# Why Freemasonry Still Matters



## My Freemasonry (Jul 4, 2020)

by Christopher Hodapp The United States has been rocked over the past month with images and stories relating to massive protests, rioting and statue-removing furor set off by the death of George...

For the latest news and information from around the Masonic world, be sure to check the www.freemasonsfordummies.com website.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Continue reading...


----------



## coachn (Jul 5, 2020)

JustJames said:
			
		

> "_'The Freemasons'_ do not take sides in social, political, cultural or religious conflicts"
> 
> Brotherly or unbrotherly, love or hate, truth or untruth?
> 
> Does Freemasonry still matter if it will not distinguish?



Both "The Freemasoncs" and "Freemasonry" are "organizations", not individuals.

But you knew this when you took the statement out of context:

*Individual Freemasons may fight for the causes they support, but 'The Freemasons' do not take sides in social, political, cultural or religious conflicts.*

Your post is truly a dishonest and an unforthright comment IMO.


----------



## Forthright (Jul 5, 2020)

coachn said:


> *'The Freemasons' do not take sides in social, political, cultural or religious conflicts.*



What exactly is a social, political, cultural, or religious conflict and how may we know whether something is one of those things or not?

n.b. "_to take a side_" is *not* the right framing, because it implies some form of two-sided sectarian conflict and the language focuses on the conflict between those sides. A better framing is _to state a position_.   When a person or organization states a position, this does not "affiliate it with a side" (although some may think they're the same thing, they are not).  If you take the position (for example) that Catholics should be permitted to be Freemasons (as I'm sure most of us would) it would be bogus to frame this as "taking a side against the pope" (who of course disagrees).  I hope we would also agree that saying Catholics can be Freemasons would not be seen as "taking a side on a religious issue" - so we need some clear boundaries on how that's interpreted.

It's a serious question though about what is a social, political, cultural, or religious conflict.  Because I would submit that it is wholly appropriate for Freemasonry to state positions on some issues that directly relate to the principles of the fraternity, as for example was done in the recent masonic statements of unity.  Back to the (example) statement about Catholics; this is a religious issue, but it's also an issue of masonic principles.  Do Catholics meet the requirements?  (Yes of course) - and so they may be Freemasons.  That causes conflict with the pope, and most freemasons correctly judge that's the pope's problem, not ours.

Because outside society is becoming increasingly divisive, we have a serious threat we need to address:  just about everything is being drawn into "politics".  If, in the name of promoting harmony, Freemasons go with that - we will find ourselves unable to take positions on our core values, hoping in vain not to be seen as contentious on a political or social issue.

As in the example with Catholics & Freemasonry, it is futile to avoid conflict.  Freemasons can however choose to make sure that when our actions may trigger it, we are grounded in first principles.  That would be the strong footing under the position.

So, reframed:  how do we know if something is political, cultural, or religious - and what do we do if one of those issues touches on masonic principles?  Should the craft be unable to take a position on such an issue?


----------



## coachn (Jul 5, 2020)

Forthright said:


> What exactly is a social, political, cultural, or religious conflict and how may we know whether something is one of those things or not?
> 
> n.b. "_to take a side_" is *not* the right framing, because it implies some form of two-sided sectarian conflict and the language focuses on the conflict between those sides. A better framing is _to state a position_.   When a person or organization states a position, this does not "affiliate it with a side" (although some may think they're the same thing, they are not).  If you take the position (for example) that Catholics should be permitted to be Freemasons (as I'm sure most of us would) it would be bogus to frame this as "taking a side against the pope" (who of course disagrees).  I hope we would also agree that saying Catholics can be Freemasons would not be seen as "taking a side on a religious issue" - so we need some clear boundaries on how that's interpreted.
> 
> ...



_*When you quote me, make sure that you do not misrepresent what I actually said:*_



> > JustJames said:
> > "_'The Freemasons'_ do not take sides in social, political, cultural or religious conflicts"
> >
> > Brotherly or unbrotherly, love or hate, truth or untruth?
> ...



To do so is dishonest, unforthright and unbrotherly.


----------



## Forthright (Jul 5, 2020)

I'm unclear what was taken out of context, and I'd appreciate your view on the question that I posed; it wasn't my intention to misrepresent anyone, but if the discussion is off on a poor footing maybe it stops.


----------



## TheThumbPuppy (Jul 5, 2020)

I hope I won't sound too harsh, but there are a few things that I'd like to point out.



Forthright said:


> "_to take a side_" is [...]



_To take a side_ may well infer what you mention afterwards.
But that is not what coachn said.



coachn said:


> _Individual_ Freemasons may fight for the causes they support, but _'The Freemasons'_ do not take sides in social, political, cultural or religious conflicts.



_To take sides_ is defined as _support one person or cause against another or others in a dispute or contest_ by the Oxford Dictionary. The small difference in definition is_ or others_, which means that there may be more than 2 sides, opinions, etc. And that seems to invalidate what follows in your post, regarding _two-sided sectarian, etc_.


----------



## TheThumbPuppy (Jul 5, 2020)

I'd like to add a codicil to what you said:



coachn said:


> _Individual_ Freemasons may fight for the causes they support, but _'The Freemasons'_ do not take sides in social, political, cultural or religious conflicts.


 
which is, _Individual_ Freemasons may NOT fight for the _political and religious _causes they support whenever they're representing _'The Freemasons'._

At least, that's my understanding for _regular_ Freemasonry.


