# Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge Room?



## scialytic (Oct 28, 2012)

Answer to come shortly. This poll is anonymous.

Some mental exercise... 
_______:43:________


----------



## CajunTinMan (Oct 28, 2012)

It is not a hat.  It is something to show his servitude to God.  Something that we, as , Masons believe in.


----------



## SeeKer.mm (Oct 28, 2012)

CajunTinMan said:


> It is not a hat.  It is something to show his servitude to God.  Something that we, as , Masons believe in.



Agreed, I don't see the Yamaka the same as I see a hat.  It is of a religious nature as you said to show their servitude to their God, and as such, I would respect it as being a part of their very being, as I am sure they see it too.


----------



## scialytic (Oct 28, 2012)

I was reading through the Most Worshipful Grand Masters' of Texas Decisions and thought it was an interesting question.

Grand Master's Decision -2006- No. 1 says *yes *a Jewish Brother may wear a "Yamaka Hat" in the Lodge Room, so long as the brother wearing it does not (a) by wearing the Yamaka challenge the authority of the WM, or (b) seek to make a religious or political statement by wearing it.

Interesting...but it makes complete sense. Wonder how that would work for a Sikh? 

What is the origin of the WM and the hat? The jewel is the implement, where'd the hat come from?


----------



## CajunTinMan (Oct 28, 2012)

Masonic hats worn by the Master of the Lodge signify his authority of his rank and status...the origins of which go back over many centuries. 
The wearing of a hat by the Worshipful Master alludes to the crown that adorned the head of King Solomon.


*In the United States, a Stetson Homburg or Fedora style hat is quite popular and is often chosen by the Master of the lodge. Other hat brands and styles are also worn.*

Albert Mackey, Masonic researcher and historian had this to say about Masonic hats in his _Revised Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry_, 1929:
To uncover the head in the presence of their superiors has been, among Christian nations, held as a dutiful obligation.
Among Eastern nations, it is their custom to uncover their feet when they enter a place of worship.
*Kings:* 
Historically, Kings wore crowns to denote their rank, while the courtiers standing around him removed their hats in deference to his superior status.
*Ancient Romans*
We are told that the ancient Romans prayed with their head covered or veiled. 
The woolen cap, called a _pileus, _was allowed to be worn only by the free-by-birth or manumission (papers with which one is formally released from slavery), but it was forbidden for Roman slaves to wear this cap.
*House of Commons - London* 
Historically, it was customary that a member of the English Parliament, London's House of Commons, wear a hat when he addressed the membership of the House. If he were to have risen to speak without his hat, other members would greet him with cries of "Order, Order"!
*France*
In France, it was the custom of monks at the Sorbonne, (previously called the University of Paris which was founded in 1257 by Robert de Sorbon) to remove their cap when a member did not wish to speak or was in token of agreement with the others.
(End of Mackey quote from _Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry_, 1929)
*Masonic Hats:* *United States:* 
Today, Masonic hats are worn, ceremonially, in the United States during the time when the lodge is in session. Some Grand Lodges require that the hat be constructed with a brim. Others simply decree that the Worshipful Master remains covered at all times.

Masonic Lodge of Education


----------



## widows son (Oct 29, 2012)

Cool. I never thought of the WM hat allegorically being a crown of Solomon. Im not sure for the rest of canada, but our WM doesn't wear a hat. Not sure for the reason but I will ask now


----------



## Brent Heilman (Oct 29, 2012)

I was wondering that if one of those that said no would mind explaining their views? I am curious as to why.


----------



## scialytic (Oct 30, 2012)

I can't speak for the nays specifically, but it is probably for the same reason I posted it: It could be counterintuitive to some if they haven't seen or (in my case) never thought of it.

The Laws of The Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Texas defines the head covering worn by the WM as a crown shaped hat with a full circle brim. It is also worn at the discretion of the presiding WM (i.e. only if he wants to wear it) for funerals, memorials, and open meetings of the Lodge. Otherwise the ancient custom of the Master presiding "covered" must be complied with. And also that *required* religous head coverings are allowed to be worn by the Brethren.

I'm learning something new everyday. Thanks the the most enlightening post Brother Cajun.


----------



## Brent Heilman (Oct 31, 2012)

I have never seen it as a hat like Bro. Seeker said.


----------



## Bill Lins (Oct 31, 2012)

scialytic said:


> I was reading through the Most Worshipful Grand Masters' of Texas Decisions and thought it was an interesting question.
> 
> Grand Master's Decision -2006- No. 1 says *yes *a Jewish Brother may wear a "Yamaka Hat" in the Lodge Room, so long as the brother wearing it does not (a) by wearing the Yamaka challenge the authority of the WM, or (b) seek to make a religious or political statement by wearing it.



Bro. Graham,

That Decision has been superseded by the following:

*Art. 278. Master Presiding “Covered.”* 
The ancient custom of the Master presiding “covered” must be complied with, except that the Brother presiding at Masonic funerals, memorial services, graveside services, or during open meetings of the Lodge, may at his discretion, preside over such services and ceremonies uncovered.

To be “covered” shall mean the wearing of a hat, and a hat is described as a head covering with a shaped crown and a full circle brim. No person other than the presiding Master shall wear any type of head covering, _except for required religious head coverings_ (italics mine), while in Lodge or at other Masonic ceremonies. (Revised 2010)


----------



## CajunTinMan (Oct 31, 2012)

They would still be able to wear kippah.  That should meet both standards.


----------



## widows son (Oct 31, 2012)

What's a kippah?


----------



## CajunTinMan (Oct 31, 2012)

The small cloth, for lack of a better word, bennie.  Yarmulke.


----------



## Frater Cliff Porter (Nov 1, 2012)

I have to say regardless of a constitutional rule, I would always allow a man be he Sikh, Druze, Jew, etc. to follow his religious tradition in lodge.  Its about freedom of and not freedom from.


----------



## scialytic (Nov 1, 2012)

scialytic said:


> I can't speak for the nays specifically, but it is probably for the same reason I posted it: It could be counterintuitive to some if they haven't seen or (in my case) never thought of it.
> 
> The Laws of The Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Texas defines the head covering worn by the WM as a crown shaped hat with a full circle brim. It is also worn at the discretion of the presiding WM (i.e. only if he wants to wear it) for funerals, memorials, and open meetings of the Lodge. Otherwise the ancient custom of the Master presiding "covered" must be complied with. And also that *required* religous head coverings are allowed to be worn by the Brethren.
> 
> I'm learning something new everyday. Thanks the the most enlightening post Brother Cajun.



I thought that sounded familiar Brother Bill ;-) ... Though an amateur like myself didn't include the article number (doh!) But again, I learn something new...I now see that the article was revised in 2010. So where does it reflect that the edict was superceded? In the law and proposition documents? Please tell me there isn't *another* place I have to look to interpret the laws <overly-dramatic sigh> (To be completely honest...this is all kind of fun!)


----------



## Bill Lins (Nov 2, 2012)

That's why the law book shows when the article was revised- the most recent version takes precedence over all others.


----------



## scialytic (Nov 2, 2012)

I can't wait to buy you a beer...


----------



## Bill Lins (Nov 4, 2012)

Music to my ears...  :beer:


----------



## jwhoff (Nov 10, 2012)

Guys, are we still on for Waco?

Again, time and place?

I'll probably be late due to the District 30 Grand Master's dinner.

But you can all showup there too?

:21:


----------



## scialytic (Nov 10, 2012)

Friday night at the Cricket something-or-another...I'll PM my cell number so we can synchronize swatches (oh yeah...I just dropped a *Parker Lewis Can't Lose *​quote).


