# A Masonic "Bill of Rights". Is it needed? Is it possible?



## cemab4y (Jan 21, 2011)

There have been some sad developments over the past years, where individual Masons have been treated unfairly, and unmasonically, by persons in positions of Masonic Authority. 

I am firmly convinced, that most of our Grand Line officers, and individual lodge officers, are men of integrity. Nevertheless, there are always men who act improperly. It would be naive and foolish, to believe otherwise.

Should there be a "Bill of Rights", to protect individual Masons, from being trampled by Masonic authorities, who act improperly? How could such a document be crafted? And how enforced? 

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"- Lord Acton


----------



## Txmason (Jan 21, 2011)

That sounds interesting. What would the Bill of Rights contain? Would the aim be to better serve masons when it comes to Masonic law or perhaps help younger masons with Masonic manners when visiting lodges?  Or simply putforth standards to protect masons?

Jerry


----------



## coachn (Jan 21, 2011)

What!?!?!  No poll!?!?!


----------



## Bill Lins (Jan 21, 2011)

Most, if not all, of what one would think should be included in a "Masonic Bill of Rights" is already codified in Title V of our GL Law, such as the right to due process, the right to counsel, and so forth.


----------



## Benton (Jan 22, 2011)

Of course, not all Grand Lodges may have the same in their GL Law.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Jan 22, 2011)

Is it too much to expect, from men of the caliber that we like to think Masons are, that such of a document (Masonic Bill of Rights) would be unnecessary? Not that I am advocating anarchy. Far from it. The notion that an organization such as ours does not need structure and guidelines of some kind is folly, but something akin to a "Bill of Rights"..., I don't know. Would not, _should _not, a collection of such basic principles be superfluous?


----------



## cemab4y (Jan 22, 2011)

James Madison (4th President, not a Freemason) said "If all men were angels, there would be no need for government". Over the past several years, there have been some incidents, where individual Masons have been treated unfairly, and unmasonically, by various Grand Lodge officers. The recent situation in West Virginia, where a Past Grand Master was expelled from the fraternity, in total violation of all Masonic procedures, is one sad example. The Grand Lodge of WV spent $400,000 in legal fees, on the case. 

A Mason in Florida, is under a "gag order", he cannot publish anything Masonically-related in the state of Florida, but he can publish Masonic articles out of state.

There are many cases of individual Masons, being trampled on, by persons in positions of power. The sad fact, is that not all men in positions of Masonic authority, are angels. I am convinced that the wide majority of our officers and Grand Officers, are men of integrity, who donate many man-hours to our Craft ,and serve the Masonic fraternity, selflessly .

But, there is always room for improvement. Maybe setting down some basic rights, in Masonic law, and encouraging all Grand Lodges to respect the rights of individual Masons is an idea whose time has come.

Let's have a serious discussion.


----------



## jwhoff (Jan 22, 2011)

Just a small comment before the discussion begins.

Sure wish there were some way folks would pay attention to the vows they take after each degree.  That alone would clear things up for the thinking man.  Unfortunate, but Brother cemba4y has a valid point, we are plagued by those few men who don't have their hearts in the right place.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Jan 23, 2011)

jwhoff said:


> Just a small comment before the discussion begins.
> 
> Sure wish there were some way folks would pay attention to the vows they take after each degree.  *That alone would clear things up for the thinking man*.



That is exactly my point, about which I am _quite _serious. If the need exists for a Masonic bill of rights; a document defining fundamental principles of justice, of right and wrong, then we are already lost.

To be sure, there are many, many examples of injustice done by one Mason, or group of Masons, to another. And Bill is quite right that _most _of those protections probably exist in any given GL's constitutions and laws. That does not seem to have helped in the case of the GL of West Virginia's disgraceful treatment of one of their Past Grand Masters, or the many Masons for whom that individual sought simple justice. 

