# Is Masonry a religion?



## jonesvilletexas (Mar 12, 2010)

Chack out this topic on our new group. In the Masons of Texas Groups (Christian Masons)


Entirely too little is known to the vast majority of our brethren of the modern organizations known as Masonic. They have been given the letter, which,though beautiful in itself, does not contain the life, and because of this lack, they cannot successfully defend the expression frequently heard, that Masonry is a religion.


----------



## dhouseholder (Mar 13, 2010)

What new group?


----------



## jonesvilletexas (Mar 13, 2010)

In the Masons of Texas Groups (Christian Masons)


----------



## dhouseholder (Mar 13, 2010)

jonesvilletexas said:


> They have been given the letter, which,though beautiful in itself, does not contain the life, and because of this lack, they cannot successfully defend the expression frequently heard, that Masonry is a religion.


 So, are you saying that it is or is not a religion? :huh:


----------



## jonesvilletexas (Mar 13, 2010)

I defend that Masonry is *not* a religion. It offers no means of salvation of the soul. 
Eph 2:8  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:


----------



## dhouseholder (Mar 22, 2010)

Well then, just for sake of argument, and I love playing Devil's Advocate...

Could Freemasonry stand on its own as a religion? Hear my arguments....

First we should look at the definition of religion...
_reÂ·liÂ·gion
   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
â€“noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs._

A) One could plainly see that the tenets of Freemasonry are a set of beliefs. Check
B) I have never come across anything Masonic that discusses the cause if the universe, but judging from the language and flavor, I can deduce that the GAotU built it. Tentative check
C) The nature of the universe is a little more tricky. Freemasonry takes a lot from the old Hermetic philosophy. Their explanation of the nature of the universe was "As above, so below", could one argue that, the more we align ourselves with the actions and thoughts that we know (or believe) to be in accordance with the tools that the GAotU set forth for us, the more "in line" with the GAotU's designs we are? Tentative check
D) I definitely know that we talk of superhuman agencies. (God, resurrection, invoking the aid of Deity etc.) Check
E) We definitely talk of devotion as it is our devotion to the code of morality is what gains us admission into the House. Check
F) Ritual observances? Check
G) Containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs? Check

Let us discuss!

I am not saying that Freemasonry is a religion. I only using my reasoning abilities to deduce here. If I offend anyone, please let me know.


----------



## drapetomaniac (Mar 22, 2010)

I think "salvation of the soul" as a requirement for religion is.. well, Christian.  And it is a western habit to define religion (and aspects of religion) by Christianity.

I think Masonry is religious without a doubt.  An organization can be religion and even based on religion without being a religion itself.

The Jesuits are a religious organization, but are not a religion.  Of course, their religious perspective is a subset of monotheism and a subset of christianity and a subset of catholicism, being more Jesuit than Franciscan.


----------



## JEbeling (Mar 22, 2010)

I have know a lot of religous men in Masonary... ! I have never heard one of them try to convert me to any religous point of view.. ! don't think masonary is a religion.. ! in my long years as a mason have never run into anyone promoting it as a religion.. !


----------



## dhouseholder (Mar 23, 2010)

drapetomaniac said:


> I think "salvation of the soul" as a requirement for religion is.. well, Christian.  And it is a western habit to define religion (and aspects of religion) by Christianity.


 Good call.



drapetomaniac said:


> I think Masonry is religious without a doubt.  An organization can be religion and even based on religion without being a religion itself.


 And this is the explanation I am looking for. I have always heard Masons say, "We are not a religion", heck I have even fiercely defended that we are not. I would just like to know, what specifically makes us NOT a religion. Is salvation it?



drapetomaniac said:


> The Jesuits are a religious organization, but are not a religion.  Of course, their religious perspective is a subset of monotheism and a subset of christianity and a subset of catholicism, being more Jesuit than Franciscan.


 It seems I need to read up on my monastic orders.



JEbeling said:


> I have know a lot of religious men in Masonary... ! I have never heard one of them try to convert me to any religious point of view..


