type of imagery they WANT to portray, that much is clear. The name "Widow's Sons" was chosen for its badassery (word of the day), and they specifically chose to look like outlaw bikers for a reason. With chapter names like Euclid's Problem, Rough Ashlars, and Hiram's Riders, they are definitely looking to live up to their bad boy image. This is NO DIFFERENT than any other appendant body. Personally, I think the guys in Commandery look like dorks with those goofy hats. _No offense to my plumed Brethren_.

Yep, there are some bad biker groups out there, no question. Some have taken it to the extreme. However, every real biker knows the history of how and why bike clubs were formed. They know it's all about brotherhood, which is a principal that should sound familiar.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

Isn't the mafia a brotherhood?  My point here is that some people think it is about *brotherhood* and some people think it is about the* kind of brotherhood*.


----------



## Bill Lins

Browncoat said:


> This is the type of imagery they WANT to portray, that much is clear. The name "Widow's Sons" was chosen for its badassery (word of the day), and they specifically chose to look like outlaw bikers for a reason. With chapter names like Euclid's Problem, Rough Ashlars, and Hiram's Riders, they are definitely looking to live up to their bad boy image.



Precisely what Masons should NOT do. Each of us represents the Craft at ALL times and should do so in such a manner as to engender respect, not fear or derision.


----------



## Browncoat

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Precisely what Masons should NOT do. Each of us represents the Craft at ALL times and should do so in such a manner as to engender respect, not fear or derision.


If you fear these men or have preconceived notions about their character based on their appearance, that says more about you than it does them.

_*Meet on the Level:* To a Freemason, means just that — all Freemasons are Brothers who meet on the same level, regardless of their social or economic status outside the lodge. Princes, presidents, and captains of business are no better or more important than bus drivers, plumbers, and paper boys when they sit in the lodge together. Masonry does not detract from a man’s accomplishments, nor does it exalt him above his Brothers because of his position outside the lodge._

This is one of our most basic tenants, Freemason 101 stuff.

Again, the same could be argued the other way. Commandry is an excellent example because of its over-the-top regalia. I find it rather silly that men dressed as peacocks are representative of Freemasonry. The Shriners have weird hats and drive tiny cars in parades. How about those Knights Templar who dress up in full medieval garb? Or the Scottish Rite actors who go all out in full gear? This is a fraternity. It's a bunch of grown men who are playing dress up and role playing. Obviously it's much more than that, but the point remains.


----------



## MarkR

Browncoat said:


> If you fear these men or have preconceived notions about their character based on their appearance, that says more about you than it does them.
> 
> _*Meet on the Level:* To a Freemason, means just that — all Freemasons are Brothers who meet on the same level, regardless of their social or economic status outside the lodge. Princes, presidents, and captains of business are no better or more important than bus drivers, plumbers, and paper boys when they sit in the lodge together. Masonry does not detract from a man’s accomplishments, nor does it exalt him above his Brothers because of his position outside the lodge._
> 
> This is one of our most basic tenants, Freemason 101 stuff.
> 
> Again, the same could be argued the other way. Commandry is an excellent example because of its over-the-top regalia. I find it rather silly that men dressed as peacocks are representative of Freemasonry. The Shriners have weird hats and drive tiny cars in parades. How about those Knights Templar who dress up in full medieval garb? Or the Scottish Rite actors who go all out in full gear? This is a fraternity. It's a bunch of grown men who are playing dress up and role playing. Obviously it's much more than that, but the point remains.


You're missing the point.  It's not about what I think about these men.  I don't know them.  They may well be good men.  I do question their judgment in thinking that the picture above is something to associate with Freemasonry.

What I'm saying is that the GENERAL PUBLIC will view these men, who they don't know and most likely will never know, and the "weekend bad-ass" image will be taken as men who are genuinely threatening.  Then they will see the Square and Compass and associate the threat with the craft.  I just don't think it's an image that Freemasonry should be projecting to the public.  Why can't they just ride together and enjoy their motorcycles without making it an official Masonic function?


----------



## Browncoat

MarkR said:


> You're missing the point.  It's not about what I think about these men.  I don't know them.  They may well be good men.  I do question their judgment in thinking that the picture above is something to associate with Freemasonry.
> 
> What I'm saying is that the GENERAL PUBLIC will view these men, who they don't know and most likely will never know, and the "weekend bad-ass" image will be taken as men who are genuinely threatening.  Then they will see the Square and Compass and associate the threat with the craft.  I just don't think it's an image that Freemasonry should be projecting to the public.  Why can't they just ride together and enjoy their motorcycles without making it an official Masonic function?


I'll keep going back to the other bodies, because the same thing applies: Why can't the guys in Commandery just meet without dressing up as parade marshals? If one of these guys runs into a Stop-n-Go to grab a soda on his way to a meeting, some soccer mom is going to wonder what the heck she just witnessed. Is the circus in town? Is that an image you want associated with Freemasonry...full grown men with big fluffy hats?

This isn't a general public problem. I don't buy that for a single minute. This is an internal problem.


----------



## Companion Joe

Browncoat,
MarkR is 100% correct in his point, and you need to give up the straw man argument about the Commandery; it doesn't hold up.
It isn't about whether these guys are good people or not. It isn't about Masons meeting on the level regardless of station in life. It is about the image they are projecting to the general public. 
As for the Commandery, I have never heard of anyone throwing on their uniform to run to the grocery store or go out to eat. If a member did stop off somewhere on his way to or from a function, he's most likely going to remove his jacket (meaning it's just a guy wearing a white shirt and black tie) and certainly wouldn't wear in his chapeau. On the one in a million chance someone did feel compelled to go out on the town in full uniform, at least in my state, a Commandery uniform has nothing on it the general public would recognize as Masonic. 
Weren't you the one some time back campaigning for EAs to be able to wear Masonic regalia? If so, this is the reason why they don't; most EAs aren't informed enough to speak knowledgeably about the Craft. If not, I apologize.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

Browncoat said:


> some soccer mom is going to wonder what the heck she just witnessed. Is the circus in town? Is that an image you want associated with Freemasonry...full grown men with big fluffy hats?


Well, if you want to compare the Widows Sons situation to other situations I can understand that.  But lets compare it something a little more realistic than a man in a fluffy hat, OK?  Recreational drug users are generally looked down upon by society.  However, in my state, medicinal marijuana is legal.  So lets consider how we would feel about a Brother wearing a shirt with the S&C on it smoking marijuana in a public park.  Now we have a more accurate comparison.  Now we are talking about two activities that both look threatening and possibly illegal to some people, but technically are not.  Are you still ready to defend what appears to be shady behavior because it is technically not illegal?


----------



## Browncoat

Companion Joe said:


> Browncoat,
> MarkR is 100% correct in his point, and you need to give up the straw man argument about the Commandery; it doesn't hold up...
> Weren't you the one some time back campaigning for EAs to be able to wear Masonic regalia?