That any collection of Masonic law should want for additional words like "..._make any negative reference or take any negative action in regard to a  petitioner's or member's faith, creed or race at any time_...", speaks to me of a frightening degree of confusion in the temple. Maybe resolutions like that are a necessary part of "the way back" from the dark place that Freemasonry has found itself. Oh yes, _dark_. When I hear with my own ears one Mason refer contemptuosly to another member of his Lodge, (one who doesn't practice the "proper" religion, apparently) as a "devil worshiper", when I see Grand Lodge resolutions introduced that are clear and unabashed attempts to advance the status of one religion in Lodge, at the expense of others, when I see Masons on this very forum attempt to advance the line of reason that his Brother Masons should be excluded from Lodge for observing the strictures of their faith, or that their _own _religious strictures can be rightly applied to all others, then yes, I am forced to admit that a tool of law is in order. Certainly, we should not be above wielding any of our tools as the work dictates, but that we've allowed ourselves to become so distracted, so confused, that simply doing the right thing for our own Brothers has become such a challenge that the tools with which we should be _most _proficient are inadequate is a very sorry state of affairs.

But a discussion about confusion and darkness is one for another thread. So what "rights", which are not already codified, must we put down in writing so that those in need might be guided by them?


----------



## Bro. Brad Marrs (Jan 23, 2011)

Cemab4y asks a good question. I don't think we need a Bill of Rights though. We are all on the level. The Laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas contain the Charges of a Freemason. While simple, they clearly instruct us how to act towards Masons and non-Masons, inside and outside of Lodge. Our esoteric obligations fill in the rest.

There is a clear path to escalation for wrong doing. We are instructed to bring it forward within our own Lodges, then appeal to Grand quarterly communications, and then finally, bring it before Grand annual communication. (page 63).

We should always use our trowel in this regard. Thanks for the thought provoking post.


----------



## jwhoff (Jan 23, 2011)

The very big question is, what are we willing to do about it?  What are we going to start doing to prevent it?  Where do we take the stand?  As we all agree, these are trying times.  I'm not so sure it can all be solved with time. 

Could be a way to get it out of the back room and on the front burner is to consider a bill of rights.  

This is a good topic and I thank the good brother for breaching the subject.  We don't appear to be guarding our inter-door as well as we should.

More please.


----------



## cemab4y (Jan 25, 2011)

Brother Tim Bryce has graciously consented to let me post his proposal. See :

Masonic Traveler: A Masonic Bill of Rights

www.masonictraveler.blogspot.com/2008/07/masonic-bill-of-rights.html


----------



## cemab4y (Jan 25, 2011)

Here is a case, of a Mason, having his rights trampled by a Grand Lodge (NJ):

www.freemasoninformation.com/2010/09/mike-mccabe-versus-the-grand-lodge-of-new-jersey-part-2

Read this story, and pay particular attention to this fact:

quote:

The Grand Lodge’s attorney responded that the members of a Masonic Lodge “Are not entitled to be treated fundamentally fair”.

end quote.

If you think that there is no need for a Masonic Bill of Rights, you should take a look at what is happening in New Jersey, and what happened to PGM Frank Haas, in West Virginia


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Jan 25, 2011)

I urge caution and temperance, Brother. The story of what's going on in New Jersey seems outrageous, and it may well be accurate as told, but we do not know all the facts. Furthermore, some of the personalities involved in the telling of the tale have "history" with each other. I can not say the same about WB Mike McCabe, so his words I judge a little less harshly. Nevertheless, we are hearing only one side of the story, a fact which tends to weigh against the GL of NJ, but still a fact.

Sadly, very sadly, I observe that no "bill of rights" would have prevented what is happening in New Jersey if the tale, as told, is at all accurate. Some of the players allegedly involved acted without honor and have flagrantly violated their obligation. If they were not bound by that, what earthly power would a "bill of rights" have had over them? 

At the risk of steering us into the weeds, I'll point out that the idea that a Grand Lodge "owns" all the property belonging to the member Lodge's in it's jurisdiction is not a new one. It is something that we are likely to see more of as our membership and revenues continue to dwindle. Some jurisdictions have sorted this out in their Constitutions and Laws, others not so much. 
Hmmm.... A "who owns your Lodge's real estate, really?" might make for an interesting survey/thread by itself...