 Please let it be known that I am not attempting to do this, merely incite a conversation. 



JEbeling said:


> ! don't think masonry is a religion.. ! in my long years as a mason have never run into anyone promoting it as a religion.. !


 Nor have I. I would just like to know if there is something specific that defines us from a religion philosophically, or is it so because we say it is.


----------



## Stewart Cook (Mar 27, 2010)

People have often asked me what is the meaning and purpose of Freemasonry. I usually tell them that there are as many different definitions and interpretations of Freemasonry as there are Freemasons...and I usually add...the same could be probably be said of religions. Clearly for some Brothers, this _is_ their religion while for others this is strictly a secular craft with religious themes. The metaphysical components of our work cannot be denied, but neither can the purely mundane aspects be disregarded.  I think we (as a species) need to confine everything into neat little boxes under precise labels, because deep down we are fundamentally afraid of uncertainty. This has made the cultures of the world very litigious...especially in the West. Borrowing from several ancient schools of thought, I would point out that this analytical way of thinking gives us only half the story as we struggle to confine and control that which we do not understand.


----------



## PeterLT (Mar 27, 2010)

I think that the main reason, in my mind, that Freemasonry is not a religion is the intensity with which organized religions attempt to squash participation by their members in the Craft. I've been to lodges that have as many as 4 VOSL's on the altar and that is what makes it religious yet not a religion; it's inclusiveness. A religion, to be true to the definition, must be_ exclusive_ to exist. It's teachings must be the *only* way to salvation. Even in Christianity there exists factions, just look at all the various denominations. All proclaim that their way is the only way. Other religions are even more exclusive, Islam for example.

Freemasonry cannot be a religion, as would be universally recognized, simply because we accept all good men of good repute who believe in a Supreme Being. And we do so without prejudice. 


Peter


----------



## dhouseholder (Apr 9, 2010)

PeterLT said:


> I think that the main reason, in my mind, that Freemasonry is not a religion is the intensity with which organized religions attempt to squash participation by their members in the Craft. I've been to lodges that have as many as 4 VOSL's on the altar and that is what makes it religious yet not a religion; it's inclusiveness. A religion, to be true to the definition, must be_ exclusive_ to exist. It's teachings must be the *only* way to salvation. Even in Christianity there exists factions, just look at all the various denominations. All proclaim that their way is the only way. Other religions are even more exclusive, Islam for example.
> 
> Freemasonry cannot be a religion, as would be universally recognized, simply because we accept all good men of good repute who believe in a Supreme Being. And we do so without prejudice.
> 
> ...


 
Good points. We always need good thinkers here.


----------



## JTM (Apr 12, 2010)

let me stir the pot a bit.

reÂ·liÂ·gion
[ri-lij-uhn]
â€“noun
1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. 

#1.  interestingly enough... it would seem to fit. 

**********************************************************

now, to get the popcorn and let the sparks fly.  cheers!


----------



## PeterLT (Apr 12, 2010)

reÂ·liÂ·gion
[ri-lij-uhn]
â€“noun
_1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs._

Freemasonry does not fall into this category because the beliefs expressed about any of the defined principles are not those of Freemasonry. They are the core beliefs of the religion to whom the Brother belongs, whatever that may be. â€œRitual Observancesâ€ is, in this definition an optional thing that could also be said about applying for a driverâ€™s license. There would be the ritual of standing in line, answering questions, performing a routine and then confirming what has been learned. Moral codes and human affairs are also covered by various national or state laws and doesnâ€™t necessarily imply a religion.

_2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion._

Well, there you go, â€˜nuff said.

_3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions._

By this definition a gardening club could be a religion.


4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

Not applicable to Freemasonry.

_5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

_
This occurs in Freemasonry but it is not the ritual observance of a â€œMasonicâ€ faith but the observance of the faith of the individual member.

  6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

Again, a very broad definition that I suppose an anti-mason could twist to employ. But it doesnâ€™t refer to anything being a religion, only that the practice could be likened to one.