----------



## Bill Lins (Nov 10, 2012)

2100 hrs (9:00pm for civilians :wink Friday, 7 Dec., @ Cricket's in the 200 block of Franklin- we'll be on the balcony.


----------



## Phre-massen.nash (Feb 7, 2013)

I wear my yarmulke in blue house, scottish rite and york rite meetings.


----------



## dfreybur (Apr 1, 2013)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> *Art. 278. Master Presiding â€œCovered.â€*
> The ancient custom of the Master presiding â€œcoveredâ€ must be complied with, except that the Brother presiding at Masonic funerals, memorial services, graveside services, or during open meetings of the Lodge, may at his discretion, preside over such services and ceremonies uncovered.
> 
> To be â€œcoveredâ€ shall mean the wearing of a hat, and a hat is described as a head covering with a shaped crown and a full circle brim. No person other than the presiding Master shall wear any type of head covering, _except for required religious head coverings_ (italics mine), while in Lodge or at other Masonic ceremonies. (Revised 2010)



I wonder about a Sihk's ceremonial dagger.  They aren't the only faith that expects members to go armed.

Note that the brim seems to be to keep guys from wearing a hat from one of the appendant bodies.  No cap or fez.

I've got a fedora because one of my lodges has that local tradition.


----------



## Bill Lins (Apr 1, 2013)

dfreybur said:


> Note that the brim seems to be to keep guys from wearing a hat from one of the appendant bodies.  No cap or fez.



Actually, there is a different section of GLoT Law prohibiting the wearing of regalia of other orders in a Blue Lodge. GM's Decision 1990-3 indicates that the requirement of a full brim is to preclude the wearing of baseball or "gimme" caps.


----------



## Roy Vance (Apr 2, 2013)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Bro. Graham,
> 
> That Decision has been superseded by the following:
> 
> ...



Bro. Bill_Lins77488; That article still stands as revised. I just looked it up. I normally keep my nose in the Law Book as I am JW in my affiliate Lodge and I am all the time being asked things. I have only been a MM since May of 2011, but, I have tried to become as knowledgable as I could in so short a time.


Roy Vance
San Angelo Lodge 570 JD
San Angelo, TX
Phil Head Lodge 1415 JW
Carlsbad, TX


----------



## Roy Vance (Apr 2, 2013)

Bro. dfreybur; As far as the _*hat *_goes, in Texas, in as many Lodges as I have visited, it seems that the Western or Cowboy hat is the norm. I suppose the WM would decide if he liked a Fedora or something else better, but that is what I have seen. Even our MW Grand Master wears a cowboy hat.

Roy Vance
San Angelo Lodge 570 JD
San Angelo, TX
Phil Head Lodge 1415 JW
Carlsbad, TX


----------



## Bill Lins (Apr 2, 2013)

roy.vance said:


> Bro. Bill_Lins77488; That article still stands as revised.



Bro. Vance, please allow me to add to your education, if I may. What I stated was that the _Decision _I referred to had been superseded by the revised _Article. _The difference (& it is critical) is that a GM's_ Decision, _while having the force of Law, can be undone by a following GM on his own, while an _Article _of GL Law has been adopted legislatively by the members of the Grand Lodge and can only be modified or undone in the same manner. If a Grand Master wishes to change or delete an Article of Grand Lodge Law, he must present his proposed action as a resolution to be considered by the Brethren at a Grand Communication, just as any other member of Grand Lodge must do.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Apr 14, 2013)

In Rockport, from the WM portraits, it's personal choice among fedora, cowboy hat, or what I call the "Texas Urban Hat", which looks like one of the several styles of cowboy hats, but always with a smaller brim and sometimes not as tall. You can see them worn a lot in older photographs from the first half of the 20th century.


----------



## jvarnell (Apr 14, 2013)

I asked my bro. In the lodge and they said we have even let someone with cancer to ware a stocking cap so yes.


----------



## MarkR (Apr 16, 2013)

Phre-massen.nash said:


> I wear my yarmulke in blue house, scottish rite and york rite meetings.


In Scottish Rite, do you wear your Scottish Rite cap over the yarmulke, or do you not wear the Scottish Rite cap?


----------



## Zayzee18 (Nov 15, 2013)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge *

In our district we have several orthodox Jewish brethren who follow their religion faithfully and two of them have sat as Worshipful Master of their Lodges with distinction.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Nov 15, 2013)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge *



dfreybur said:


> I wonder about a Sihk's ceremonial dagger.  They aren't the only faith that expects members to go armed.



This issue comes up from time to time. While I have never seen the issue settled once and for all, one helpful brother did point out that a _wooden_ Kirpan is not uncommon...


----------



## tldubb (Jan 29, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge *

Why not..

Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## Companion Joe (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge *

I will start out by saying I have never seen this issue come up, and in my current location it likely won't in my lifetime. As far as I know, the closest Jewish house of worship is in Knoxville more than an hour away. If it did, my personal opinion is that it wouldn't be a big deal. I feel absolutely certain that if a man was a Mason, he wouldn't come to Lodge trying to make some sort of statement as in, "I'm not the Master, but I am wearing a hat, too, la, la, la," etc. The same would be true for a member needing his head covered fore medical reasons.

We host an annual outdoor degree. Just about everyone on the sidelines has a cap on during the meeting. The officers don't, with the exception of the Master, but the members do. Of course, it is in an open field on top of a mountain, so the definition of sidelines is pretty broad. It's just wherever you can find a level spot to put your lawn chair!

In my area, I can't think of a single Lodge where the Master doesn't the standard "crown" type hat you can get at any Masonic regalia seller. I don't know if it's defined anywhere as to what type of hat you are supposed to wear, but that's the standard. The GM wears a Fedora or top hat most times, but at regular Lodges it's just the crown. At my Lodge, the Master's chair has a high back - it's a throne, after all - so wearing a cowboy hat with a big brim would make it cumbersome to lean back.


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge*



Companion Joe said:


> In my area, I can't think of a single Lodge where the Master doesn't the standard "crown" type hat you can get at any Masonic regalia seller. I don't know if it's defined anywhere as to what type of hat you are supposed to wear, but that's the standard. The GM wears a Fedora or top hat most times, but at regular Lodges it's just the crown. At my Lodge, the Master's chair has a high back - it's a throne, after all - so wearing a cowboy hat with a big brim would make it cumbersome to lean back.



Crown?  Cool.

Most eastern chairs I've seen have been too deep for me to lean back in at all so that's never been an issue for me.  Maybe tall brothers with long legs can.  I figure the requirement for a full brim helps keep sitting WMs from leaning back.  Keep him on edge at all times, just like every PM remembers being!


----------



## Companion Joe (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge *

It's not a true "crown" in the sense of something made out of metal and jewels. It's something similar to this.


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge *

Companion Joe,

So far I've only seen that style hat at PHA lodges.  It's good to see it sees use across jurisdictional boundaries.


----------



## vangoedenaam (Feb 20, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge *

In my country ( the Netherlands ) masons do not wear hats in blue lodge at all. In our culture it is polite to take off hats indoors. You would take off your hat for the WM anyway. Also, i think wearing anything signifying a certain religious affiliation would probably be frowned upon although im not sure it is explicitly forbidden.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## BryanMaloney (Feb 20, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge*



vangoedenaam said:


> In my country ( the Netherlands ) masons do not wear hats in blue lodge at all. In our culture it is polite to take off hats indoors. You would take off your hat for the WM anyway. Also, i think wearing anything signifying a certain religious affiliation would probably be frowned upon although im not sure it is explicitly forbidden.



For the yamulka to be "frowned upon" sets up a de-facto religious requirement against Jews.