----------



## cemab4y (Jan 27, 2011)

Read this article:

A Case For Decentralizing American Mainstream Tribal Freemasonry | FmI - Masonic Traveler


----------



## cemab4y (Jan 28, 2011)

I just want to say, that I am not "picking on", any one individual nor any Grand Lodge. I am firmly convinced, that the wide majority of men, who are in positions of Masonic leadership, are men of integrity. I believe that all Masons should take their obligations seriously, and most especially, when a man is honored by serving as a Grand Lodge officer.

But Masons are human, not saints. There have been cases of Masons being treated unfairly and unmasonically, by individuals who in positions of power. This is a reality. Pretending that such cases do not exist, is naive, and not in the best interests of our Fraternity.

I am not a Texas Mason, and as such, I am in no position to criticize anyone. I wish you well. I am delighted that Texas is getting a Masonic vehicle license plate. Maybe this development, will spur other states, to getting their DMV to issue the Masonic plates, as well. 

The recent situation in West Virginia is a stain on all Masonry. We all know that each Grand Lodge is an independent body. Grand Lodge authority stops at the state line. But the public just sees "Freemasonry". So we all suffer, when an incident like this occurs.

I cherish this craft. That is why we must all be on guard, and hold our leaders to a high standard, and demand that the regulations of our Grand Lodges are followed. Will it help, to establish a "Bill of Rights"? I don't know. I did not come up with the idea. Tim Bryce posted it some time ago.


----------



## cemab4y (Jan 29, 2011)

The Grand Master of Masons in Arkansas, has forbidden any Arkansas Mason, from purchasing the official state Freemason vehicle license plate. Here is the plate:

CLICK HERE ->       AR Arkansas dmv department of motor vehicles

Reason: The plate was designed by the MW Prince Hall Grand Lodge, and a portion of the sales proceeds, is rebated to the Prince Hall Masonic scholarship fund. Unless you belong to a Prince Hall Masonic Lodge, you cannot get this plate from the Arkansas Department of Motor Vehicles.

I am not an Arkansas Mason. But I find this action to be a disgrace. The plate does not say "Prince Hall", and who cares if some funds are rebated to a scholarship program for deserving youth? 

This is exactly the kind of arbritrary decision, that a "Bill of Rights" could prevent.


----------



## cemab4y (Jan 30, 2011)

Here is some more information, about the situation with the Masonic license plates in Arkansas:

CLICK HERE -->  Collateral Damage – The Aftermath of the Arkansas License Plate Scandal | FmI - Masonic Traveler


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Jan 31, 2011)

It would appear that existing laws of the GL of Arkansas have been violated by it's Grand Master. More laws won't change that. Removing recognition might.


----------



## cemab4y (Jan 31, 2011)

Alexander Hamilton wrote this about Government. I think it applies equally well to Freemasonry, and especially to Grand Lodges. 

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."--Alexander Hamilton on human nature and government.


----------



## Beathard (Feb 1, 2011)

There is a Masonic law book in Texas. There are procedures that can be used to fix problems. If a GM goes crazy, vote some leadership into office to fix the issue. We don't need more rules. There are plenty already...


----------



## cemab4y (Feb 2, 2011)

Please do not think, that anyone here is "picking on" Texas, or any other jurisdiction. If everything is fine ,in the Lone Star State, then you do not need a bill of rights. Sadly, there have been some events in other states, where the Grand Master, has not been acting, properly, according to the existing constitution and by-laws of his state. Some people feel, that an additional "leash" may be required, in some cases. Stay tuned.


----------



## jwhoff (Feb 2, 2011)

I'd like to see the Grand Lodge of England consider pulling recognition from a few of the jurisdictions in question.  That would, or should, tone down some of the abuses.


----------



## cemab4y (Feb 3, 2011)

I would love to see a "Task Force" be assembled, sponsored by some organization, outside of Craft Masonry. Representatives from all Grand Lodges, nationwide, could be assembled.  Various topics could be investigated, such as what would go into a "Bill of Rights". Then a report could be issued, and the various Grand Lodges could consider the proposals, and if possible, implement them.