Just because we disagree doesn't make my point of view strawman. No one EVER changed someone's mind on an internet forum, so I don't expect precedent to be broken here. And for the record, I was arguing that the majority of states do not have actual bylaws restricting EAs or FCs from wearing a Masonic ring. It is a local/Lodge tradition rather than being "against the rules" that some were claiming.



pointwithinacircle2 said:


> Well, if you want to compare the Widows Sons situation to other situations I can understand that.  But lets compare it something a little more realistic than a man in a fluffy hat, OK?  Recreational drug users are generally looked down upon by society.  However, in my state, medicinal marijuana is legal.  So lets consider how we would feel about a Brother wearing a shirt with the S&C on it smoking marijuana in a public park.  Now we have a more accurate comparison.  Now we are talking about two activities that both look threatening and possibly illegal to some people, but technically are not.  Are you still ready to defend what appears to be shady behavior because it is technically not illegal?



I understand the connection you're trying to make, but I think it's too far of a stretch. We're talking about clothing here, and nothing more. If the Widow's Sons were to ride in matching polo shirts and khakis, none of this would be an issue.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

Thank you for understanding my point, even if we disagree on it's applicability.


Browncoat said:


> We're talking about clothing here, and nothing more.


So the Grand Lodge says "If you want to be a recognized Masonic Group you can't do X, Y, and Z.  And the Widows Sons say "We don't care what you say, we are gonna do X,Y, and Z anyway".  This doesn't sound like a clothing is the problem to me.


----------



## Browncoat

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> Thank you for understanding my point, even if we disagree on it's applicability.
> So the Grand Lodge says "If you want to be a recognized Masonic Group you can't do X, Y, and Z.  And the Widows Sons say "We don't care what you say, we are gonna do X,Y, and Z anyway".  This doesn't sound like a clothing is the problem to me.


Because everyone else always says "how high?" when the Grand Lodge says "jump", right? There's never any disagreement, backstabbing, arguing, whining, kicking, biting, or screaming is there?

C'mon now. You'll have to do better than that.


----------



## MarkR

Browncoat said:


> If the Widow's Sons were to ride in matching polo shirts and khakis, none of this would be an issue.


EXACTLY!  You're understanding our objection!  It's looking like an outlaw motorcycle gang while displaying Masonic insignia that's the problem!  The general public sees them, is intimidated by their appearance, connects that intimidation to the Masons.  And they choose, quite deliberately, to look like an outlaw motorcycle gang, and I simply don't see how that is good for the craft.

As for your Commandery argument, I doubt quite seriously that anyone looks at KT's in their Captain Crunch hats and thinks that they're people to be feared.  I recently talked to a brother who attended a meeting to possibly form a local chapter.  Representatives from the State group were there in full Widow's Sons attire.  They were meeting in a side room of a restaurant.  A couple of young kids walked in and sat at a table.  Shortly their parents followed.  When they saw the group of Widow's Sons, their eyes widened, they got their children up from the table, and hustled them out of the room.  Just the reaction we need Masonry to generate in small-town America.


----------



## Browncoat

MarkR said:


> EXACTLY!  You're understanding our objection!  It's looking like an outlaw motorcycle gang while displaying Masonic insignia that's the problem!  The general public sees them, is intimidated by their appearance, connects that intimidation to the Masons.  And they choose, quite deliberately, to look like an outlaw motorcycle gang, and I simply don't see how that is good for the craft.



Isn't it convenient that *now* some are concerned about public perception? Freemasonry has long been associated with secret societies, the Illuminati, New World Order, satan worship, among other things. But that's all okay. We'll just continue to display nifty cryptic bumper stickers like 2B1ASK1 and giggle behind closed doors at how uninformed society is at our little boys club here.

But if some guys throw on a leather jacket and ride motorcycles, hold the phone and stop the presses. Freemasonry suddenly has a public image problem that needs nipped in the bud. We certainly don't want *that* kind of bad imagery associated with the Craft. Satanism, cool. Biker gangs, not cool.


----------



## dalinkou

Browncoat said:


> Isn't it convenient that *now* some are concerned about public perception? Freemasonry has long been associated with secret societies, the Illuminati, New World Order, satan worship, among other things. But that's all okay. We'll just continue to display nifty cryptic bumper stickers like 2B1ASK1 and giggle behind closed doors at how uninformed society is at our little boys club here.
> 
> But if some guys throw on a leather jacket and ride motorcycles, hold the phone and stop the presses. Freemasonry suddenly has a public image problem that needs nipped in the bud. We certainly don't want *that* kind of bad imagery associated with the Craft. Satanism, cool. Biker gangs, not cool.



I have no horse in either race, but you do realize that their is a difference between guys with their tin foil hats wrapped a little too tight (i.e. purveyors of conspiracy theories. Illuminati watchers, etc.) and sighting guys on Harleys with S&C on their backs, right?

I know a lot of Masons who ride and they're great guys.  If I saw a group on the highway, I'd wave when they went past or check on them to see if they needed anything if they were stopped somewhere.  But let's be clear.  You and I know the difference between the Bandidos and Widows Sons, and the general public does not, which I believe is the question.

If you still want to ride with masonic markings on your jacket, go in peace and may God be with you.  If I see you I'll stop and buy you a cup of coffee or bring you water to carry on you ride.  Just don't kid yourself about the perception that the uninitiated will have of you.


----------



## LAMason

I can assure you that I am not a prude or an elitist and you can try to make people think you are an outlaw biker, a pimp daddy, or any other gutter life style you want, just don’t try to drag Freemasonry into that gutter with you.


----------



## Ripcord22A

That second picture is just bad judgement.  No 1% would ever throw up "W" which is the Westside gang hand symbol which is a  blck and hispanic gang symbol....everyone knows almost all 1%ers are white supremisicists....also long as the vest doesn't have a 3 piece arched cut and a 1%er patch on it then you know they aren't


----------



## LAMason

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> long as the vest doesn't have a 3 piece arched cut and a 1%er patch on it then you know they aren't



You may know that, but I can assure you that most of the people (including me) I know are not knowledgeable about outlaw biker apparel protocol and if they see a group of men or pictures of a group of men dressed like the men in these pictures they will consider them as being members of groups that are objectionable.

I have one simple question, what facet of the lifestyle of an outlaw biker gang is worthy of imitation?  And don't say their brotherhood because you already have that with Freemasonry or riding motorcycles because you can do that without looking like an outlaw, many Shriners have been doing that for years.

See:  https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/147691NCJRS.pdf


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> ....everyone knows almost all 1%ers are white supremisicists....


OUCH!  Did you just defend the Widows Sons by saying that they imitate white supremacists, but aren't really?   Gotta tell ya, that argument won't work on me.


----------



## Ripcord22A

No what i was saying is that those guys in that pic are idiots......


----------



## Ripcord22A

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> OUCH!  Did you just defend the Widows Sons by saying that they imitate white supremacists, but aren't really?   Gotta tell ya, that argument won't work on me.