----------



## vangoedenaam (Feb 21, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge *

I do not share that conclusion. Frowning and condemning are not the same thing imo. The general idea is that in the lodge we should be equal regardless of status, race, religion etc. that is why military brothers would not show their ranks, ppl dont show their wealth, nor their religion. It is to prevent inequality and inappropriate discussion. Which also means that conduct is more important than attire which would make a yamulka acceptable in certain cases. As far as i know, there isnt a rule against it and i think there shouldnt be. 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Feb 21, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge*



vangoedenaam said:


> I do not share that conclusion. Frowning and condemning are not the same thing imo. The general idea is that in the lodge we should be equal regardless of status, race, religion etc. that is why military brothers would not show their ranks, ppl dont show their wealth, nor their religion. It is to prevent inequality and inappropriate discussion. Which also means that conduct is more important than attire which would make a yamulka acceptable in certain cases. As far as i know, there isnt a rule against it and i think there shouldnt be.


Really? What Masonic lesson teaches us that "military officers... not show their ranks" or that a brother must not "show" his wealth? Are we all so shallow and petty that we can't remember that beneath the insignia, or the Armani, we all stand on the same level?


----------



## vangoedenaam (Feb 21, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge *

A custom doesnt care itself. The custom doesnt make us shallow or petty. But it sure makes things easier, even though in and of itself that isnt a goal too. I dont necessarily agree with how we do things, but these customs exist. Theyre not laws as far as i know. 




Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## dfreybur (Feb 21, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge*



JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Really? What Masonic lesson teaches us that "military officers... not show their ranks" or that a brother must not "show" his wealth?



We can sit at lodge between a brother who has to save up for his dues and a brother with a net worth in the tens of millions and might not know the financial status of either.  The poor brother wears a suit from a thrift shop to meetings.  The rich brother wears one of his oldest suits to meetings.  They both do this to be on the level and they do it out of a tradition that is not usually explicitly mentioned.  This tradition is the case in all of my lodges and as far as I can tell in most other US lodges I have visited.  It's one of the beauties of Masonry.

When MW Bro Truman PGM was POTUS he attended lodge as Brother Harry.  Everyone knew both of his ranks so it was a bit of a fiction but it's a storied example of meeting on the level.  In my mother lodge the less extreme example was police officers of all ranks attending in civies so no rank shows.  It's one of the beauties of Masonry.

We can sit in lodge with Brother Z for decades and not know his religion.  He's a friend who is at the grill at events, takes parts in the ritual, you name it.  Then one day you're driving around and you see Brother Z walking his family into the facilities of Religion X.  There's a "BOOM!" sound inside your brain and heart as Religion X goes from "Those guys" to "Must be okay stuff given what I know about my old friend".  It's one of the beauties of Masonry.

My last example can only happen if brothers do not openly wear symbols of their religion.  I've seen tiny lapel pins that are crosses or the symbols of faiths that you'd have to study to recognize.  I've seen pendants poke out between the buttons of shirts.  But mostly I've seen no visible signs of a brother's religious membership.  Some of our faiths are okay with us wearing symbols under our shirts  or not at all.  Some of our faiths expect us to wear symbols openly like  a yamaka so the best that can be done is make it understated.  You do  what you can with respect to the tradition.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Feb 21, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge*



vangoedenaam said:


> I do not share that conclusion. Frowning and condemning are not the same thing imo. The general idea is that in the lodge we should be equal regardless of status, race, religion etc. that is why military brothers would not show their ranks, ppl dont show their wealth, nor their religion. It is to prevent inequality and inappropriate discussion. Which also means that conduct is more important than attire which would make a yamulka acceptable in certain cases. As far as i know, there isnt a rule against it and i think there shouldnt be.



"Frowning" on something even if there is no explicit rule against it turns those who do that thing into a lesser class in the eyes of the "frowners". If it is a common practice, even if not mandated, it is an institutionalization of hostility. Wearing the yamulka is not a matter of rank. To frown upon it is to say "You are less of a Mason because you choose your devotion to God as your faith teaches it."


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Feb 21, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge*



dfreybur said:


> The poor brother wears a suit from a thrift shop to meetings.  The rich brother wears one of his oldest suits to meetings.  They both do this to be on the level and they do it out of a tradition that is not usually explicitly mentioned.  This tradition is the case in all of my lodges and as far as I can tell in most other US lodges I have visited.  It's one of the beauties of Masonry.


I must disagree. I find such measures contrived and badly missing the point of the lesson of the level. How many times have we heard the old saw "it's the internal" parroted here? This is a case where that actually gets practiced. Each brother should choose to wear his best. *No *brother should judge another on what that "best" is, only that the other cared enough to do make that choice. Period. If we can't get past "the external" we have not mastered that tool.


----------



## Zack (Feb 22, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge*



JohnnyFlotsam said:


> I must disagree. I find such measures contrived and badly missing the point of the lesson of the level. How many times have we heard the old saw "it's the internal" parroted here? This is a case where that actually gets practiced. Each brother should choose to wear his best. *No *brother should judge another on what that "best" is, only that the other cared enough to do make that choice. Period. If we can't get past "the external" we have not mastered that tool.



Well said my Brother.


----------



## tldubb (Feb 25, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge *

"The internal not the external qualifications of a man are what masonry regards"..Sounds familiar FC charge. .

Sent from my SCH-I545 using My Freemasonry HD mobile app


----------



## rfuller (Feb 26, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge *

Back to frowning...

The obligation is not supposed to interfere with our duty to our God.  If part of your duty to God includes head covering, I don't see why we would ever frown on that.


----------



## brother josh (Feb 28, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge *

I would hope that if this issue ever came up in my lodge reason would win over personal discrimination of someone's religion agreed duty to the GOD of your faith 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## dmbarr964 (Mar 5, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge *

The was it should be Bro Josh


Hoc Signo Vincam


----------



## admarcus1 (Mar 10, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge*



dfreybur said:


> My last example can only happen if brothers do not openly wear symbols of their religion.  I've seen tiny lapel pins that are crosses or the symbols of faiths that you'd have to study to recognize.  I've seen pendants poke out between the buttons of shirts.  But mostly I've seen no visible signs of a brother's religious membership.  Some of our faiths are okay with us wearing symbols under our shirts  or not at all.  Some of our faiths expect us to wear symbols openly like  a yamaka so the best that can be done is make it understated.  You do  what you can with respect to the tradition.



Hi Everyone,  

I'm a latecomer to this discussion, but I have read it with no small amount of interest because I am an observant Jew.  I would like to correct a misconception, however.  A yamulke is not a Jewish symbol (though some may have Jewish symbols printed or embroidered on them, nor is it worn to advertise oneself as of the Jewish faith (though this can be the defacto result).  The Jewish tradition sees the covering of ones head as a sign of humility before God.  The Kippah (which most observant Jews would call it, with the bonus of being easier to spell) is a practical way to observe that requirement.  It is small, does not in anyway encumber your head, you can put a hat on over it if you needed to, and it won't block anyone's view at the movies.  Orthodox Jews tend to where theirs all the time.  I have an Orthodox Jewish friend whose head covering of choice for day to day is a Red Sox cap.  It fulfills the obligation just as well.

My denomination (called Conservative, though Traditionalist would be a more accurate name) requires that it be worn during in a Jewish house of worship, when engaging in religious study, or while reciting prayers.  I actually struggle with the question about whether Judaism would require me to wear one in lodge or not.  While not a house of worshiop, it is "erected to God".  So far, I have chosen not to, mostly because I don't want to make waves.  I have seen a brother wearing one in a Lodge of Instruction I attended, and I must admit that it made me feel good to see it.  It showed me that the the acceptance of Jewish brothers in the Fraternity is not lip service, and is not just accepting of Jewish men who eschew tradition.