----------



## cemab4y (Feb 4, 2011)

I just want to say, that I am not some kind of "judge" or "law-giver". I have no special ability to decide what is right for every Grand Lodge in the USA. I believe that we are all "on the level", and our obligations should guide us accordingly. If masons are satisfied with how the Grand Lodge is run in their state of residence, then that is terrific! I wish all Masons were thrilled with how their Grand Lodges operate. I wish that all Grand Lodge officers were men of integrity, and were selfless and above reproach. I pray for this every day. 

But sadly, there are cases, of Masons being treated unfairly and unMasonically, by persons in positions of authority. It may be time, for Masons (in some states), to demand more accountability, and to have a greater transparency, and to hold their Grand Lodge officers to a higher standard. 

Will a "Bill of Rights" accomplish this? I don't know. If I could predict the future, I would quit being an engineer, and open up a 1-900 psychic hot line.


----------



## bgs942 (Feb 4, 2011)

To plagiarize; "Holding a position of Leadership does not a Leader make". The Leadership of any governing body sometimes forgets, or is not willing, or lacks the competence to understand that no organization can rise above the *constraints* of its Leader/Leadership.


----------



## cemab4y (Feb 4, 2011)

Bro BGS, I wish that every Masonic officer, at the lodge and Grand Lodge officer, would take that to heart! Anyone in a position of Masonic leadership, needs to realize, that the power temporarily held by the man, is given only at the consent of the governed. And Masonic leaders, are really SERVANTS of the membership. 

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"- Lord Acton


----------



## bgs942 (Feb 4, 2011)

Yes, Leadership is not about the Leader..........Its about who the leader serves.


----------



## cemab4y (Jan 3, 2014)

*Re: A Masonic "Bill of Rights". Is it needed? Is i*

bump.

I am fascinated with your opinions. Do you think Grand Lodges should adopt a bill of rights?


----------



## Plustax (Jan 3, 2014)

*Re: A Masonic "Bill of Rights". Is it needed? Is i*

Wow... Arkansas continues to have Grand Lodge leadership problems. When will that infrastfucture be taken down and rebuilt again? How much longer will this embaressment continue? Sad times for Arkansas masons....


----------



## cemab4y (Jan 3, 2014)

*Re: A Masonic "Bill of Rights". Is it needed? Is i*

The situation in Arkansas is indeed an embarrassment. If some USA Grand Lodges would withdraw fraternal relations, and the Mother Grand Lodge in England would withdraw, maybe some changes would occur.


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 3, 2014)

*Re: A Masonic "Bill of Rights". Is it needed? Is i*



cemab4y said:


> The situation in Arkansas is indeed an embarrassment. If some USA Grand Lodges would withdraw fraternal relations, and the Mother Grand Lodge in England would withdraw, maybe some changes would occur.



Last year the GM of Florida went nuts issuing an edict of religious bigotry.  Indiana at least voted to pull recognition if it was ratified.  I had legislation documents circulating in both California and Illinois to put that on the agenda at GL to do the same.  Florida at their annual communication voted down the edict.  Threatening to pull recognition works when it's about our basic principles.

On the other hand France had a feud among the grand line officers that was worse than the events in Arkansas (and West Virginia a few years before).  The Conference of Grand Masters recommended pulling recognition.  I was at Illinois GL when our GM recommended giving them another year before pulling recognition and we voted per his recommendation.  The delegates at GL tend to be generous when faced with a vote to pull recognition over what can be viewed as personal pique.

Should pulling recognition come up for a vote in either of the jurisdictions I could potentially vote, I think I would vote to pull.  Having seen such a vote in the past I understand that my vote may well be in the minority.

Another recognition issue - I wonder if it's time for various GLs to start offering recognition to PHA GLs in some of the states that still don't recognize?  I have no idea if external pressure would help.  I remember at least one state pulling recognition in retaliation when recognition first happened but that didn't last and they have long since relented.


----------



## JJones (Jan 3, 2014)

*Re: A Masonic "Bill of Rights". Is it needed? Is i*



Plustax said:


> Wow... Arkansas continues to have Grand Lodge leadership problems. When will that infrastfucture be taken down and rebuilt again? How much longer will this embaressment continue? Sad times for Arkansas masons....



What shenanigans are going on in Arkansas now?