I dont ride, dont have a bike, and probably never will but i will support the widow sons as everysingle one of them that I have met have been amazing human beings....there is a news story here in NM a day after the WACO incident where a Christian Bieker club rode up to KOAT news in Albuquerque and donated a crap load of money to a childrens charity and u guessed it....every single one of them were dressed like one percenters but as soon as they opened their mouth you knew they were differnt...widows sons are no different


----------



## MRichard

Some of the 1% gangs do charity work too, to make themselves look good; but they also deal in prostitution, drugs, human trafficking, etc.


----------



## LAMason

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> everysingle one of them that I have met have been amazing human beings





jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> those guys in that pic are idiots



You just made the point that many have already been making in this thread.  All of those men may be "amazing human beings" also, but you formed a negative opinion about them based on what you see because you do not know them.  So why would you think that people who know nothing about Freemasonry, Widow's Sons, or outlaw biker patch details would not think they were Outlaw Bikers and that since they are wearing the S & C that that they are representative of what Freemasonry stands for?


----------



## pointwithinacircle2




----------



## Ripcord22A

LAMason said:


> You just made the point that many have already been making in this thread.  All of those men may be "amazing human beings" also, but you formed a negative opinion about them based on what you see because you do not know them.  So why would you think that people who know nothing about Freemasonry, Widow's Sons, or outlaw biker patch details would not think they were Outlaw Bikers and that since they are wearing the S & C that that they are representative of what Freemasonry stands for?


I only said they were idiots cause they were flashing the Westside gang symbol like they were tupac and snoop dog


----------



## Ripcord22A

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> View attachment 4609


That's absolutely amazing!


----------



## Glen Cook

hmm. Using my image without permission.


----------



## Bill Lins




----------



## Glen Cook

I'm wearing that shirt right now!


----------



## jvarnell

HumbleTXMason said:


> @pointwithinacircle2
> 
> I'm just comparing a biker wearing the S&C to my dirty truck...
> 
> So, are you saying that wearing a leather vest makes you feel like something you are not? hmmm... the clothes don't make the man. Yes, obviously when you're wearing your leathers you feel like you wanna ride... but that is who you are.


The leather is to protect you from the road.  When I was run over 8/31/13 my vest saved my back and right hand side.  It wore through my blue jeans and under ware but not the vest.  I also asure you wareing what ever you are wareing doesn't make you a mason.


----------



## jvarnell

Companion Joe said:


> Before people started freaking out about numbers and membership decline, flinging the doors wide open to anyone who was willing to join, this would never have been a topic of conversation. Those who believe the second photo is an appropriate representation of Masonry would have never gotten a petition or at least never made it past the investigation committee.


The Widows Son are already Mason's of good standing but just a group that ride.


----------



## jvarnell

Browncoat said:


> If you fear these men or have preconceived notions about their character based on their appearance, that says more about you than it does them.
> 
> _*Meet on the Level:* To a Freemason, means just that — all Freemasons are Brothers who meet on the same level, regardless of their social or economic status outside the lodge. Princes, presidents, and captains of business are no better or more important than bus drivers, plumbers, and paper boys when they sit in the lodge together. Masonry does not detract from a man’s accomplishments, nor does it exalt him above his Brothers because of his position outside the lodge._
> 
> This is one of our most basic tenants, Freemason 101 stuff.
> 
> Again, the same could be argued the other way. Commandry is an excellent example because of its over-the-top regalia. I find it rather silly that men dressed as peacocks are representative of Freemasonry. The Shriners have weird hats and drive tiny cars in parades. How about those Knights Templar who dress up in full medieval garb? Or the Scottish Rite actors who go all out in full gear? This is a fraternity. It's a bunch of grown men who are playing dress up and role playing. Obviously it's much more than that, but the point remains.


Some of us are also called Rolex bikers by the other Bike clubs.  The vests are part of the protective gear the patches are to show who we assoeate with.  Right now I have what is called a single family patch. I would like to ware something more as a group.


----------



## jvarnell

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> Thank you for understanding my point, even if we disagree on it's applicability.
> So the Grand Lodge says "If you want to be a recognized Masonic Group you can't do X, Y, and Z.  And the Widows Sons say "We don't care what you say, we are gonna do X,Y, and Z anyway".  This doesn't sound like a clothing is the problem to me.


No the GLoT just said you can not exist and you can not meet with those from other states that are WS.  That is why I say the problem is the way the edict was written.  If they would have approved one single patch or said there is one patch that is not apropate it would have worked.  the 2007 GLoT was written in such a way that we could not even meet to talk about presenting a deferent image with out being kicked out of masonary.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

I am unfamiliar with the Texas legislation.  However, I did learn yesterday the the GL of Michigan met recently and declared the WS clandestine in that state.  Michigan is one of the two jurisdictions where I maintain membership.  The proceedings of the GL are not yet published.  I will await the official publication before commenting on their decision.


----------



## LAMason

jvarnell said:


> Some of us are also called Rolex bikers by the other Bike clubs.  The vests are part of the protective gear the patches are to show who we assoeate with.  Right now I have what is called a single family patch. I would like to ware something more as a group. View attachment 4611 View attachment 4612


So, you are a member of the Grand Lodge of Texas but belong to the Tennessee Grand Chapter of Widows's Sons?


----------



## MarkR

Grand Lodge of Michigan declares Widows Sons clandestine:
http://www.reddit.com/r/freemasonry/comments/378mt4/michigan_grand_lodge_declares_widows_sons/


----------



## MarkR

LAMason said:


> So, you are a member of the Grand Lodge of Texas but belong to the Tennessee Grand Chapter of Widows's Sons?


I think the first vest is his.  The Tennessee one is just an example of what a Widows Sons vest looks like.  I think.


----------



## Scott Cummings

If Masons, raised on good faith, join a club. And then partake in behavior unbecoming a Mason. Why would the GL ban the club, instead of the individual Mason? I can say that some Shiners drink to much. Some Templars are intolerant of all religions. It's an individual problem of a stunted growth Mason. The Widows Sons are not at fault in general. They only hold some individuals that need help finding direction, as do many Lodges and other associated bodies. It is our job to help a brother when in need. If helping them means having them expelled…..so be it. But to ban an entire club for acts of a few, is wrong. I joined the WS. So far everyone is top notch. If, in the future, my impression changes. Then I'm out…..but I would never ban them for it. I would express my concerns, and if not addressed properly by the club membership……. See ya later.


----------



## Glen Cook

Scott Cummings said:


> If Masons, raised on good faith, join a club. And then partake in behavior unbecoming a Mason. Why would the GL ban the club, instead of the individual Mason? I can say that some Shiners drink to much. Some Templars are intolerant of all religions. It's an individual problem of a stunted growth Mason. The Widows Sons are not at fault in general. They only hold some individuals that need help finding direction, as do many Lodges and other associated bodies. It is our job to help a brother when in need. If helping them means having them expelled…..so be it. But to ban an entire club for acts of a few, is wrong. I joined the WS. So far everyone is top notch. If, in the future, my impression changes. Then I'm out…..but I would never ban them for it. I would express my concerns, and if not addressed properly by the club membership……. See ya later.