Nope, Freemasonry is not a religion. We can thank our Brethren of many days past that they made it so universal and inclusive as to avoid the pitfalls that a religious dogma can bring.


----------



## dhouseholder (Apr 12, 2010)

JTM said:


> let me stir the pot a bit.
> 
> reÂ·liÂ·gion
> [ri-lij-uhn]
> ...



http://www.masonsoftexas.com/showthread.php/10671-Is-Masonry-a-religion?p=39859&viewfull=1#post39859


----------



## dhouseholder (Apr 12, 2010)

PeterLT said:


> reÂ·liÂ·gion
> [ri-lij-uhn]
> â€“noun
> _1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs._
> ...



I think that this is the main argument against Freemasonry being a religion. It is that we do not teach you anything new. We do not expose you to different truths than that of your chosen religion. You must proclaim a belief in Deity before you can be made a Mason, therefore you MUST have at least a rudimentary religion defining your place within the universe. However degenerate (not used derisively) that religion might be, it is still a religion nonetheless.


_However_, could it be argued that Freemasonry could stand on its own AS a religion? If we did not require a man to have a belief in Deity before they joined? Could a Martian pick up Morals and Dogma, Freemasonry For Dummies, etc. and start a solid, self-supporting, rational religion?


----------



## JTM (Apr 12, 2010)

dhouseholder said:


> http://www.masonsoftexas.com/showthread.php/10671-Is-Masonry-a-religion?p=39859&viewfull=1#post39859


 well played.  i'm not sure how i missed your post 

i suppose we had the same idea. mine was just made as a drive-by posting...  :wink:


----------



## PeterLT (Apr 12, 2010)

> _However_, could it be argued that Freemasonry could stand on its  own AS a religion? If we did not require a man to have a belief in Deity  before they joined? Could a Martian pick up Morals and Dogma,  Freemasonry For Dummies, etc. and start a solid, self-supporting,  rational religion?


 The same could be asked of any religious text such as the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. That said, I have tried to read Morals and Dogma and have found it a profoundly boring read, perhaps our Martian friends have a higher tolerance to droning than I do. It seems to me that the issue is not really a matter of if Freemasonry is a religion or not, since like beauty it is in the eyes of the beholder. No, the real issue is that of motive. Why is it necessary to brand Freemasonry as a religion and what is to be gained in doing so? We as Masons, it is assumed, see that the Craft compliments whatever we carry within us as religious faith but to an outsider there is no such baseline to compare it to. Therefore the profane amongst us can only base any opinion by their own baseline, that being that* their* religion is the only path and anything else is wrong or a threat. By that measure, Freemasonry is a threat but it is handier if it is made a religion.

I think that our gentle Craft simply cannot be a religion and exist as it does, it is a contradiction of terms. But the _inclusiveness_ of Freemasonry makes it a useful, although not always welcome, compliment to any religion.

I do so love esoteric discussions.:001_smile:

Peter


----------



## dhouseholder (Apr 12, 2010)

PeterLT said:


> The same could be asked of any religious text such as the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc.


  Are you saying that M&D and FMfD are religious texts? If so, you are undercutting your position.  



PeterLT said:


> That said, I have tried to read Morals and Dogma and have found it a profoundly boring read, perhaps our Martian friends have a higher tolerance to droning than I do.


 LOL! 



PeterLT said:


> It seems to me that the issue is not really a matter of if Freemasonry is a religion or not, since like beauty it is in the eyes of the beholder.


 Agreed.



PeterLT said:


> No, the real issue is that of motive. Why is it necessary to brand Freemasonry as a religion and what is to be gained in doing so?


 Only academic. As a freethinking Mason, I have always questioned authority; which doesn't mean I never see the reason behind authority.



PeterLT said:


> We as Masons, it is assumed, see that the Craft compliments whatever we carry within us as religious faith but to an outsider there is no such baseline to compare it to. Therefore the profane amongst us can only base any opinion by their own baseline, that being that* their* religion is the only path and anything else is wrong or a threat. By that measure, Freemasonry is a threat but it is handier if it is made a religion.