Anyhow, to address the topic...are we speaking about a BoR for each GL or a 'blanket BoR' that applies to many GLs?  I don't see many GLs all agreeing on the content for a 'blanket BoR' while BoRs unique to each GL will likely end up being shaped by the mentality of the Grand Officers...which might defeat the purpose as well.

What's really going through my mind right now is what those in favor of a BoR would include in it?  I'll admit that I'm on the fence about the matter but maybe if myself and others could have a peek at it's contents it'd help us reach better conclusions.


----------



## Bro Darren (Jan 3, 2014)

*Re: A Masonic "Bill of Rights". Is it needed? Is i*

I guess the biggest concern for the "troubled" states is that the GL would be the one writing up these BoR's and it could work against the general masonic community and the Fraternity in general. Its a sad display when those in power go against the core values of masonry and act against their own obligations that they took through their degrees. If the GL openly displays a total disregard for the core principles of the craft, maybe the unrecognition of that GL is a possible corse of action from the UGLE.

As a new Mason, i hold the fundamental EA obligations to heart and it saddens me to hear that there are GL's that go against these core fundamentals that set Freemasons apart. We are suppose to be Men of good standing, on the level and of strong moral values were all Brothers are equal regardless of Race, Creed or Faith and should be treated as such.

But back to the BoR's - Maybe something drafted by the UGLE is the best place to start as this should be totally unbiased and GL offices in "troubled states" can not influence them. We maybe Freemasons, but we are human and as much as we would love to have honest men on the level, this will not always be the case.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Jan 3, 2014)

*Re: A Masonic "Bill of Rights". Is it needed? Is i*



Bro Darren said:


> But back to the BoR's - Maybe something drafted by the UGLE is the best place to start as this should be totally unbiased and GL offices in "troubled states" can not influence them. We maybe Freemasons, but we are human and as much as we would love to have honest men on the level, this will not always be the case.



I would very much like to believe that we could come up with such a document, but it is the human failings that would torpedo any such effort right from the start. Fear, ignorance, and personal biases would throw a giant wrench into things early on. Hell, we can't even agree on "The Landmarks", much less on what they actually mean, so to think that we could all agree on something that would effectively supplant at least some of those "carved in stone" rules (not to mention adding new ones) seems like a pipe dream.


----------



## cemab4y (Jan 4, 2014)

*Re: A Masonic "Bill of Rights". Is it needed? Is i*

Drafting a "model" bill of rights, would not be a difficult task. Just go back about 5-10 years, and examine all of the abuses and usurpations which grand Lodges and Grand Masters have perpetrated. 

Getting such a bill of rights adopted, would be another matter. Only if masons who are convinced that a problem exist would ever want to work towards a solution. (If it ain't broke, don't fix it mentality). 

The only way a Bill of Rights would ever get adopted, is to draft a "model" bill of rights, and then submit it to every Grand Lodge. Then the membership of the various grand lodges, could "tweak" the model to their own needs. 

In 1215, King John of England was abusing the power his office. The "magna carta", was drafted, and various rights of Englishmen were set down. King John did not want to sign the document, but after persuasion he did. The story is, that after signing, he fell down on the floor, and chewed straw, because he was so angry.  But the magna carta, established and codified rights, that we now take for granted, such as the right to post bail to guarantee a court appearance, and the right of "habeas corpus", which ended the King's power to imprison political opponents. 

It will take a great deal of courage, and convincing to get any Grand Lodge to recognize and codify the basic rights of Masons. I believe sincerely, that most Grand Masters and Grand officers, are men of integrity, who donate many thousands of man-hours to our craft, and are serving Masonry well and faithfully. Sadly, there are grand officers who are "control freaks", and are blatantly violating their own by-laws and constitutions, by performing such actions as expelling Masons on a whim, shutting down clubs without authority, performing "kangaroo courts", declaring organizations "non-Masonic" without justification, and on and on.

The time has come for Masons, to demand that their leadership exercise power on behalf of the membership, and to be held to a high standard. 

"It does not take a majority to effect change, but an irate and tireless minority, keen to light brushfires in people's minds" - Samuel Adams, patriot and revolutionary (not a mason).