Because sometimes, the organization represents values not consonant with Freemasonry.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

MarkR said:


> Grand Lodge of Michigan declares Widows Sons clandestine:
> http://www.reddit.com/r/freemasonry/comments/378mt4/michigan_grand_lodge_declares_widows_sons/


Brother Scott, In the forum thread linked above is a statement from the GL of MI to the Widows Sons group in Michigan.  It outlines the issues that need to be addressed before the situation can be resolved.  It contains *absolutely no reference to the behavior of any individual or of the group as a whole!   *The issues under dispute appear to be procedural and effect the sovereignty of the Grand Lodge.  I realize that many Masons will still complain about following the edict of their Grand Lodge, but I believe there was a ceremony where they agreed to do so.  In short, some men may have to decide if they want to be Masons who are true to their obligation or if they wish to pledge their allegiance elsewhere.


----------



## Browncoat

Glen Cook said:


> Because sometimes, the organization represents values not consonant with Freemasonry.


What specific values do the Widow's Sons represent that are not consonant with Freemasonry?


----------



## Glen Cook

Browncoat said:


> What specific values do the Widow's Sons represent that are not consonant with Freemasonry?


As noted previously, 


They were not allowed to organize in Utah in 2008, as they had (and still have) a logo with a woman (a widow) posed in what was deemed a lascivious manner, they had a forum section named MILF....


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

Browncoat said:


> What specific values do the Widow's Sons represent that are not consonant with Freemasonry?


OK, I'm just going to say it.  Disrespect.  
It has been my observation he Widows Sons are free to organize anywhere that they are willing to respect the authority of the presiding Grand Lodge.


----------



## MRichard

I just don't get it. If you want to be in a motorcycle club, join a club. Plenty of masons are in such clubs and they don't need to display the square & compasses. The charity argument doesn't work for me, you should be doing that for your lodge. Not to mention that the 1% gangs do charity work but they still break the law whenever it pleases them. It just doesn't reflect well on the craft.


----------



## Browncoat

Glen Cook said:


> As noted previously,
> 
> They were not allowed to organize in Utah in 2008, as they had (and still have) a logo with a woman (a widow) posed in what was deemed a lascivious manner, they had a forum section named MILF....


Those are not values. 



pointwithinacircle2 said:


> OK, I'm just going to say it.  Disrespect.
> It has been my observation he Widows Sons are free to organize anywhere that they are willing to respect the authority of the presiding Grand Lodge.


This is better...at least you're paying attention and have a valid reason, unlike most of the posters in this thread.

I would argue that it's more about autonomy than respect. This isn't the first time a group has had problems with the GL. Michigan, for example, is playing hardball with Widow's Sons in that state, wanting them to change their logo and give the GL ownership of it. Shriners have had similar issues in the past. Just about all of the appendant bodies have had power struggles with GL at some point in their history.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

Browncoat said:


> I would argue that it's more about autonomy than respect.


Autonomy: the quality or state of being self governing.  From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autonomy 
Yes Brother, after giving the matter some consideration I believe that your word more accurately describes the situation.  The disagreement comes down to who will govern the behavior of the Widows Sons in each jurisdiction, the presiding Grand Lodge or the Widows Sons International.  These two organizations appear to have conflicting interests and goals.  How would you propose that we decide who has the better claim of authority?


----------



## LAMason

The Widow’s Sons want to trade on the name and reputation of Freemasonry without accepting the constraints that come with that.

Any organization that wants to be considered officially “Masonic” by requiring its members to be Master Masons in good standing and using symbols that are considered distinctly Craft/Symbolic/Blue Lodge Freemasonry  must accept that its recognition as “Masonic” is subject to the Constitution, Bylaws, General Regulations, and Edicts of that Grand Jurisdiction (Rules).

If they do not wish to comply with this all they have to do is remove the symbols and conditions that make them subject to authority of that Grand Jurisdiction.  They can then do whatever they want as long as the individual members do not violate the the (Rules) of that Grand Jurisdiction.

As far as other Appendant/Affilliate/Concordant/Masonic Clubs  having issues relative to autonomy/Grand Lodge authority , The Shrine is the only one that I know of.  There have been instances of conflicts between the Shrine and Grand Lodges in the past.  To my knowledge, except in one instance, these have all been resolved.  I do not know of any other organizations that have had conflicts with Grand Lodges.  If I am wrong please provide some examples with credible sources.


----------



## dfreybur

LAMason said:


> The Shrine is the only one that I know of.  There have been instances of conflicts between the Shrine and Grand Lodges in the past.  To my knowledge, except in one instance, these have all been resolved.



Small versions of that conflict seem to happen in some state or another every couple of years.  All of the past ones have blown over in under a year, except that one.



> I do not know of any other organizations that have had conflicts with Grand Lodges.  If I am wrong please provide some examples with credible sources.



Some of them are not nearly as spectacular.  Jobs Daughters can not operate in Texas for example.  Some conflict about background checks and putting practices about them in place before a deadline.


----------



## rpbrown

I am, well lets just say over 60. Been riding since I was 12. I have a Harley and love to ride. With that said, I am also a Master Mason, Senior Warden and a Scottish Rite Mason.
I do wear a vest, mostly for protection. And it has saved me some road rash at least once. Since I wear a vest, and am a Master Mason, I do have a Square and Compass on the back. Not because I want to look like a OMC but because I am proud to be a Mason and want to show it. I have never heard anything but good about my vest. In fact, others (non-bikers) have ordered them from me as well.


----------



## Bill Lins

dfreybur said:


> Jobs Daughters can not operate in Texas for example.  Some conflict about background checks and putting practices about them in place before a deadline.



That matter wasn't nearly as trivial as you make it sound. Perhaps you should research it more thoroughly.


----------



## Browncoat

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> Autonomy: the quality or state of being self governing.  From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autonomy
> Yes Brother, after giving the matter some consideration I believe that your word more accurately describes the situation.  The disagreement comes down to who will govern the behavior of the Widows Sons in each jurisdiction, the presiding Grand Lodge or the Widows Sons International.  These two organizations appear to have conflicting interests and goals.  How would you propose that we decide who has the better claim of authority?


Apologies for the delay in my response, Brother. For some reason, my browser has been having issues with this site over the last few days. Apparently I need to purge my cache or something. /shrug

I don't have the answer. These things are largely political and pop up often outside of Masonry as well. It's sort of like a copyright/trademark issue with one company suing another over using images incorrectly or illegally. With Michigan, it appears as though the GL wants ownership of logos in exchange for GL approval. Some view it as a bit of damage control, others view it as a power play.