I will speak with my Rabbi and ask him his thoughts about whether Jewish tradition would lean toward wearing a kippah in Lodge.  He is somewhat familiar with Freemasonry because his father was a Brother.  If I then decide to start wearing my kippah to lodge, I will speak with the WM beforehand, to make sure he understands it.  I will also wear one that is plain, humble, not decorated in a way that could distract.

I will also note that Judaism is not the only religion that requires men to cover there heads, and for similar reasons.

Cordially and Fraternally,

Ari Marcus
Norfolk Lodge AF&AM
Needham, MA


----------



## BryanMaloney (Mar 11, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge*

Like the Sikhs and their turbans. Even the US Army has granted exemptions for this.


----------



## admarcus1 (Mar 11, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge*



BryanMaloney said:


> Like the Sikhs and their turbans. Even the US Army has granted exemptions for this.



This discussion has got me quite curious:  What is the origin of the Western tradition of removing one's hat as a sign of respect?  Any historians and/or anthropologists out there?


----------



## dfreybur (Mar 11, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge*



admarcus1 said:


> This discussion has got me quite curious:  What is the origin of the Western tradition of removing one's hat as a sign of respect?  Any historians and/or anthropologists out there?



Out of the chivalric tradition - Removing your helmet to show your face evolved through removing your hood to unblock view of your face to removing your hat to show respect.


----------



## admarcus1 (Mar 11, 2014)

*Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge*



dfreybur said:


> Out of the chivalric tradition - Removing your helmet to show your face evolved through removing your hood to unblock view of your face to removing your hat to show respect.



Thank you, Brother.  Always happy to learn something new.


----------



## admarcus1 (Jul 29, 2014)

As a follow-up, after thought and discussion, including with our WM-elect, I decided I will wear a yarmulke in lodge. I wanted to use a special one, but not have any religious symbols as decoration, so I had one custom designed. In the attached picture, I put the design at the front, but it would actually be worn with the design in the back, which is common when you have a central design. I chose blue for Blue Lodge. 






Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## jwhoff (Jul 29, 2014)

admarcus1 said:


> *Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Thank you Brother Marcus for the enlightenment.  I had no objections before your words of enlightenment.  I have none now.  May the GAOTU bless and keep us all.  We must always remember that we truly meet upon the level and part upon the square.


----------



## admarcus1 (Jul 29, 2014)

jwhoff said:


> May the GAOTU bless and keep us all.


So mote it be. 



Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## Rick Carver (Jul 30, 2014)

Not that it really matter for our purposes of discussion, but the SCOTUS has preciously ruled that a Yamaka is not a hat, but is instead is a religious symbol. It allows Jewish lawyers to wear them in open court without protest.


----------



## admarcus1 (Jul 30, 2014)

Rick Carver said:


> Not that it really matter for our purposes of discussion, but the SCOTUS has preciously ruled that a Yamaka is not a hat, but is instead is a religious symbol. It allows Jewish lawyers to wear them in open court without protest.



Very interesting. I had not thought of the fact that it would be an issue in court. It is such an ordinary part of my experience that it hadn't occurred to me. The phrasing is interesting though - it is permitted because it is a religious symbol (which, while perhaps true, is incidental to its purpose) rather than because it fulfills a religious obligation (to have ones head covered. 

If I were using it as a religious symbol, I would not wear it in lodge. That is why when I ordered one for me to wear in lodge, I had it adorned with the Square and Compasses rather than a more traditional Star of David, Menorah, or my Hebrew name. I could have left it plain without anything, but I wanted to have something special for lodge. 






Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 3, 2014)

I think if a Jewish person wears his head covering ALL THE TIME, i guess that would be Hasidic jews (who would not become a freemason anyway) it would be fine to wear in lodge as its something they wear like we wear shorts and pants.

But if your a jewish man and ONLY wear it to the synagog out of respect of your holy temple then it should not be worn in lodge as freemasonry is NOT a religion. 

Just how i feel about it.  But thats me and not the law or rule.


----------



## admarcus1 (Aug 3, 2014)

Levelhead said:


> I think if a Jewish person wears his head covering ALL THE TIME, i guess that would be Hasidic jews (who would not become a freemason anyway) it would be fine to wear in lodge as its something they wear like we wear shorts and pants.
> 
> But if your a jewish man and ONLY wear it to the synagog out of respect of your holy temple then it should not be worn in lodge as freemasonry is NOT a religion.
> 
> Just how i feel about it.  But thats me and not the law or rule.


Just a couple of notes:

A:Hasidim are a very small percentage of Observant Jews who wear yarmulkes all the time.  They are a tiny minority sect among the larger orthodox community.

B: Neither Hasidim, other orthodox, or any Jewish man who wears his all the time wears it as he would wear shorts and pants. I would guess that most people do not wear shorts and pants to show humility before God (though maybe some do -what do I know).

C:  A synagogue is not a "holy temple". There were two Holy Temples, both in Jerusalem, the first built by King Solomon, the second destroyed by Rome. A yarmulke is worn in a synagogue because there is a Torah scroll there, prayers are said there, and scripture is read there.

True Freemasonry is not a religion, but that has no bearing on whether a Jewish man would wear a yarmulke.  I don't wear one to work, or a ball game, or to the movies.  I do wear one anywhere I go where there is prayer said, or scripture read, or scripture studies - except when visiting a church - as a guest, I follow the traditions of the host, just as non-Jewish men visiting a synagogue prayer service are asked to wear a yarmulke. 

In my lodge, I am not a guest, my yarmulke is a functional object, not a religious article (see an earlier post), prayers are read, in some cases scripture is recited, and a Bible sits on the altar.  My practice of Judaism therefore requires me to show humility to God by covering my head.  And my Lodge has no issue with it.  

I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but I would note that the issue with a yarmulke is not because it is so thing religious, but simply because it is a question of having one's head covered.  Since I seem to remember so thing from my EA degree saying that nothing in Freemasonry would be be a problem when it comes to my responsibility to my family, faith, or country, I am not surprised that is is not an issue in my lodge.

Lastly, I would suggest that it should either be allowed or not, without any attempt by a
Lodge to to assess or judge the religious requirements of its members. I trust my Brethren to be sincere in their religious practices, and I certainly wouldn't presume to judge their understanding of what is religiously required, or choose which sects and denominations are more or less acceptable, authentic, or sincere. 

The last thing I will says that if I were a guest at a lodge I was visiting, I would ask the WM beforehand.  If he were not comfortable with it, I would not wear it.  My discomfort as a guest would be trumped by his potential discomfort as host.  There is a Jewish concept called Shalom bayit, which literally translates as "peace of the house" but basically means keeping harmony.  Compromises can be made for the sake of Shalom bayit, and different people feel that there are different extents to which compromise can be made for harmony's sake.  For me, I will go uncovered as a guest in a lodge for the sake of maintaining harmony. It makes me uncomfortable enough, however, that any lodge I am a member of would be one that allows a yarmulke.  

Sorry for the ramble.






Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 4, 2014)

It's an issue of which culture is seen as superior to the other. A Western cultural imperialist, since we uncover our heads to show respect (to God, for example), would be outraged at someone covering his head in a situation where heads are to be uncovered. The Jewish cultural tradition (which has contributed to but is not the same as the Western tradition) says to cover ones head to show respect to God, at very least. In an organization that purports itself to be of universal brotherhood, I'd say that each man should be allowed to exercise his own traditions.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 16, 2015)

scialytic said:


> What is the origin of the WM and the hat?


As I understand it the hat symbolizes the crown of King Solomon.