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 6, 2014)

*Re: A Masonic "Bill of Rights". Is it needed? Is i*



Bro Darren said:


> I guess the biggest concern for the "troubled" states is that the GL would be the one writing up these BoR's ...



In every jurisdiction I know the members of the GL are the ones who write most legislation-  JW, SW, MW, PM in the lodge.

In every jurisdiction I know brothers who report to the GM can write legislation and often do, but that's a minority of the proposals in most years.  In ever jurisdiction I know the GM submits recommendations that are treated as proposals as well.  Do not confuse the fact that those in the GM's chain of command write legislation with the fact that legislation standardly comes from the representatives.


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 6, 2014)

*Re: A Masonic "Bill of Rights". Is it needed? Is i*



cemab4y said:


> Drafting a "model" bill of rights, would not be a difficult task. Just go back about 5-10 years, and examine all of the abuses and usurpations which grand Lodges and Grand Masters have perpetrated.
> 
> Getting such a bill of rights adopted, would be another matter. Only if masons who are convinced that a problem exist would ever want to work towards a solution. (If it ain't broke, don't fix it mentality).
> 
> The only way a Bill of Rights would ever get adopted, is to draft a "model" bill of rights, and then submit it to every Grand Lodge. Then the membership of the various grand lodges, could "tweak" the model to their own needs.



There are only a couple of changes that would make grand lines work within the rules I suspect.

Most of the recent abuses have been based on the notion that if a GM has the authority to "make a Mason on site" as a landmark he can have the power (power and authority are not the same things) to "unmake" a Mason.  If a GM could not expel a brother without a trial at the lodge level (NOT the GL level) many abuses of the last two decades might not have happened.  I wonder what would happen if some brothers had stood up and said "This is not within your authority.  We will not expel our brother without a trail at the lodge level first".  A GM can pull a charter but such an act is very unlikely to survive a vote at GL except for a lodge that dies naturally.

Most of the rest of the problems have been over a GM expelling elected members of his grand line.  Again this is a matter of power and authority not being the same thing.  I wonder what would have happened if an expelled member of a grand line had said "I was elected at GL.  Take your issue up at the next annual communication.  You do not have the authority to remove me from an elected position".

In both cases entire Masonic careers would be on the line but they were anyways.

At least one case recently was an out of control GM using an edict in conflict with our principles of religious freedom.  His edict was voted down in flames.  That situation worked out as it should have so I don't think further legislation is needed.

So I think a GM should not be able to unmake a Mason without a lodge level trail or due process code (a number of GLs eject on felony conviction) and a GM should not be able to remove an elected GL officer.  Submit legislation to that effect and a GM would recommend against it, the committee on legislation would recommend against it, but would it pass?  The vote itself is not up to either.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Jan 6, 2014)

*Re: A Masonic "Bill of Rights". Is it needed? Is i*



dfreybur said:


> Most of the recent abuses have been based on the notion that if a GM has the authority to "make a Mason on site" as a landmark he can have the power (power and authority are not the same things) to "unmake" a Mason.  If a GM could not expel a brother without a trial at the lodge level (NOT the GL level) many abuses of the last two decades might not have happened.




Nailed it.


----------



## Zack (Jan 6, 2014)

*Re: A Masonic "Bill of Rights". Is it needed? Is i*

Most of the recent abuses have been based on the notion that if a GM has the authority to *"make a Mason on site"* as a landmark he can have the power (power and authority are not the same things) to "unmake" a Mason.

For whatever it's worth.   I have read this on several different occasions.  I can't speak for any other jurisdiction, but in mine, it is *"at sight" *not* "on site".
*Two entirely different words with two different meanings.


----------



## crono782 (Jan 6, 2014)

*Re: A Masonic "Bill of Rights". Is it needed? Is i*

I've heard "at sight" before and took the meaning to be the same as the aforementioned "on sight", just worded different. They are different?


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 6, 2014)

*Re: A Masonic "Bill of Rights". Is it needed? Is i*



Zack said:


> Most of the recent abuses have been based on the notion that if a GM has the authority to *"make a Mason on site"* as a landmark he can have the power (power and authority are not the same things) to "unmake" a Mason.
> 
> For whatever it's worth.   I have read this on several different occasions.  I can't speak for any other jurisdiction, but in mine, it is *"at sight" *not* "on site".
> *Two entirely different words with two different meanings.