Both sides have valid points.


----------



## Glen Cook

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> OK, I'm just going to say it.  Disrespect.
> It has been my observation he Widows Sons are free to organize anywhere that they are willing to respect the authority of the presiding Grand Lodge.


No.  In Utah, they came to the GM and requested approval of their bylaws in the appropriate manner there was no disrespect shown.  To the contrary.


----------



## Glen Cook

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> Autonomy: the quality or state of being self governing.  From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autonomy
> Yes Brother, after giving the matter some consideration I believe that your word more accurately describes the situation.  The disagreement comes down to who will govern the behavior of the Widows Sons in each jurisdiction, the presiding Grand Lodge or the Widows Sons International.  These two organizations appear to have conflicting interests and goals.  How would you propose that we decide who has the better claim of authority?


With respect, "we" don't decide.  This is an issue for the members of that sovereign GL to decide.


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

Glen Cook said:


> With respect, "we" don't decide.  This is an issue for the members of that sovereign GL to decide.




This is correct. The Gand Lodge within each State jurisdiction has the sole discretion as to what Masonic orders, bodies, or groups operate. There is no higher authority.


----------



## dfreybur

Glen Cook said:


> With respect, "we" don't decide.  This is an issue for the members of that sovereign GL to decide.



Yet I am a PM in two jurisdictions so I have at least a potential vote in both.  I and included in the members of those sovereign GLs.  This is included in what you meant so I include it for expansion.  I have voted for or against acceptance of assorted groups asking for appendent body status, though I don't recall Widow's Sons coming up for vote during any of the years I held a vote.

I rather wish the WS rode in a type of full leathers that I see on what might be called "crotch rocket" cycles rather than the vests and patches style.  Different look than the one percenters and I think that difference to be desirable.


----------



## Companion Joe

I totally agree. Yes, despite what some may think, your choice of clothes makes a statement. 

I think back to the Past Master charge where we are instructed that through virtuous conduct we are to convince mankind of the goodness of Freemasonry.


----------



## Ripcord22A

Nevada has a charge for its PMs?


----------



## Browncoat

Companion Joe said:


> I totally agree. Yes, despite what some may think, your choice of clothes makes a statement.
> 
> I think back to the Past Master charge where we are instructed that through virtuous conduct we are to convince mankind of the goodness of Freemasonry.


And nothing convinces mankind more about virtuous conduct than the clothes you're wearing, right?


----------



## Companion Joe

Browncoat said:


> And nothing convinces mankind more about virtuous conduct than the clothes you're wearing, right?



No, but it is certainly the first impression you make, and if you are dressed like a hoodlum, chances are they will not stick around for you to make a second one.


----------



## Companion Joe

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> Nevada has a charge for its PMs?



I can't speak for Nevada, but I'd feel safe in saying if the Past Master's degree is conferred, then there is a charge.

You don't have to be an actual PM to receive the degree, and not all actual PMs take the degree. It is conferred as part of the York Rite or as part of joining a Past Master's Association.


----------



## Ripcord22A

Arent you from nevada? If not i apologize


----------



## Companion Joe

No, Tennessee.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

..


----------



## Ripcord22A

My bad i thought u were from las vegas...got u confused with another brother on here


----------



## jvarnell

LAMason said:


> So, you are a member of the Grand Lodge of Texas but belong to the Tennessee Grand Chapter of Widows's Sons?


No but I have meet them and others are Bike Rallies.  As am member of the GLoT I am not allowed to even talk to them because of the edict of 2007.  My vest was the one with the Cross Of Lorain on it and I was warring that before I became a MM because it is a Family thing from about 800ad which is before the Templars used it.


----------



## jvarnell

LAMason said:


> The Widow’s Sons want to trade on the name and reputation of Freemasonry without accepting the constraints that come with that.
> 
> Any organization that wants to be considered officially “Masonic” by requiring its members to be Master Masons in good standing and using symbols that are considered distinctly Craft/Symbolic/Blue Lodge Freemasonry  must accept that its recognition as “Masonic” is subject to the Constitution, Bylaws, General Regulations, and Edicts of that Grand Jurisdiction (Rules).
> 
> If they do not wish to comply with this all they have to do is remove the symbols and conditions that make them subject to authority of that Grand Jurisdiction.  They can then do whatever they want as long as the individual members do not violate the the (Rules) of that Grand Jurisdiction.
> 
> As far as other Appendant/Affilliate/Concordant/Masonic Clubs  having issues relative to autonomy/Grand Lodge authority , The Shrine is the only one that I know of.  There have been instances of conflicts between the Shrine and Grand Lodges in the past.  To my knowledge, except in one instance, these have all been resolved.  I do not know of any other organizations that have had conflicts with Grand Lodges.  If I am wrong please provide some examples with credible sources.


No you are wrong you have to be a MM to belong to the WS in the states where they are.


----------



## jvarnell

Glen Cook said:


> Because sometimes, the organization represents values not consonant with Freemasonry.


Which values are those and where are they written so we can judge what you are looking at.  So the William Morgan thing should always tarnish Masonry after all these years?  So because of a un becoming patch that is not used anymore tarnish the WS.  Should the Easternstar(prince hall) MC lady that is in jail in Waco because she was at a TCoC Texas conferderation of clubs meeting tarnish the easternstar? https://amyirenewhite.wordpress.com...he-queen-another-female-biker-victim-of-waco/


----------



## jvarnell

The WS discussion is showing how the freedoms we all take for take for granted in life doesn't works the same in the lodge.  It looks to me that by being a MM in Texas I have given up my right to dress like and ride with friends and other MM of states where it is approved.  Did southern state masonry put out an edict you could not sit in a lodge with union soldiers when the civil war started because they were waring blue and not gray?  It is not the that edict that the GLoT put out in 2007 said Texas Freemasons could not belong to the WS but that it said could not associate with or sit in lodge with them even though the book of regular lodges says we could.  It needs to be rewritten to just say the WS are not an appendant body in Texas.


----------



## LAMason

jvarnell said:


> it said could not associate with or sit in lodge with them



I don't know about that.  I am not a member of a Texas Lodge, but based on the text of this 2011 Edict I do not believe it says that:
January 6, 2011 

To the Masons of Texas: 

Grand Master’s Edict 

I have been advised that some Texas Masons presently belong to an organization operating under the name of “Widows Sons Masonic Motorcycle Riders Association”. At the 2007 Grand Annual Communication this organization was denied recognition as an organization to which Texas Masons could belong. 

Texas Masons are not permitted to belong to, or be identified with, the organization known as “Widows Sons Masonic Motorcycle Riders Association” unless and until such organization is recognized by the Grand Lodge of Texas, and to do so constitutes a Masonic Disciplinary Violation. This Edict is effective immediately. Acts contrary to this edict will result in Masonic Disciplinary action against the violator. 

This edict is issued to enforce the 2007 decision of the Grand Lodge of Texas concerning the “Widows Sons Masonic Motorcycle Riders Association”. 