----------



## Bloke (Nov 16, 2015)

Current MWGM is Jewish and wears his Yamaka in Lodge. Nothing unusual in that. In subordinate lodges, I've seen it both ways but by personal choice. Interestingly, a recently installed WM just started wearing his now he is in the East but does not wear it outside or when in other positions..


----------



## Levelhead (Nov 16, 2015)

In florida. The digest says Yes.


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom


----------



## Ripcord22A (Nov 16, 2015)

NM yes


----------



## MaineMason (Dec 8, 2015)

I took a peek in Drummond's Monitor (now called the Maine Masonic Text Book) to see what governs Masons here in Maine. I see no reference to religiously obligated head coverings one way or another though, as pointed out in several comments by those from other Grand Lodge jurisdictions the Worshipful Master of a Blue Lodge may wear a top hat or not at his discretion. We had the Most Worshipful Grand Master in the East for some degree work last Saturday at our Lodge and when Worshipful gave the gavel and the East over to the Grand Master he also removed his top hat while sitting at the right of Most Worshipful Grand Master in the East which I would assume would be normal protocol in most of the Grand Lodges in North America.


----------



## Emjaysmash (Dec 9, 2015)

My brother, father and I always wore yarmulke in lodge, even in the presence of the MWGM. There was never any problem.


----------



## Levelhead (Dec 9, 2015)

Fl digest says its permitted. 


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom


----------



## samelevel (Feb 15, 2016)

I don't see any issues about it!


----------



## CLewey44 (Feb 18, 2016)

Would a Sikh be allowed to wear there a turban? Would that be the same? Or a Muslim wear his religious cap?

It's tough to say. I think if you cant abide by rules of an institution, it may not be for you. Should Muslim-Americans in the U.S. military have to shave? I think so unless they are on a shaving waiver for health reasons. Should the state government employee who is a Christian but disagrees with a certain marriage equality right be allowed to decline a marriage license based on his or her beliefs. I dont think so. If they do, they should be reprimanded.

Nobody or no one religion is above another, Masonically speaking. If no Mason brotheris allowed to wear hats of any kind in lodge, except the WM, then so mote it be.


----------



## Bloke (Feb 18, 2016)

CLewey44 said:


> Would a Sikh be allowed to wear there a turban? Would that be the same? Or a Muslim wear his religious cap?



I would say yes and yes.. If you see pics of lodges in India, they are full of turbans. My guiding light would be not to compromise a brothers religious beliefs... this is why we do not serve pork at lodge, it's just easier not to (oh, unless we have a breakfast, then we take orders and cook some eggs before the bacon goes into the pan)..


----------



## Companion Joe (Feb 18, 2016)

Bloke said:


> I would say yes and yes.. If you see pics of lodges in India, they are full of turbans. My guiding light would be not to compromise a brothers religious beliefs... this is why *we do not serve pork at lodge*, it's just easier not to (oh, unless we have a breakfast, then we take orders and cook some eggs before the bacon goes into the pan)..



That would never fly in the Southeast. There are two basic Masonic meals: BBQ or fried chicken (and banana pudding!).


----------



## CLewey44 (Feb 18, 2016)

Bloke said:


> I would say yes and yes.. If you see pics of lodges in India, they are full of turbans. My guiding light would be not to compromise a brothers religious beliefs... this is why we do not serve pork at lodge, it's just easier not to (oh, unless we have a breakfast, then we take orders and cook some eggs before the bacon goes into the pan)..



I understand that with India but I would wonder if their guidelines are different. If that's the case and the Indian GL allows it, it's ok I say. I bet in Israel the yamaka is acceptable in lodge per the Israeli GL. But in a U.S. state that may differ. Idk, tough to say.


----------



## Bill Lins (Feb 18, 2016)

Companion Joe said:


> That would never fly in the Southeast. There are two basic Masonic meals: BBQ or fried chicken (and banana pudding!).


We have solved all these problems in Texas. To begin with, BBQ here is BEEF! Pigs need not apply! Secondly, our Masonic law defines a "hat" as having a full (360 degree) brim. Religious headgear not having such (to my knowledge), it would be OK.


----------



## MarkR (Feb 19, 2016)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> We have solved all these problems in Texas. To begin with, BBQ here is BEEF! Pigs need not apply! Secondly, our Masonic law defines a "hat" as having a full (360 degree) brim. Religious headgear not having such (to my knowledge), it would be OK.


So a baseball cap is okay for the brethren?  There's no 360° brim on a ball cap.


----------



## Companion Joe (Feb 19, 2016)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> We have solved all these problems in Texas. To begin with, BBQ here is BEEF! Pigs need not apply! Secondly, our Masonic law defines a "hat" as having a full (360 degree) brim. Religious headgear not having such (to my knowledge), it would be OK.



I'm all for some brisket, too.


----------



## dfreybur (Feb 19, 2016)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> We have solved all these problems in Texas. To begin with, BBQ here is BEEF! Pigs need not apply!



Interesting.  I've had pulled pork or ribs at plenty of places in Texas, but I don't recall any BBQ other than beef at lodge dinners.

If you've ever wondered why the cows on Chick-Fil-A billboards are fiberglass, now you know.  We had the originals for dinner at lodge.


----------



## Bill Lins (Feb 19, 2016)

MarkR said:


> So a baseball cap is okay for the brethren?  There's no 360° brim on a ball cap.


Technically yes, AND incorrect for the WM. However, in practice only the WM wears a headgear, except for the aforementioned religious kit, which generally is only seen in large city Lodges.


----------



## Bill Lins (Feb 19, 2016)

All this discussion of BBQ is making me hungry!


----------



## CLewey44 (Feb 19, 2016)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> All this discussion of BBQ is making me hungry!



Oh my, me too! Nothing like some good bbq...can't find any here worth a dang...


----------



## samelevel (Feb 20, 2016)

CLewey44 said:


> Would a Sikh be allowed to wear there a turban? Would that be the same? Or a Muslim wear his religious cap?
> 
> It's tough to say. I think if you cant abide by rules of an institution, it may not be for you. Should Muslim-Americans in the U.S. military have to shave? I think so unless they are on a shaving waiver for health reasons. Should the state government employee who is a Christian but disagrees with a certain marriage equality right be allowed to decline a marriage license based on his or her beliefs. I dont think so. If they do, they should be reprimanded.
> 
> ...


----------



## samelevel (Feb 20, 2016)

vangoedenaam said:


> *Re: Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge *
> 
> 
> I totally agree with a fellow brother who stated:
> "regardless of a constitutional rule, I would always allow a man be he Sikh, Druze, Jew, etc. to follow his religious tradition in lodge. Its about freedom of and not freedom from."


----------



## Mike Martin (Feb 23, 2016)

It's the same as the turbans our Sikh brethren wear in Lodge


----------



## CLewey44 (Feb 23, 2016)

Mike Martin said:


> It's the same as the turbans our Sikh brethren wear in Lodge



What if someone was wearing a religious piece of jewelry, when required to divest anything of a metallic nature,  would they be required to so during that point in their Masonic journey?  I think GLs should make it in writing that it is ok to wear any religious relics or symbols such as hats or jewelry while in lodge at any point if some religions require it.  I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to because it bothers me in any way, but I'm sort of a stickler for fairness and rules. I'm all about diversity in our lodges for sure and if the GL says it's ok, then it's ok by me.


----------



## BroBook (Feb 23, 2016)

No jewelry doing initiation !!!


----------



## dfreybur (Feb 23, 2016)

CLewey44 said:


> What if someone was wearing a religious piece of jewelry, when required to divest anything of a metallic nature,  would they be required to so during that point in their Masonic journey?  I think GLs should make it in writing that it is ok to wear any religious relics or symbols such as hats or jewelry while in lodge at any point if some religions require it.  I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to because it bothers me in any way, but I'm sort of a stickler for fairness and rules. I'm all about diversity in our lodges for sure and if the GL says it's ok, then it's ok by me.




