# GLofDC Issues Statement Concerning Eligibility For Masons



## My Freemasonry (Nov 12, 2015)

​For Grand Lodges that have considered or already passed anti-gay legislation in their territories, or for those who may think that Masonry is for white Christians only, you might give a look to this letter that was issued on November 11th. The Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia, MWB Jeffrey D. Russell, has issued the following statement concerning eligibility of men seeking membership in Masonry in Washington, DC. (Click the image above to see it larger). 

In part, it reads:​_In response to recent questions posed to this Grand Lodge on the qualifications and eligibility of men seeking membership in our constituent Lodges, we offer this statement of unwavering principles: Admission to membership in our Lodges is extended to men of faith based upon their personal merit and good character, without reference to race, creed, sexual orientation, specific religion or national origin._
_
(snip)_
_
The universality of our practice is reflected in the broad range of backgrounds to be found here. Lodges here not only work in English, but in French, Spanish, German, Italian, Farsi, Turkish and Armenian. Our membership hails from every continent and represents every race and creed, as well as a broad range of national origins. Masonic visitors to this international city find unparalleled opportunities to visit a Lodge that reminds them of home - wherever that home may be._
_
However, the concept of universality is not only an international paradigm. It enjoys equal importance in our welcoming of men whose varied backgrounds and practices in their private and professional lives would normally keep them at a perpetual distance. The diversity of our membership, in terms of race, creed, sexual orientation, specific religion and national origin is thus seen as an asset, rather than a liability. Civility and kindness is the rule for all interaction, thus the discussion of politics, religion and business are prohibited in the Lodge room. In this way, we hold that men become brothers by leaving divisions at the door, and taking strength from a shared appreciation of the common aspirations of all men for their betterment, and for improving themselves through service as respected members of their communities, despite their outward differences._
_
Our dedication to diversity was not born in Washington, DC. Worldwide Masonic law and practice from the days of Anderson's Constitutions clearly disfavors the exclusion of men based upon modes of belief, backgrounds or lifestyles that enjoy legal protection in their societies. Therefore, today we say, "Any man can become a D.C. Freemason, but not every man can be one." And our tradition of over five hundred years of inclusion continues to patiently await those with imagination, will and energy to dedicate themselves to the elevation of the human race._
_
_
Many thanks to Brother Eric Diamond for passing this along.

Continue reading...


----------



## Bloke (Nov 13, 2015)

Nice.


My Freemasonry said:


> However, the concept of universality is not only an international paradigm. It enjoys equal importance in our welcoming of men whose varied backgrounds and practices in their private and professional lives would normally keep them at a perpetual distance. The diversity of our membership, in terms of race, creed, sexual orientation, specific religion and national origin is thus seen as an asset, rather than a liability. Civility and kindness is the rule for all interaction, thus the discussion of politics, religion and business are prohibited in the Lodge room. In this way, we hold that men become brothers by leaving divisions at the door, and taking strength from a shared appreciation of the common aspirations of all men for their betterment, and for improving themselves through service as respected members of their communities, despite their outward differences..
> 
> Continue reading...


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 13, 2015)

I don't mean this in a baiting way, but when GA issued an opinion on this subject, it was repeatedly labeled a political response. Why is this statement not a political response?


----------



## coachn (Nov 13, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> I don't mean this in a baiting way, but when GA issued an opinion on this subject, it was repeatedly labeled a political response. Why is this statement not a political response?


Forgive me for not understanding your question.  How is it not?


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 13, 2015)

coachn said:


> Forgive me for not understanding your question.  How is it not?



Ahh. So a political response is only inappropriate when we disagree with it?


----------



## coachn (Nov 13, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> Ahh. So a political response is only inappropriate when we disagree with it?


You're jumping to a conclusion about the question I posted.  I have confusion.  I don't see how it could not be a political response.  Hence my question.  Is my question now labeled "inappropriate"?


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 13, 2015)

coachn said:


> You're jumping to a conclusion about the question I posted.  I have confusion.  I don't see how it could not be a political response.  Hence my question.  Is my question now labeled "inappropriate"?


No. Many criticised GL GA for making a political statement on this subject. GLDC has made a statement on this subject. I have seen no criticism of DC for making a political statement, leading me to question if the GLDC statement is seen as political. If it isn't, why isn't it?  If it is, why is there no like criticism?


----------



## coachn (Nov 13, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> No. Many criticised GL GA for making a political statement on this subject. GLDC has made a statement on this subject. I have seen no criticism of DC for making a political statement, leading me to question if the GLDC statement is seen as political. If it isn't, why isn't it?  If it is, why is there no like criticism?


I don't see how the letter could be viewed as anything but political.  I do not know why it has not drawn any criticism, other than the fact that it may not be objectionable to those reading it.


----------



## dfreybur (Nov 13, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> Why is this statement not a political response?



Point taken.  It's political.

Had the first political move not been taken by bringing a court case in the current news to an edict and vote, none of the rest of the discussions would have taken place.  One violation of our landmark against discussing partisan politics and all of this is the result.