Sincerely and fraternally,

T. E. “Gene” Carnes
Grand Master of Masons in Texas
http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2011/01/grand-master-of-texas-edict-widows-sons.html


----------



## Glen Cook

jvarnell said:


> The WS discussion is showing how the freedoms we all take for take for granted in life doesn't works the same in the lodge.  ....



Correct.  We give up certain rights when we freely choose to take the Ob


----------



## jvarnell

Glen Cook said:


> Correct.  We give up certain rights when we freely choose to take the Ob


Those rights we give up are enumerated in the Ob.  I don't see any place where we have to agree with a edict but just follow it till it is repealed. If I was a MM of a states that a you can be a WS but now living in Texas and sitting in lodge in a Texas.  Should all lodges from a state that allows the WS no be counted as a regular lodges?


----------



## Glen Cook

jvarnell said:


> Those rights we give up are enumerated in the Ob.  I don't see any place where we have to agree with a edict but just follow it till it is repealed. If I was a MM of a states that a you can be a WS but now living in Texas and sitting in lodge in a Texas.  Should all lodges from a state that allows the WS no be counted as a regular lodges?


Oh, quite right, but agreeing with edicts wasn't the issue. 

I know of no reason GLs which allow Widows [sic] Sons would not be recognized as regular, as they meet the CGMNA standards. Why do you ask?


----------



## jvarnell

Glen Cook said:


> Oh, quite right, but agreeing with edicts wasn't the issue.
> 
> I know of no reason GLs which allow Widows [sic] Sons would not be recognized as regular, as they meet the CGMNA standards. Why do you ask?


Last night at my lodges stated meeting one of my brothers and I was talking about the this and Waco while I was cooking and had a fit about a back patch on a vest that showed up on TV for the peaceful rally June 7th.  It was not a WS patch the guy had a top rocker that said Freemason, a center patch that had the square and compasses and on the bottom rocker the word brotherhood.  My brother said these words "this was decided in 2007 that anyone doing that would be expelled from the masons".  The guy on TV was a rider going to the peaceful protest to show support for the Texas Conferdation of Clubs meeting that happened in Waco and has been happening every two months for over 20 years.  The 2 clubs out of 20 clubs that were in Waco that had a problem are painting all people wareing patches in a bad light.  This is why I ask should that guy ware his pride of the fraternity on his vest? ring?  The people that voted on the WS at the GLoT in 2007 did not see anything but a biker Gang and not brothers that ride.  Also anyone that thinks what happened in Waco was just bad outlaw biker gangs they need to think of ill informed police being overly zealous needs to look at the evedince before judging.


----------



## Ripcord22A

The problem I have with the patch u just described is that is a 3 piece rocker patch...that 1%er territory.  If the rockers had been bars(straight instead of curved) hed be fine.  But if a 1% OMC saw him riding through their turf hed have some problems on his hands


----------



## Companion Joe

No, he should not have been displaying overtly Masonic emblems at that or any other protest; I don't care if it's a protest for clean air and education. If a Mason wants to attend a protest, that is certainly his right. He does not have the right to bring the craft into disrepute. When someone just catches a two-second glimpse of that guy on the news, they don't see him as an individual; they see the word "Freemason" emblazoned across his back while in the middle of a mob.

Again, from the Past Master's charge we are told it is our duty go convince people of the goodness of Freemasonry through "amiable, discreet, and virtuous" behavior.


----------



## jvarnell

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> The problem I have with the patch u just described is that is a 3 piece rocker patch...that 1%er territory.  If the rockers had been bars(straight instead of curved) hed be fine.  But if a 1% OMC saw him riding through their turf hed have some problems on his hands


No he has no problem as long as he has no territory ownership on the bottom rocker.  If you had ever been to the CoC meeting you would know that.


----------



## jvarnell

Companion Joe said:


> No, he should not have been displaying overtly Masonic emblems at that or any other protest; I don't care if it's a protest for clean air and education. If a Mason wants to attend a protest, that is certainly his right. He does not have the right to bring the craft into disrepute. When someone just catches a two-second glimpse of that guy on the news, they don't see him as an individual; they see the word "Freemason" emblazoned across his back while in the middle of a mob.
> 
> Again, from the Past Master's charge we are told it is our duty go convince people of the goodness of Freemasonry through "amiable, discreet, and virtuous" behavior.


So when I was a volunteer at a Bikes and Badges Ride I should have not wore my Lodge shirt even though the lodge was supporting that Mob of a cancer ride.  Also did you see that it was "Bikes and Badges".   Also if you look back in this post you will see my vest I ware for protection has Masonic symbols on it.  I am a Mason when I am doing electric market design and regulatory work so I am also a Mason when I am supporting the constitution by protesting the Waco's police violating the 1st , 2nd, 4th, 5th and 8th amendment of at least 100 of the 170 people arrested.  well also maybe the 13th.


----------



## jvarnell

If you notice this guy is on a current or ex-police bike (pucks on the bags) and in the video he rides like a LEO and stops traffic like a LEO.  He is proud to ware the emblem of a mason like I am.


----------



## Companion Joe

I will give you credit for being able to know what the general public sees when it pops up on the news "Groups Aid Cancer Research" and "Bikers Protest Police" because you know the news media would _neeeeeever_ only tell part of a story.

If I were to ever attend some sort of protest (or when I'm on my Harley), I would certainly not wear anything Masonic. I also wouldn't wear any logos from the high school where I teach and coach. I don't want to give anyone a chance to have a negative impression of those institutions. I am protecting their good names. If someone were to have a negative impression of something _I_ did, then I want that impression to be of me, not Masonry or my school. There is a reason the military tells you that if you are at some questionable event, you'd better not be in uniform.

And for the record, I don't wear Masonic shirts, etc. to work. Most of my students know I am a Mason; most of everyone I work with knows I am a Mason. If they ask me, I am more than happy to discuss it, and more than once I have cleared up misinformation. Because so many people are misinformed and have the wrong impression, I chose not to advertise it by wearing anything with a S&C on it.


----------



## jvarnell

You still don't understand.  Freemasonry is dieing because we don't ware our symbols we hide them so we won't show a bad light on masonry.  But by doing that we can't show a good light either.


----------



## Companion Joe

Or perhaps, Freemasonry is dying because we have opened the doors to so many who do not know the difference between what is portraying the Craft in bad light and what is good light.


----------



## Browncoat

For the record, the Freemasons have been part of some of the biggest protests in history:

Peasant's Revolt (England, 1381)
Boston Tea Party
Declaration of Independence
Just to name a few.


----------



## Companion Joe

But they did not present themselves as representing Freemasonry. I can say with 100 percent certainty that none of the participants in those events did not have a back patch, nor were they broadcast on the 6 o'clock news.