When I was prepared I was asked if I was willing to take off my wedding ring and religious necklace.  I had no trouble doing so for the degree after checking that i would get them back at the end of the evening.  Later I learned this was a standard part of the preparation that doesn't always get taught to new brothers new to preparing candidates -

When a candidate hesitates to take off his wedding ring we offer a band-aid and tell him that during the degree it's a part of his body not a metal object.  That he'll remember the wording later.  Same with a religious jewel.  I've seen a candidate lean over the Bible and big gold cross came out and thumped the Bible.  A few of us gasped in surprise.  A steward groaned in frustration at forgetting that part of the preparation.


----------



## CLewey44 (Feb 23, 2016)

BroBook said:


> No jewelry doing initiation !!!



Then in that regard, maybe no hats in lodge too. Religious or not...There is a reason for no metal therefore there's a reason no hats.


----------



## samelevel (Mar 28, 2016)

First of all:    it's not a hat
Second of all:   It's meant to be freedom of religion and not freedom from!


----------



## CLewey44 (Mar 29, 2016)

samelevel said:


> First of all:    it's not a hat
> Second of all:   It's meant to be freedom of religion and not freedom from!



I've read that their is debate still as to whether or not it's a religious requirement or more of a tradition. Also, most Jewish people only wear them in synagogue, weddings or funerals. It is a cap by definition or head cover. Also, would jewelry be allowed during the parts where metal is not allowed or is that making someone's freedom of religion compromised? I think we're treading into waters that are a little iffy. The Masonic lodge isn't a place of worship and really, we're under that lodges constitution as long as we are participating in ritual, meetings or any other Masonic ceremony of that lodge or GL. We're all on the level in their and frankly, wearing any religious regalia should maybe be in the realm of  talking about religion or politics in lodge, right? Should we wear Vote for Bernie pins as a freedom of speech? I don't think so. Let's keep it simple I say and abide by the rules.


----------



## Bloke (Mar 29, 2016)

CLewey44 said:


> Let's keep it simple I say and abide by the rules.



Fortunately, ours say you can wear them. And our GM does because he happens to be Jewish. My understanding is that, particularly when taking obligation, they are taken under the sight of the GAOTU hence the head gear is appropriate.

At the end of the day, is banning it helping or hindering the Craft ? The issue kind of reminds me about people arguing about Freedom of women in Islam and women being "oppressed" by the hajib, then in the same breath banning women from wearing it removing the choice of doing so - thereby removing their Freedom.

If we get bent out of shape by a pin, or a hat worn by another freemason - are we truly practicing acceptance and tolerance ? I'm a great supporter of "no religion or politics"  at lodge, but also that being all on the level DOES NOT MEAN we all need to be the same. Indeed the diversity and tolerance and acceptance within Freemasonry is something which I am proud of and enjoy.

We should look to what unites rather than divides, yet still allow and be tolerant of individual expression.

I guess I am a bit coloured by living in a very multicultural society, yet being used to see what brings us together rather than what divides...


----------



## Brother JC (Mar 30, 2016)

We had a candidate once who had a bracelet that he was obligated to wear. We didn't delve into the details, we respected his beliefs, wrapped a cloth around his wrist, and conducted his degrees. There was a small muttering in the sidelines, but only from the usual suspects.


----------



## CLewey44 (Mar 30, 2016)

Bloke said:


> Fortunately, ours say you can wear them. And our GM does because he happens to be Jewish. My understanding is that, particularly when taking obligation, they are taken under the sight of the GAOTU hence the head gear is appropriate.
> 
> At the end of the day, is banning it helping or hindering the Craft ? The issue kind of reminds me about people arguing about Freedom of women in Islam and women being "oppressed" by the hajib, then in the same breath banning women from wearing it removing the choice of doing so - thereby removing their Freedom.
> 
> ...



It's truly not a big deal to me but I'm sort of a stickler for rules. We can argue in circles all day about what's a hat or not or if it's religious freedom but I'm sort of a guy who says if your GL says it's ok, then that's great.  If another says not, then maybe it's not. It should be rewritten maybe to where it says no hats or headcovers except of religious nature are ok. It's not discrimination of a group of people as with the gay or black issues on other forums, it's a simple restriction of certain clothing items that the person can immediately put back on when he's out of the lodge and yet still be a full member of our fraternity. But I digress.


----------



## The Traveling Man (Apr 17, 2016)

Definitely nothing metal during Initiation. A candidate, if truly prepared in his heart, should be able to understand the importance of it and shouldn't mind removing his ring for an hour. If he is told that early in the process he will have a few months to embrace it before he's Initiated. As for religious headgear, I don't know how I'd feel. I probably wouldn't give much thought to it if I entered Lodge and saw someone wearing one. But I'd prefer no one wear headgear. We all meet on the Level in Lodge, there is no need to wear something that separates one Brother from the others.


----------



## CLewey44 (Apr 17, 2016)

The Traveling Man said:


> Definitely nothing metal during Initiation. A candidate, if truly prepared in his heart, should be able to understand the importance of it and shouldn't mind removing his ring for an hour. If he is told that early in the process he will have a few months to embrace it before he's Initiated. As for religious headgear, I don't know how I'd feel. I probably wouldn't give much thought to it if I entered Lodge and saw someone wearing one. But I'd prefer no one wear headgear. We all meet on the Level in Lodge, there is no need to wear something that separates one Brother from the others.



I couldn't agree more. If the rules say what they say then we need to abide by them as far as I'm concerned. It's not about taking religious freedom from these gentlemen it's simply following the rules of the lodge where we are all on the same level.


----------



## admarcus1 (Jun 10, 2016)

CLewey44 said:


> I've read that their is debate still as to whether or not it's a religious requirement or more of a tradition. Also, most Jewish people only wear them in synagogue, weddings or funerals. It is a cap by definition or head cover. Also, would jewelry be allowed during the parts where metal is not allowed or is that making someone's freedom of religion compromised? I think we're treading into waters that are a little iffy. The Masonic lodge isn't a place of worship and really, we're under that lodges constitution as long as we are participating in ritual, meetings or any other Masonic ceremony of that lodge or GL. We're all on the level in their and frankly, wearing any religious regalia should maybe be in the realm of  talking about religion or politics in lodge, right? Should we wear Vote for Bernie pins as a freedom of speech? .



Jewish religious requirements are not determined by majority rule. Like Christianity and Islam, it is not a monolithic religion. Most Jews do not keep strictly keep kosher or the sabbath either. That does not therefore make them optional for me. 
Secondly, for those who wear one, it is not an outward sign, nor is it "regalia". Covering ones head is a required sign of respect to God. 

I don't wear one all the time, and I don't actually wear one in lodge, with an exception. My denomination requires the wearing of a yarmulke when in the synagogue or when saying a prayer, or when handling/reading/using scripture. So I put mine on when taking an obligation. I would wear it in the role of Chaplain, if asked to do that. 

If I were forbidden from wearing it while taking and obligation, I would not be an officer or, in fact, a Mason. 

Comparing it to wearing a political pin doesn't make sense. It is not a constitutional issue. The constitution applies to government anyway. The issue is what we want are fraternity to be.  If we have a rule which effectively bars individuals based on their religious belief for which exceptions can be made with little or no negative impact, we should be doing it. Strict adherence to this rule effectively bars religiously observant Jews, Muslims, Seikhs, and many others. Do we want to tell a man that respect for the WM trumps respect for the GAOTU?

Rules that can be modified to be more inclusive should be. Should we go back to excluding people who have been disfigured?  We make accommodations so that good men who would be excellent Masons are not excluded. And that change is more than one of Masonic etiquette or protocol. 




Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## Companion Joe (Jun 10, 2016)

That would create quite a conundrum.
In some states, the WM removes his hat for the obligation, removes his hat for prayer, removes his hat for any scripture, and doffs it any time the word "G" is said. There is even a portion of ritual that says "uncovered heads" as a sign of respect.


----------



## admarcus1 (Jun 10, 2016)

We have part of our ritual that says that the candidate is kneeling at the consecrated altar, and we have had candidates unable to physically kneel. We have other places where what is stated in ritual does not exactly match what is physically done. Somehow, we manage.  The history and ritual must be preserved, but where the spirit of Freemasonry and common decency require small accommodations, I fall on the side of decency and inclusiveness. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## Bloke (Jun 10, 2016)

Companion Joe said:


> That would create quite a conundrum.
> 
> In some states, the WM removes his hat for the obligation, removes his hat for prayer, removes his hat for any scripture, and doffs it any time the word "G" is said. There is even a portion of ritual that says "uncovered heads" as a sign of respect.




No conundrum for me.


We also have "ancient penalties" which now act as symbols - just as head gear does. I would not offend a brothers religious needs in order  to comply with a symbolic masonic practise in a lodge room which vary the world over and can be changed at the whim of a GM or ritual committee and in many countries are not prescribed. Ritual books and traditions are not some sort of unflexible rite, they are a tool to teach and as such we should not get hung up on them but use them to TEACH ... and here, I would teach TOLERANCE AND ACCEPTANCDE AND FLEXIBILITY AND RESPECT – where hat wearing fell out at the end of all that is not really that important to me and I am sure the GAOTU does not give a flip beyond treating each other well.


----------



## admarcus1 (Jun 10, 2016)

Bloke said:


> No conundrum for me.
> 
> 
> We also have "ancient penalties" which now act as symbols - just as head gear does. I would not offend a brothers religious needs in order  to comply with a symbolic masonic practise in a lodge room which vary the world over and can be changed at the whim of a GM or ritual committee and in many countries are not prescribed. Ritual books and traditions are not some sort of unflexible rite, they are a tool to teach and as such we should not get hung up on them but use them to TEACH ... and here, I would teach TOLERANCE AND ACCEPTANCDE AND FLEXIBILITY AND RESPECT – where hating wearing fell out at the end of all that is not really that important to me and I am sure the GAOTU does not give a flip beyond treating each other well.


Well said, Brother. You captured my thoughts in your post much more clearly and eloquently than I could. Thank you.


----------



## Companion Joe (Jun 10, 2016)

This particular circumstance is really a moot point in my area because it's never going to come up.

As for the flippant "Meh, we've got a way of doing things, but if you don't like it, we'll toss it" attitude, I disagree. That's what's gotten our society into the shape it's in. Take Masonry out of it: if an individual asks to join a group, the onus is on the individual to conform to the group's established customs and practices, not the other way around.


----------



## admarcus1 (Jun 10, 2016)

In other words, good men of all races, religions and backgrounds are welcome, so long as they are exactly like everyone else.

And I don't take Masonry out of it. We Masons have a higher standard. For a Fraternity founded on tolerance, concerned with the true essence of a man, and which influenced the respect for individual rights in the fledgling American republic, I would think that a demand of conformity would not trump brotherhood. Moses Michael Hays, an eminent Mason, one of the earliest Grand Masters in Massachusetts (Paul Revere), and one of those who brought the Scottish Rite to America, was noted for his refusal, as a Jew, to conform to the requirement in parts of New England at the time that oaths be taken as a Christian. For this he was properly celebrated. He knew that a man who gives up his principles and his duty to God in order to fit in, to conform, was not a man of integrity. 

This topic raises my blood pressure.  After taking a year's break from this topic, I will have to take at least another year.


----------



## Companion Joe (Jun 11, 2016)

Not once did I mention race, religion, or background. You did.

My point was that if an individual asks to join a volunteer organization, don't expect the established majority to bend to the will of the newly-added one. That's why I even said take Masonry out of the picture. My point stands for any group. Let's say I asked to join a local soccer or basketball team. I get accepted but then tell them I don't like the team uniforms or the time they practice or where the group goes out to eat after games or whatever. Tough. 

If we conscripted members, I might have a different point of view. Every time you turn around in this country 999 people have to accommodate one person because they got offended or their feelings hurt.


----------



## admarcus1 (Jun 11, 2016)

I'm breaking my rule by responding. 

Correct. You did not specifically mention race or background. However, religion is very much the point.  I mention the others beause it seems like you view the toleration of difference as this onerous burden on everyone else that they must put up with.  

 This is not the an issue of asking anyone to do anything to not hurt someone's feelings (though I forget when sparing someone's feelings became a bad thing - I was always tough that if you can, you probably should). This is merely recognizing that we have a choice. We can decide that a rule of etiquette is more important than our very basic tenet of accepting people of all faiths, or we can be true to the spirit of Freemasonry.  We can choose to guard the West Gate well so that we are focused on bringing good men into the Fraternity, while being respectful of minor differences. 

And now I am out. Since I can't trust myself not to respond, I will have to stop even reading.


----------



## admarcus1 (Jun 11, 2016)

I will add this.

My wife has a great GIF which shows a woman furiously typing with a frown on her face. The caption says "Be right there, honey.  I just have to finish telling someone on the internet that he's wrong". 

It makes me smile every time I see it.


----------



## Joseph Thornton (Jun 20, 2016)

Companion Joe said:


> Not once did I mention race, religion, or background. You did.
> 
> My point was that if an individual asks to join a volunteer organization, don't expect the established majority to bend to the will of the newly-added one. That's why I even said take Masonry out of the picture. My point stands for any group. Let's say I asked to join a local soccer or basketball team. I get accepted but then tell them I don't like the team uniforms or the time they practice or where the group goes out to eat after games or whatever. Tough.
> 
> If we conscripted members, I might have a different point of view. Every time you turn around in this country 999 people have to accommodate one person because they got offended or their feelings hurt.



Not in 100% agreement with this. I am in general agreement.

I worked at places that require every employee to be in the same uniform. But an exception was made for women of Penticostal denomination who did not wear uniform pants but long skirts in the appropriate color. I think this is one of the reasons, you may never find Penticostals serving in the military. Though there is little true doctrine to support a requirement to wear a long skirt / dress, but such a woman that DI NOT wear a dress like that would be outcast, scorned and ridiculed by the others, and likely in BIG trouble with her husband.

As for Jews, and even Muslims. I personally have no issue with their headwear. But I also know that they have no issue with removing it for a while if they need to. I've seen em do it.


----------



## admarcus1 (Jun 20, 2016)

Joseph Thornton said:


> But I also know that they have no issue with removing it for a while if they need to. I've seen em do it.



Brother Thornton,

The fact that you have seen one Jewish person who removes his head covering has only tells you that particular person's beliefs about whether or not his head should be covered and when.  Judaism is an diverse religion with a wide range of religious practices and not governing religious authority or doctrine.  Some Jews never cover their heads, some believe it should be covered in a synagogue.  Some believe it must be warn whenever and wherever one is at prayer or handling or reading holy books (count me there, which is why I slip one on when kneeling for the benefit of prayer in lodge), and some would never be uncovered except when sleeping or showering.


----------



## Joseph Thornton (Jun 20, 2016)

I dont pretend to speak for all Jews, just sharing an observation.

And what about Jews of your sort in the military where you will not be able to wear the garment in uniform?