Notice in the wording of the proclamation it only refers to our principles and history without reference to which jurisdiction triggered the discussion.  It's just one level farther removed as it addresses a matter between jurisdictions rather than a matter between one jurisdiction and a federal court.


----------



## Bloke (Nov 13, 2015)

I see it as a values statement, maybe some will see it as political, but on first reading that did not come to my mind.. it certainly shows some leadership as did the Georgia statement in the other direction imho....


----------



## JustinCC93 (Nov 14, 2015)

I don't see it as political as much as a clarification released to answer questions being asked. In their presentation, it is clear the intent of both are very different in their purpose. 

One is to provide a clear understanding of the MWGMs opinion on who should NEVER step forward to even ask to participate. This opinion was recently voted and agreed with by the members of the GL of GA. The other provides clarification that ALL good men and true may apply for the purpose. 

One dictates that gay men should never be considered good men. The other allows for the membership to make that determination based upon their own inquiries into that petitioners character.  

One only allows for Freemasonry to unite men of every country, only one sect, and only one opinion. The other follows the concept of Brotherly Love in a way that truly allows for Freemasonry to unite men of every country, sect, and opinion.


----------



## goomba (Nov 14, 2015)

JustinCC93 said:


> I don't see it as political as much as a clarification released to answer questions being asked. In their presentation, it is clear the intent of both are very different in their purpose.
> 
> One is to provide a clear understanding of the MWGMs opinion on who should NEVER step forward to even ask to participate. This opinion was recently voted and agreed with by the members of the GL of GA. The other provides clarification that ALL good men and true may apply for the purpose.
> 
> ...



Couldn't have said it better myself.  GA made a statement on a political topic guided by one religion.  DC made a clarifying statement on teachings of Masonry.  They are similar but different.

*I say this realizing I may be biased because of my personal beliefs.


----------



## Companion Joe (Nov 15, 2015)

The answer to Brother Glen's question is quite simple. Take Freemasonry and the current topic out of the equation, and you still get the same answer.

In today's United States of the Offended, when someone expresses a belief in traditional, conservative values, they are met with a litany of condemnation; when someone presses the liberal agenda, they are lauded by the masses.

Those singing tolerance are only tolerant when you agree with them. No one on either extreme can cast the first stone.


----------



## coachn (Nov 15, 2015)

Companion Joe said:


> The answer to Brother Glenn's question is quite simple. Take Freemasonry and the current topic out of the equation, and you still get the same answer.
> 
> In today's United States of the Offended, when someone expresses a belief in traditional, conservative values, they are met with a litany of condemnation; when someone presses the liberal agenda, they are lauded by the masses.
> 
> Those singing tolerance are only tolerant when you agree with them. No one on either extreme can cast the first stone.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Nov 15, 2015)

Companion Joe said:


> In today's United States of the Offended, when someone expresses a belief in traditional, conservative values, they are met with a litany of condemnation; when someone presses the liberal agenda, they are lauded by the masses.


I am not offended by anyone's beliefs, traditional or otherwise.  However, incorrect thinking is always present when someone insists that their personal beliefs should and must apply to all people. This thinking mistake is committed by Liberals and Conservatives alike.

Mankind has always struggled with an unquenchable desire for sameness and permanence.  These things do not exist.  Our only hope for achieving this illusion is if our lifespans are short enough that we do not notice the changes.  Personally, I prefer praying for tolerance to a short lifespan.


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 15, 2015)

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> ?..However, incorrect thinking is always present when someone insists that their personal beliefs should and must apply to all people. .



Well, unless they are my beliefs of course.


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 15, 2015)

coachn said:


> View attachment 4860


Shoot.  I have enough trouble  controlling my feelings.


----------



## coachn (Nov 15, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> Shoot.  I have enough trouble  controlling my feelings.


Exactly!  Those Whining Wussies want you to believe that you cause their hurt feelings.  As if!


----------



## goomba (Nov 15, 2015)

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> This thinking mistake is committed by Liberals and Conservatives alike.



I love your post but will use it as an example.

People assume there are only two sides Liberal/Conservative, use/them, right/wrong, etc.  Life isn't a coin, there are more than two sides (aka thought patterns).  We as Masons (and to make the coach happy, those who are Freemasons) should realize there is more than one way to look at something.  

I use the example at work "is it bad to push an old lady down"?  The answer is a resounding "it depends".  Could I be wrong, yes I could.  Could homosexuality (or insert whatever you wish, I'm just using the topic at hand) exclude someone from joining our fraternity?  I do not believe so in the least Masonry (and Freemasonry) teach me the exact opposite of that.  Again could I be wrong, yes, but I sincerely hope I am not.

I really hope this all made/makes sense.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 22, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> Well, unless they are my beliefs of course.


Lol!!!


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 22, 2015)

coachn said:


> Exactly!  Those Whining Wussies want you to believe that you cause their hurt feelings.  As if!


Lol!!!! You and brother Glen Cook are killing me here!


----------