----------



## Browncoat

There has been evidence shown that they did wear coordinating outfits/colors as a show of solidarity. During the Peasant's Revolt of 1381, there were men in several of the villages who wore white hoods with red tassels. Those at the Boston Tea Party were also similarly dressed, by some accounts as Indians or wearing face paint.

The Widow's Sons above are not "presenting themselves as representing Freemasonry." You are the one doing that.

I'm glad that here in Ohio, the Widow's Sons are embraced. They were recently in a parade during Home Day, an all-day event put on each year by the Ohio Masonic Home. I can't for the life of me understand why someone would attach so much importance to the way one group of Masons chooses to dress, while at the same time being a part of the Royal Order of Peacocks, where dressing up in the most absurd fashion is supposedly good for the Craft.


----------



## Glen Cook

Companion Joe said:


> But they did not present themselves as representing Freemasonry. I can say with 100 percent certainty that none of the participants in those events did not have a back patch, nor were they broadcast on the 6 o'clock news.


What about the town crier


----------



## MarkR

Masonic involvement in the Peasant's Revolt in England is the opinion of one man.  While the book Born in Blood is an entertaining read, the evidence to support his suppositions is scanty at best.

While there were surely Masons involved in the Boston Tea Party, there is absolutely no evidence that it was a Masonic activity.  Some of the Sons of Liberty were surely Masons, but it's likely that some were not.  Again, it's a supposition.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence.  There is no evidence that he was a Freemason, and no legitimate Masonic historian that I'm familiar with makes a claim that he was.  Were there Masonic ideals in the Declaration?  Sure.  Because those were popular ideals among enlightenment thinkers.


----------



## Glen Cook

Browncoat said:


> ...
> 
> The Widow's Sons above are not "presenting themselves as representing Freemasonry." You are the one doing that.
> 
> I'm glad that here in Ohio, the Widow's Sons are embraced. They were recently in a parade during Home Day, an all-day event put on each year by the Ohio Masonic Home. I can't for the life of me understand why someone would attach so much importance to the way one group of Masons chooses to dress, while at the same time being a part of the Royal Order of Peacocks, where dressing up in the most absurd fashion is supposedly good for the Craft.



It would be my expectation that a disciplinary panel would find that if you wear the Masonic emblem, you are, to an extent, representing the fraternity. Many GL codes have provisions regarding bringing the fraternity into disrepute. I can easily see participating as a Mason in a protest as a basis for for alleging a violation of that provision. Certainly, I would entertain that argument. 

As to the nature of the dress, please see the prior discussion of the widow patch with her in what I would describe as a lascivious pose. That was one reason the organization was not approved in Utah.


----------



## MarkR

Browncoat said:


> There has been evidence shown that they did wear coordinating outfits/colors as a show of solidarity. During the Peasant's Revolt of 1381, there were men in several of the villages who wore white hoods with red tassels. Those at the Boston Tea Party were also similarly dressed, by some accounts as Indians or wearing face paint.
> 
> The Widow's Sons above are not "presenting themselves as representing Freemasonry." You are the one doing that.
> 
> I'm glad that here in Ohio, the Widow's Sons are embraced. They were recently in a parade during Home Day, an all-day event put on each year by the Ohio Masonic Home. I can't for the life of me understand why someone would attach so much importance to the way one group of Masons chooses to dress, while at the same time being a part of the Royal Order of Peacocks, where dressing up in the most absurd fashion is supposedly good for the Craft.



You must be deliberately ignoring the obvious, because you keep raising these clearly irrelevant comparisons.  Nobody is threatened by the appearance of the Royal Order of Peacocks (I've never heard of them; do they really exist?), just like nobody is threatened by the appearance of Knights Templars in their plumed Captain Crunch hats (I believe you raised that comparison earlier.)  People _are _threatened by the appearance of the Widow's Sons.


----------



## Glen Cook

jvarnell said:


> You still don't understand.  Freemasonry is dieing because we don't ware our symbols we hide them so we won't show a bad light on masonry.  But by doing that we can't show a good light either.


Well, there certainly is a tension there. I do not wear emblems when I do an interview about my client who is an alleged murderer. I will do so for an interview regarding the Scottish Association. The visible emblems, assuming not a face tattoo, can be removed


----------



## Browncoat

MarkR said:


> People _are _threatened by the appearance of the Widow's Sons.


Yes. The ones who have been posting in this thread.


----------



## Glen Cook

Browncoat said:


> Yes. The ones who have been posting in this thread.


Unhelpful, mean spirited, and inaccurate. I'm not threatened. I ride and wear a patch. My issue was with that particular patch and the sponsorship of a vulgar web site.


----------



## jvarnell

Companion Joe said:


> Or perhaps, Freemasonry is dying because we have opened the doors to so many who do not know the difference between what is portraying the Craft in bad light and what is good light.


No what is a bad light...we differ on what that is.


----------



## jvarnell

Glen Cook said:


> As to the nature of the dress, please see the prior discussion of the widow patch with her in what I would describe as a lascivious pose. That was one reason the organization was not approved in Utah.


I do not know of any WS group that still wares that patch so should it be judged because you can not get rid of images on the internet.


----------



## Browncoat

Glen Cook said:


> Unhelpful, mean spirited, and inaccurate. I'm not threatened. I ride and wear a patch. My issue was with that particular patch and the sponsorship of a vulgar web site.


Then it sounds like I'm not referring to you. Let's not put our aprons on too tight.

It's pretty obvious that there are some folks who take issue with the Widow's Sons. That's fine, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, the attempts to justify their stance are bogus. "The masses" aren't scared of and intimidated by the Widow's Sons. You can see scarier looking people at Walmart.

There are far more rider's groups who do more good than bad. Men who ride for charity and visit hospitals to deliver presents to kids @ Christmas and things like that. Sorry, but that old "bad boy" stereotype just doesn't hold water anymore. Yes, the 1%ers still exist, but they're just that. 1%.






There is no official uniform of Freemasonry. These Widow's Sons could very easily belong to any of these other groups and wear a fez or a chapeau on a different day of the week. They're still Master Masons.


----------



## jvarnell

I think if we ware our Masonic "Colors" no mater what we do as a hobby.  And if we are a part of a Masonic bow hunting club where every member of that club had to be a MM of good standing to belong it would not have an edict against it.


----------



## jvarnell

Browncoat said:


> Then it sounds like I'm not referring to you. Let's not put our aprons on too tight.


Here Here


----------



## Glen Cook

jvarnell said:


> I do not know of any WS group that still wares that patch so should it be judged because you can not get rid of images on the internet.


Good.  I was not judging based on old images on the Internet. Note I used the past tense in referring to my action in 2008.


----------



## MarkR

Browncoat said:


> Yes. The ones who have been posting in this thread.


I don't suppose you read the post I made earlier in this thread about parents hustling their kids out of the room when they came in and saw Widow's Sons in their "colors."  But you just go on pretending that looking like a motorcycle gang isn't a deliberate thing to look "badass."