 So are you saying that people would try to tag Freemasonry as a religion just to vilify it? I think I found them.



PeterLT said:


> I think that our gentle Craft simply cannot be a religion and exist as it does, it is a contradiction of terms.


 But why? Why specifically? If a religious nut forced you to defend this position academically, what would you say?



PeterLT said:


> But the _inclusiveness_ of Freemasonry makes it a useful, although not always welcome, compliment to any religion.
> 
> I do so love esoteric discussions.:001_smile:
> 
> Peter


Agreed on both points!


----------



## dhouseholder (Apr 12, 2010)

JTM said:


> well played.  i'm not sure how i missed your post
> 
> i suppose we had the same idea. mine was just made as a drive-by posting...  :wink:


 LOL, not a problem. You could rectify that by responding to my post to PeterLT. :thumbup1:


----------



## PeterLT (Apr 12, 2010)

Are you saying that M&D and FMfD are religious texts? If so, you are undercutting your position.  



No, only that our understanding of any document, including religious texts and VCR instructions, is based on common knowledge, morals and our own experiences. I dare say that a Martian has not played little league ball (maybe he has?). Take the baseline out and the text becomes words.


Only academic. As a freethinking Mason, I have always questioned authority; which doesn't mean I never see the reason behind authority.


Granted, freethinking is a mark of a Mason. However it is not the mark of organized religion. As Iâ€™ve said before, for a religion to be so it must be exclusive of all other points of view or beliefs. Hence the main basis for discounting Freemasonry as a religion.


_So are you saying that people would try to tag Freemasonry as a religion just to vilify it? I think I found them._


Absolutely. Many of us are taught to hate what we cannot understand. This doesnâ€™t mean we are hateful people, only that we are taught so as a defence mechanism. 


But why? Why specifically? If a religious nut forced you to defend this position academically, what would you say?


First off, and perhaps most importantly, it is absolutely futile to try to convince a person immersed in religious dogma that he is wrong. Itâ€™s just too earth shattering and strikes too close to the heart. I would argue on two points. The first, that the Craft is inclusive and apart from formal exclusive dogma. Second, rather than try to defend the Craft, I would ask him to defend his assumption that the craft is wrong or evil. What makes a person hate? Hate is usually a by-product of anger, â€œI canâ€™t stand this or that because itâ€™s a threat to me and mine.â€ Anger is the only emotion that must be chosen, it isnâ€™t spontaneous and usually results from oneâ€™s lack of control over a given situation (or an institution). 


Well, gotta run! Iâ€™m the WM of my lodge and weâ€™re conferring a FC Degree tonight. Iâ€™ll be back later to see what has been written.


Fraternally,


Peter


----------



## JTM (Apr 12, 2010)

dhouseholder said:


> LOL, not a problem. You could rectify that by responding to my post to PeterLT. :thumbup1:


 
no way.  i've already got my popcorn.  i'm watching, not participating.  enjoying the show, so to say.


----------



## PeterLT (Apr 13, 2010)

OK, I am back....where were we? By the way, we had a wonderful FC degree last night. My Officers and I were (don't wish to brag) on top of our game and it went just great!

It seems to me that perhaps in my haste in my last post I got off on a tangent insofar as the last comment was concerned. Oh well, whatever.

Peter


----------



## dhouseholder (Apr 14, 2010)

Nice, don't sweat it. It's funny you say this because, I couldn't read your post on Monday because I was out at a FC practice, and participated in the actual degree tonight! Talk about synchronicity, and the proper degree for this topic as well! :laugh:



PeterLT said:


> No, only that our understanding of any document, including religious texts and VCR instructions, is based on common knowledge, morals and our own experiences. I dare say that a Martian has not played little league ball (maybe he has?). Take the baseline out and the text becomes words.