----------



## Forthright (Jul 5, 2020)

Whether a disagreement is two-sided, or many sided, I don't see the relevance of that facet of the definition of "take a side" to what I said.  The re-framing is about stating a positive position in terms of the institutions principles, as opposed to supporting or rejecting any other group's arguments, whether two or more.


----------



## jermy Bell (Jul 5, 2020)

I think it still matters, but I thunk what should matter more is the men we allow in. I have a young member who was brought in to our lodge that I see as sketchy. He is a so called ex Jehovah Witness And a major conspiracy theory freak, sends me links and video of everything on YouTube about freemasonry. And the Illuminati. But when he goes out he is deck out in masonic rings, necklace, shirt , hat, and will give anyone a petition that asks for one. I have spoke to my line officer's about this, and they really aren't sure how to approach him with his behavior. This week at our 1st stated meeting we will vote on new members, since I can not attend for quite some time, I have notified my SW and JW, to closely vent these people that has this member name attached to it. I enjoy freemasonry, and most of the ritual and floor work, and making new friends, next time you are visiting another lodge and meet new brothers, ask yourself, if I had seen this person on the street would I talk to them ? Is this someone I would openly call my brother ?


----------



## TheThumbPuppy (Jul 5, 2020)

I'm probably completely missing the point that you're trying to make



Forthright said:


> how do we know if something is political, cultural, or religious



We have clear definitions for those concepts. For example, Political = Relating to the government or public affairs of a country, or relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics.



Forthright said:


> what do we do if one of those issues touches on masonic principles?



A principle is a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour. In my view, it doesn't matter if external groups or events appear to overlap with masonic principles, or even apply pressure on us to change our principles. If we did, we would be unprincipled and show that our principles didn't matter to us in the first place. It also doesn't matter if a political group heralds principles that are similar, or different from ours, because a political group operates in a political domain and regular Freemasonry doesn't.



Forthright said:


> Should the craft be unable to take a position on such an issue?



Some irregular freemasonry institution regularly take a position on political and religious issues. For instance, the Grand Orient of France and the Grand Orient of Belgium have allegedly regularly supported leftist parties, denied admission to Catholic candidates, and denied admission to candidates who in their private life had political views that leaned towards centre-right parties. As far as I'm concerned, that is a living proof that as soon as an (irregular) freemasonry institution takes a position on political and religious issues, it becomes an affiliated body to the political party/ies, who is/are the proponent of those policies.

However a brother belonging to a regular jurisdiction has clear guidelines on these matters and he believes that they are just. He pursues whatever political or religious affiliations he wishes in his private life, but he leaves them at the door when he enters the Lodge. Should we change that? I hope not. If we did we would morph into what some irregular jurisdictions have become, and that is not something to strive for, in my opinion.

The answers to your questions seem to me to have been a well known part of our principles for centuries. But as I stated earlier, I'm probably totally missing what you're trying to say.


----------



## Brother JC (Jul 6, 2020)

JamestheJust said:


> Thus 4 lodges broke away precisely to form a new GL that was very clearly not political.


Which grand lodge would that be? Certainly not the Antients as they were formed from lodges never attached to the premier grand lodge.


----------



## Forthright (Jul 6, 2020)

TheThumbPuppy said:


> I'm probably completely missing the point that you're trying to make



The point I was trying to make is about standing up for and speaking loudly about the principles of the institution, and how this is different than taking a political position or supporting one side over another.  

As 2 illustrations of that point, first was the link I provided to the list of joint statements between grand lodges & prince hall grand lodge counterparts. Namely, what I'm advocating for has already been done by 5 GLs at least.  As a second illustration, I'd offer RW Brother RJ Johson's recent article on Freemasonry's Duty to Act.

Both of those resources border on political topics, but stay firmly grounded in masonic principles and do not ask or require freemasonry as an institution to take a political position.   The danger of the current moment though is that if one permits everything to be seen as political, then Freemasons have nothing interesting they can stand for, which is my understanding of what JamesTheJust was originally getting at.


----------



## papof150 (Jul 6, 2020)

jermy Bell said:


> I think it still matters, but I thunk what should matter more is the men we allow in. I have a young member who was brought in to our lodge that I see as sketchy. He is a so called ex Jehovah Witness And a major conspiracy theory freak, sends me links and video of everything on YouTube about freemasonry. And the Illuminati. But when he goes out he is deck out in masonic rings, necklace, shirt , hat, and will give anyone a petition that asks for one. I have spoke to my line officer's about this, and they really aren't sure how to approach him with his behavior. This week at our 1st stated meeting we will vote on new members, since I can not attend for quite some time, I have notified my SW and JW, to closely vent these people that has this member name attached to it. I enjoy freemasonry, and most of the ritual and floor work, and making new friends, next time you are visiting another lodge and meet new brothers, ask yourself, if I had seen this person on the street would I talk to them ? Is this someone I would openly call my brother ?







TheThumbPuppy said:


> I'm probably completely missing the point that you're trying to make
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Sent from my SM-N975U using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------