----------



## Glen Cook

jvarnell said:


> I think if we ware our Masonic "Colors" no mater what we do as a hobby.  And if we are a part of a Masonic bow hunting club where every member of that club had to be a MM of good standing to belong it would not have an edict against it.


It would in many jurisdictions if it failed to seek permission to organize as a group with a Masonic prerequisite. It likely would in some jurisdictions if it maintained a "MILF" public page.


----------



## Browncoat

MarkR said:


> I don't suppose you read the post I made earlier in this thread about parents hustling their kids out of the room when they came in and saw Widow's Sons in their "colors."  But you just go on pretending that looking like a motorcycle gang isn't a deliberate thing to look "badass."


Yes, I read your post.

There are also old ladies who clutch their purses when a black kid walks by also. That doesn't mean that attitude is the overriding sentiment of society.

If you have read *my* previous posts, you would've found that I stated that the Widow's Sons clearly chose to dress this way. They absolutely chose the outlaw biker image, just as Commandery chose to look like some sort of flightless bird, just as Shriners chose to wear flower pots on their heads. Your argument still has no legs to stand on. The point is moot.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

Browncoat said:


> .....Widow's Sons clearly chose to dress this way. They absolutely chose the outlaw biker image.....


Warning: The following comment is embarrassingly self revealing and has been hidden for your safety.  It contains things you may not want to think about.  Should you choose to view this comment simply highlight between the asterisks.  The management cannot be held responsible should you attempt to read this comment.     *****I own a bike and a black leather jacket.  I am an aging baby boomer whose youthful vigor and sexual prowess is slowly slipping away.  The respect that I receive in the world is slowly changing from "I wanna be like that Dude" to "I should help the old guy".  It has been a long time since a strange woman looked at me suggestively (and the last time it happened I was riding my bike).  So yeah, I wanna feel like a bad-ass one more time before I die.  But, at the same time, I am mature enough to have learned that I am happiest when I color inside the lines.  In my life,  I sometimes I have to choose whether I want to be right, or want to be happy.  Happy is usually a lot less work.*****


----------



## MarkR

Browncoat said:


> They absolutely chose the outlaw biker image . . . Your argument still has no legs to stand on. The point is moot.


You've _made _my argument.  "Outlaw image" and Freemasonry are not compatible.  You want to run around looking badass?  Fine.  Just leave the square and compass out of it.

This is my last post on this issue.  I promise.  Nobody is changing anybody's opinion.  I've made mine clear.


----------



## Browncoat

MarkR said:


> "Outlaw image" and Freemasonry are not compatible.  You want to run around looking badass?  Fine.  Just leave the square and compass out of it.


A lot of jurisdictions disagree and have healthy Widow's Sons chapters.


----------



## jvarnell

Browncoat said:


> Yes, I read your post.
> 
> There are also old ladies who clutch their purses when a black kid walks by also. That doesn't mean that attitude is the overriding sentiment of society.
> 
> If you have read *my* previous posts, you would've found that I stated that the Widow's Sons clearly chose to dress this way. They absolutely chose the outlaw biker image, just as Commandery chose to look like some sort of flightless bird, just as Shriners chose to wear flower pots on their heads. Your argument still has no legs to stand on. The point is moot.


And some of the lodges chose to ware suits to lodge which could be mistaken as a outlaw banker.....lol


----------



## jvarnell

MarkR said:


> You've _made _my argument.  "Outlaw image" and Freemasonry are not compatible.  You want to run around looking badass?  Fine.  Just leave the square and compass out of it.
> 
> This is my last post on this issue.  I promise.  Nobody is changing anybody's opinion.  I've made mine clear.


If you want to run around looking like you are a part of the Outlaw banker image you should do the same.  I don't see what I ware makes me anything.  it is what is in my hart.  I try not to judge anyone by what they ware because.  Look at what most real millionaire ware, drive,  and so on.  someone could be the millionaire next door, millionaire in your lodge or millionaire working in your office without you knowing it.


----------



## Glen Cook

jvarnell said:


> If you want to run around looking like you are a part of the Outlaw banker image you should do the same.  I don't see what I ware makes me anything.  it is what is in my hart.  I try not to judge anyone by what they ware because.  Look at what most real millionaire ware, drive,  and so on.  someone could be the millionaire next door, millionaire in your lodge or millionaire working in your office without you knowing it.


Except that a vest at $80, not counting patches, is as much as a sport jacket.  
Sometimes, what you wear expresses what is in your heart.


----------



## jvarnell

Glen Cook said:


> Except that a vest at $80, not counting patches, is as much as a sport jacket.
> Sometimes, what you wear expresses what is in your heart.


The vest is protection for your skin.  If I had not been wearing my vest when I was hit on the freeway my back would have been raw meat.  I only paid $35 for it but it did its job.  You did not get what I said about the outlaw bankers I guess.  They are also called 1%er by some people (wallstreet protesters).  I know they are not  bad also because I am one of them too.  Do we as masons not ware suits because the wallstreet protester my associate mason as with people they think are bad?


----------



## Glen Cook

jvarnell said:


> The vest is protection for your skin.  If I had not been wearing my vest when I was hit on the freeway my back would have been raw meat.  I only paid $35 for it but it did its job.  You did not get what I said about the outlaw bankers I guess.  They are also called 1%er by some people (wallstreet protesters).  I know they are not  bad also because I am one of them too.  Do we as masons not ware suits because the wallstreet protester my associate mason as with people they think are bad?


I'm aware what a vest is for. I've not ridden for about 15 minutes. I have two bikes. I did about 250 miles between rides on Monday and Tuesday. I wore mesh armor instead of vest. 

The point I was responding to was your point regarding clothing and wealth, not why one wears a vest. 

I actually hit a like on your first post about outlaw bankers. I may use it. 

 The mistake in your logic is that suits are not synonymous with evil bankers. Clergymen, undertakers and lawyers are known to wear suits too. Motorcycle vests, though you are unable to admit it, conjure an unsavory mage not brought to mind by a suit.


----------



## Browncoat

Glen Cook said:


> Motorcycle vests, though you are unable to admit it, conjure an unsavory mage not brought to mind by a suit.



Yeah. Those darn evil outlaw bikers. Everyone® is so scared of them.


----------



## Glen Cook

jvarnell said:


> ...So because of a un becoming patch that is not used anymore tarnish the /



As to whether the patch is still used, see https://www.facebook.com/pages/Widows-Sons-Masonic-Riders-Association/228553513855819


----------



## Browncoat

Glen Cook said:


> As to whether the patch is still used, see https://www.facebook.com/pages/Widows-Sons-Masonic-Riders-Association/228553513855819


Are we really going to go this route? How many Freemasonry websites are using old logos or are completely outdated?

Breaking the internet in 3, 2, 1...


----------



## Glen Cook

I show the FB photo was updated 11 Dec 2014. 

The discussion has helped clarity my decision making and I shall bow out.


----------