Thank you for noticing my word substitution typo.  I have read the landmark phrased "on sight" and "at sight" so that part is not a typo.  My use of the location word "site" was in error.


----------



## Zack (Jan 6, 2014)

*Re: A Masonic "Bill of Rights". Is it needed? Is i*



dfreybur said:


> Thank you for noticing my word substitution typo.  I have read the landmark phrased "on sight" and "at sight" so that part is not a typo.  My use of the location word "site" was in error.



I didn't mean it as criticism.  I have read it many times on different forums.
Regardless, your post was on point.


----------



## crono782 (Jan 6, 2014)

*Re: A Masonic "Bill of Rights". Is it needed? Is i*

Oh, doh. I misinterpreted the meaning of your post. I gotcha now, hah.


----------



## cemab4y (Nov 12, 2014)

BUMP. I would like to discuss this topic some more.


----------



## Raymond Walters (Nov 17, 2014)

I think you raise a valid point here, though I AM still curious as to why those who have become part of this fraternal organization are unable to conform to our rules, and why other members don't privately chastise those members (or leaders) who do not follow our rules.

In 25 years I have seen a lot of what I would term foolishness being exhibited by so-called leaders of our Grand Lodges. I started out in 1988 being subjected to a doctrine of separate & un-equal by being told that I could NOT petition a mainstream lodge, and that I must petition a Prince Hall lodge because my mother was Black... still makes NO sense to me even today.

I spent 10 years as a member of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge's of North Carolina, Ohio & South Carolina, often mistreated by other Blacks because my views and life experiences didn't match up with theirs or what they felt mine should be. During that 10 years, I submitted a petition to a Lodge under the Grand Lodge of North Carolina (1995), only to be rejected at the ballot box. The explanation given was that the lodge wasn't ready for a Black member. Really? So once again, my physical appearance was being used to make a decision about my fitness for membership.

I left Prince Hall Grand Lodge of South Carolina in 2000 and petitioned mainstream Grand Lodge of Texas in 2001 (where I was living then), only to be accepted by my lodge members but unwelcome in other subordinate lodges warranted by the Grand Lodge of Texas as a visitor... something that the Masonic Code of the Grand Lodge of Texas specifically forbids. When I (WM and Past Master's of my lodge) complained about the mistreatment, it was swept under the rug and over-looked by Grand Lodge of Texas officers from 2001-2005. I eventually requested a demit and moved on with my life, still holding membership in Grand Lodge of North Carolina where I had held membership as a dual member in the same lodge that denied me membership in 1995.

I leave Texas, return home to West Virginia so that I can be degraded by persons claiming to be Freemasons when attempting to visit a lodge in West Virginia. As my visitation was denied for what I felt were un-Masonic grounds, I lodged a complaint; first with my Grand Lodge, and then with the Grand Lodge of West Virginia.

At that time (2005-06), MW Br. Frank Haas was Grand Master and he acted on my complaint. PGM Haas sought to make positive, progressive changes in his grand lodges code, which he did accomplish. Every change voted on was over-turned by his successor, and there is now an informal agreement that if one wishes to serve as a Grand Lodge of West Virginia officer, one will not permit any Blacks in lodges regardless of what jurisdiction they are from that Grand Lodge of West Virginia may be in amity with.

To this day I AM unwelcome as a visitor of subordinate lodges warranted under the Grand Lodge of West Virginia, am unable to visit lodges in eastern Ohio that border West Virginia or visit lodges in western Pennsylvania for the same reason I AM denied visitation in West Virginia.  I have been back in the area I was raised in since 2005, it is now 2014... that is 9 years of being excluded & ostracized for no legitimate reason. I have NOT been suspended or expelled, but then when you want to create difficulty for an individual, you will find a way to do it.

My present lodge and Grand Lodge are uncertain what to make of all of this negativity we tend to deal with in American Freemasonry. I was outdone with it all a long time ago.