 See, I beg to differ. The reason we do read is to understand the content of of the document. And if that document is reasonable and logical, then we should implement it in our own personal worldview or at least acknowledge the validity. (i.e. either religious texts or VCR user manuals)




PeterLT said:


> Granted, freethinking is a mark of a Mason. However it is not the mark of organized religion. As I’ve said before, for a religion to be so it must be exclusive of all other points of view or beliefs. Hence the main basis for discounting Freemasonry as a religion.


 And this is what I think is the basis of Freemasonry NOT being a religion. I can't think of any religion that allows for multiple "truths". Buddhism actually does, but it is more a philosophy, not a religion.



PeterLT said:


> First off, and perhaps most importantly, it is absolutely futile to try to convince a person immersed in religious dogma that he is wrong. It’s just too earth shattering and strikes too close to the heart. I would argue on two points. The first, that the Craft is inclusive and apart from formal exclusive dogma. Second, rather than try to defend the Craft, I would ask him to defend his assumption that the craft is wrong or evil. What makes a person hate? Hate is usually a by-product of anger, “I can’t stand this or that because it’s a threat to me and mine.” Anger is the only emotion that must be chosen, it isn’t spontaneous and usually results from one’s lack of control over a given situation (or an institution).


 Agreed.

 So, if anything, can Freemasonry be a philosophy as opposed to a religion? On this I will ponder.


----------



## PeterLT (Apr 17, 2010)

> can Freemasonry be a philosophy as opposed to a religion?



I would accept that, although it's a fairly simple way of describing it. Freemasonry is much more but to the uninitiated it might be a more fitting way to put it then attempting to label it as a religion.


----------



## Ronald D. Martin (Apr 23, 2010)

Just as we sometimes try to define todayâ€™s Masonry with the use of a speculative connotative lens looking to the past, so too we try to define religion with a connotative meaning that arguably differs from the past denotation.   

It is true that a Western societal definition of religion did at one time carry with it a requirement that one worshiped a G-d and that G-d was the one of the Old Testament; however, many no longer consider that to be true. As a society we now knowingly or unknowingly apply the title religion to many things that historically were philosophies or considered a pagan worship. 

Siddhartha Gautama Buddha (the original Buddha) never spoke about a G-d. He only spoke about self responsibility, or more accurately, what today would be considered perception psychology. It wasnâ€™t until Pure Land Buddhism that an afterlife was discussed. The first Buddha didnâ€™t ask his followers to pray to him; however, the second did ask them and that was one of the ways they could gain admission into the West or heaven. 

Taoism would also fit into this same sort of category. Kâ€™ung Fu-tzu, provides guidance for ways to have an orderly society, of which I personally agree with some points and other points I believe the end result usurps our western ideas of individual freedoms. The point here though, is it was a philosophy on how to live a life and now many consider it a religion.

Take a look at Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma as it is also known. Some people used to consider these worshiperâ€™s pagans. Hinduism is not one single religion but an amalgamation of different beliefs. G-d is manifested in numerous forms and many of the teachings are of a philosophical nature. 

As for Christianity, I wonâ€™t belabor the point. Most of us are well aware that there are many different interpretations of Christianity, even amongst those who basis is a triune G-d. Adherence ranges from philosophical to devout worship. In addition, many would argue that Free Will is a central requirement of faith of the Christian faith while others would not. Furthermore, those interested please see here for a completely different angle on Free Will: 

â€œThe Incoherence of Free Willâ€

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rationally-speaking/200911/the-incoherence-free-will

And,

From a psychological perspective â€œConstraint propagation: A completely new take on soul.â€
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ambigamy/200911/constraint-propagation-completely-new-take-souls

If one pauses for a moment and reflects even on this short list, provided above, of what we declare to be religions today, there are some points we can surmise as to what isnâ€™t required of a religion â€“ based on that list:  

1. No requirement for a G-d. 
2. No requirement for a singular G-D.
3. No life after death requirement.
4. If life after death, it could include reincarnation.
5. No set requirement for worship.
6. No spirituality is required.
7. Nor could I find a requirement that it required more than one person.