Again, I personally have no issue with Jews wearing their headgear anywhere they choose. In fact, where I work there is a Rabbi that comes here every quarter to do kosher inspections. This facility requires protective headgear. He wears an Ivy type cap all day over his yamaka. And the same when he switches to safety gear. Removing his ivy hat, placing a hard hat over his yamaka. Then vice versa when he leaves. If you didnt see him switch hats, you would never know he is wearing one. SO that tell me, that to HIM, this is not just a hat. He wears his hats over it. And so in lodge, he technically would not be wearing a hat at all.

As a Christian, I would enjoy spending more personal time with Jews so I can learn and understand better.


----------



## admarcus1 (Jun 20, 2016)

Joseph Thornton said:


> I dont pretend to speak for all Jews, just sharing an observation.
> 
> And what about Jews of your sort in the military where you will not be able to wear the garment in uniform?
> 
> ...




Good questions. Regarding the military:  wearing a hat or a helmet makes wearing a yarmulke unnecessary.   As long as your head is covered, you are in compliance.  If a military situation will not allow a head covering at all, the principal that the preservation of life trumps virtually all religious requirements would likely apply, since the military would likely be considered a life and death situation.

I will note that as of 2014, the US military allows yarmulkes as well as other religious headgear, though I am sure there are regulations around size and such for safety reasons.  Beards worn for religious reasons are also allowed, again likely with some regulations around them.  You might not want a 4 foot beard in a combat situation. 

So why did the Rabbi put on the hard hat over his yarmulke?  Another good question.  I cannot tell you his personal reason, but it is most likely convenience, and not wanting to either lose it or accidentally walk around without it. My orthodox friends always put their baseball caps on over it because if they take them off and stick them in a pocket, they might lose it (which you don't want to do if it is a nice one or a gift or something), and also because if you are used to always having one in, it would be easy enough to take off your hat and, forgetting you had stuck the yarmulke in your pocket, you might walk around bareheaded without realizing it. It's really the same reason I don't remove my rings when I wash my hands.  I might forget I've done it and walk away, leaving them on the counter.  I will admit to losing many a yarmulke when I was a kid, or sending a couple of nice ones through the wash and ruining them because I stuck them in my pocket once school was out (I went to religious school where we had to wear them all the time).

Ari Marcus
Junior Deacon
Norfolk Lodge
Needham, Ma


----------



## Mindovermatter Ace (Jun 29, 2016)

Long thread for a simple answer.....No!


----------



## Winter (Jun 29, 2016)

Mindovermatter Ace said:


> Long thread for a simple answer.....No!
> 
> 
> Aaron Christopher
> ...


The answer is far from simple and in many jurisdictions woukd be no issue for a Jewish Brother to wear a kippah.  

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.


----------



## The Traveling Man (Jun 29, 2016)

I respect a Brothers religion. But I feel that if the rules in a Jurisdiction state that only the Master wears a hat then that's how it should be. If those rules are stated up front then it gives the candidate the option to back out if he so desires... There are instances where no metal is to be worn and a married man would be expected to take his ring off. Similar principle... I wouldn't call a Brother out if I walked into Lodge and seen someone wearing a Yamaka, but I wouldn't like it. Prayers in Lodge are non denominational so I don't see how it'd be a violation for the Brother to be present, without his Yamaka, during a prayer in Lodge.


----------



## Mindovermatter Ace (Jul 2, 2016)

Winter said:


> The answer is far from simple and in many jurisdictions woukd be no issue for a Jewish Brother to wear a kippah.
> 
> Transmitted via my R5 astromech.



To which jurisdictions would you be referring to? Can you be more specific?


----------



## Bloke (Jul 2, 2016)

Mindovermatter Ace said:


> To which jurisdictions would you be referring to? Can you be more specific?


It's no issue to wear one in Craft Lodges working under UGLV


----------



## dfreybur (Jul 3, 2016)

Winter said:


> The answer is far from simple



The issue is extremely simple.



> and in many jurisdictions woukd be no issue for a Jewish Brother to wear a kippah.



Both of the jurisdictions whose rules I know well (California and Illinois) long ago declared the yarmuke to be a part of the body.  Simple.

I have seen a GM put his hat on over his yarmulke when taking the grand eastern chair at GL.


----------



## Winter (Jul 3, 2016)

I meant that it wasn't simple only because different jurisdictions and Brothers obviously have different thoughts on the matter. I know I don't see a problem with a Jewish Brother wearing a yarmulka or a sikh Brother wearing their head covering in Lodge. But this thread woukd not have gone as long as it has if it were a simple yes or no answer.  

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.


----------



## Winter (Jul 3, 2016)

Mindovermatter Ace said:


> To which jurisdictions would you be referring to? Can you be more specific?


I know Wisconsin and Illinois and I suspect Florida may be the same from discussions I have had, but I am not positive on that.  

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.


----------



## Joseph Thornton (Jul 5, 2016)

Mindovermatter Ace said:


> Long thread for a simple answer.....No!
> 
> 
> Aaron Christopher
> ...



If every question could be answered simply and with no debate or review, many topics would not be FULLY covered and so there would be more REPEAT questions over and over.

Also there would be less need to even use a forum considering that many of the visitors here want to talk, engage and stimulate.


----------



## dfreybur (Jul 6, 2016)

Winter said:


> I meant that it wasn't simple only because different jurisdictions and Brothers obviously have different thoughts on the matter.



The only reason I don't list the answer for my third jurisdiction is so far I've only read the Texas Masonic law book through cover to cover once.  I don't know the material well enough to know without looking it up.  Here's the reason the answer is simple - It can be looked up.  Here's why the answer is simple - Look it up.  Here's why I think various Brothers have various opinions - They have not yet looked it up.

Once a jurisdiction settles the matter, a Brother's thoughts on the matter are only an issue until he looks it up.  Everyone knows what they say about the word "assume".  This is why various types of Masonic education matter so much.  Learning the GL regulations is one form of Masonic education.



Winter said:


> I know Wisconsin and Illinois and I suspect Florida may be the same from discussions I have had, but I am not positive on that.



For Illinois I am positive.  I know the Masonic code book well for Illinois having been in the east twice in that jurisdiction.  Long ago the yarmulke was declared a part of a Brother's body.

In Illinois there's technically a requirement to read a section of the code at every Stated meeting.  I lived up to that requirement the second year I was in the east in Illinois (sigh, not all that many Illinois lodges have even noticed the written requirement).  This is one of the sections I read to the lodge.

If it hasn't been decided in your jurisdiction - That's a challenge for you.  Go through the line to have vote in GL.  Propose settling the issue in accord with nearly all other jurisdictions.  But I'll bet you that your jurisdiction decided this long ago and you just haven't looked it up yet.


----------



## grayflannelsuit (Sep 9, 2016)

My understanding is that in NJ a yarmulke or similar religious headwear is permitted.


----------



## Ajay Chandar (Oct 29, 2017)

Here in India, Sikh Freemasons are allowed to wear their turbans to lodge meetings.


----------



## David612 (Oct 29, 2017)

Ajay Chandar said:


> Here in India, Sikh Freemasons are allowed to wear their turbans to lodge meetings.


Same is true here in my jurisdiction of Australia, that said our WM dosnt wear a hat either.


----------



## HoldenMonty (Oct 30, 2017)

I wouldn't disagree with them except for if they were going through one of the degrees then I would say that they need to be prepared accordingly without the religious wear.


----------



## Bloke (Oct 30, 2017)

HoldenMonty said:


> I wouldn't disagree with them except for if they were going through one of the degrees then I would say that they need to be prepared accordingly without the religious wear.


LOL. That might be the very time they feel it's most necessary. 

Many would say the topic of this thread should be
*Can a Jewish Brother  NOT Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge Room?*
rather than
*Can a Jewish Brother Wear a Yamaka in a Lodge Room?*


----------