What came out of the PGM Frank Haas lawsuit against the Grand Lodge of West Virginia, (which coincided with my presence here) was that our current regulations form a contract with our membership, and that the contract must be honored by our Grand Lodges and its officers. I was denied visitation for an un-Masonic reason which violated my masonic rights and privileges, so I had legitimate reason to complain. Had I simply been told that today wasn't a good day to visit, I could have accepted that better than being told that "wasn't no niggers coming into this lodge"!

I adamantly feel that whatever needs done should be done to guarantee or protect an individual Freemasons rights under Masonic regulations because I have seen too many good men (myself included) mistreated for NO real reason.

This foolishness has to stop, and Freemasons need to stand for what is right, even when it isn't popular. Ego and vanity have taken over so that many of us are more concerned with obtaining a position or a title than in standing for what is morally correct, something we freely obligated ourselves to do at all times, not just when it is convenient.

Fraternally,


----------



## cemab4y (Nov 17, 2014)

I am convinced that most of the men who are in Grand Offices, are men of integrity. Many of these fine men, have devoted years to the fraternity, and I am grateful for their service. Unhappily, not all of our Grand Officers meet the expectations that we have for them. There have been incidents in New Jersey, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Texas, and other Grand Lodges, which have been an embarrassment to Freemasonry. (Please do not think that I am picking on any one individual, or any one Grand Lodge).

Although we are all obligated to meet our Masonic oaths, there are cases where this does not happen. Unhappily, Grand Officers sometimes act improperly, and in defiance of their own Grand Lodge regulations. The situation in Arkansas, with respect to the Shrine, makes me particularly sad. ( I am an inactive Shriner). The situation in West Virginia, where PGM Frank Haas was able to institute several excellent reforms (Often called the "Wheeling reforms"), is also a stain on the fraternity.

I believe that part of the solution, is for Grand Lodges to institute a "Bill of Rights", where individual Masons will be treated with respect and decorum. Call it a "leash" on the Grand Lodges. Grand Officers should be held strictly accountable to the constitution and by-laws of their respective Grand Lodges, and not be permitted to rule at whim.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" -Lord Acton


----------



## NY.Light (Nov 17, 2014)

To draw a quick historical parallel, when the Bill of Rights were ratified in the United States (the first 10 constitutional amendments), until a case under the Marshall court (can't recall atm which case it was; perhaps Dartmouth College?), the Bill of Rights were understood to ensure the rights of the individual.  After whichever case it was, the Bill of Rights was expanded in constitutional understanding and practice to protect corporations (the roots of the Citizens United decision).  So how is all this relevant?

First, should a Masonic bill of rights be a separate proposed legislative motion, or an amendment to the grand constitution? Second, if one GL passes is these proposals, would it affect regularity with other GL's?  Third, are they protections for individuals masons or lodges of masons? 

Some questions to ruminate on...


----------



## cemab4y (Nov 17, 2014)

Interesting ideas, and good questions. There were originally 12 amendments proposed. The first ten were ratified in 1791, and the twelfth proposed amendment did not get ratified until the 1970's (The 27th, dealing with congressional salary increases). Nevertheless, the purpose of the bill of rights, was to put  "check" on the power of government. (example: Congress shall make no law...) . The various amendments apply to individuals ( right of silence in the 5th) and sometimes to states (The 10th).

There are several ways to initiate a masonic bill of rights. One way is for a commission or committee composed of individuals from across the USA, to draft a "model" bill of rights. This draft would then serve as a guide to the individual Grand Lodges. Grand Lodges would then implement which provisions they chose, and even add additional provisions as they saw fit.

The bill of rights could be added to the state Grand Lodge's constitution and by-laws in the form of amendments. Maybe in some states, the individual rights could be added by the legislative process.

I do not see an issue with "regularity". Not all states will adopt the model bill of rights, verbatim. It is analogous to the issue of granting Masonic membership to men who are 18 or 21. In some states, the minimum age is 18, some it is 21. The different states still recognize each other as regular.

And the specific rights would apply to either individual masons, or to lodges, or sometimes both.

Example: The right of Masons to consult with Masons and Grand Lodges outside their jurisdiction to obtain advice and counsel. (This right would apply to individual Masons, some states currently do NOT permit masons to obtain advice from masons in other jurisdictions)


----------