The list could go onâ€¦

If we try to remove any of those items in our definition, then that is exactly what it becomes; our own definition. 

As far as a definitive denotative meaning of religion, I would offer the following response based on the amalgamation and exclusion of things found in what, today, we call religion(s) based on the aforementioned list:

Religion: â€œA personal or institutional authoritative dogma of cause or principle that is believed in and followed.â€

So could Masonry be a â€œreligionâ€ to some?

Letâ€™s see what others have to say. The compilation of quotes below I gathered a long time ago from other sources. As one can see most of these are quotes from the source, however there are a few places where there are words outside of quotations and I canâ€™t remember who authored those words so I am lacking the source to cite but it wasnâ€™t me. If anyone knows who authored those please let me know so that I can give them their due credit. 

Albert Pike, â€œEvery Masonic Lodge is a temple of religion; and its teachings are instruction in religion,â€ (M&D, p. 213). â€œMasonry is the legitimate successor from the earliest times, the custodian and depository of the great religious truths, unknown to the world at large, and handed down from age to age by an unbroken current of tradition, embodied in symbols, emblems and allegories,â€ (M&D, p. 210). â€œâ€¦the religion of Masonryâ€¦,â€ (M&D, p. 212). â€œIt is the universal, eternal, immutable religionâ€¦in the heart of universal humanityâ€¦The ministers of this religion are all Masonsâ€¦,â€ (M&D, p. 219).

Albert G. Mackey, â€œFreemasonry is emphatically a religious institution; it teaches the existence of God. It points to the celestial canopy above where is the Eternal Lodge and where he presides. It instructs us in the way to reach the  portals of that distant temple,â€ (The Mystic Tie, p. 32). â€œThe truth is that Masonry is undoubtedly a religious institution, its religion being of that universal kind in which all men,â€ (Textbook of Masonic Jurisdiction, p. 95).

Joseph Fort Newton, â€œAs some of us prefer to put it, Masonry is not  a religion but Religion - not a church but a worship, in which men of all  religions may unite,â€ (The Religion of Masonry, pp. 10, 11).

H. L. Haywood, â€œthere is no such thing as a Masonic philosophy, just as there is no such thing as a Masonic religion,â€ (The Great Teachings of Masonry, p. 18). He asserts that Masonry has a religious foundation all its own and that its religion is universal (Idem, p.  99). Haywood would agree with Newton that, "Masonry is not a religion, but Religion."

J. S. M. Ward, the author of several standard Masonic works, defines religion as a system of teaching moral truth associated with a belief in G-d and declares: â€œI consider Freemasonry is a sufficiently organized school of mysticism to be entitled to be called a religion.â€ He continues, â€œI boldly aver that Freemasonry is  a religion, yet in no way conflicts with any other religion, unless that  religion holds that no one outside its portals can be saved,â€ (Freemasonry: Its Aims and Ideals, pp. 182, 185, 187).

T. S. Webb, â€œThe meeting of a Masonic Lodge is strictly a religious ceremony. The religious tenets of Masonry are few, simple, but fundamental. No lodge or Masonic assembly can be regularly opened or closed without prayer,â€ (Masonic Monitor, p. 284).

In addition, Illustrious Brother Rex Hutchens directed me to this definition of religion by Clifford Gurtz, an American Anthropologist:  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_religion

â€œGeertz saw religion as one of the cultural systems of a society. He defined religion as

(1) a system of symbols
(2) which acts to establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations in men
(3) by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and
(4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that
(5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.â€

And then there is this:

â€œFinally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these thingsâ€ (Philippians 4:8, King James Version)

And last but not least:

â€œPure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the worldâ€ (James 1:27, King James Version).

Does that sound familiar? 

So, could Masonry be a religion to some?


----------



## Ronald D. Martin (Apr 23, 2010)

For clarification, I thought I should add that I donâ€™t personally believe that Freemasonry is a Religion nor was it ever intended to be a Religion. However, there are those that have made it such for themselves and try to get others to follow suit. This topic has been discussed for years, and at one point I simply began collecting data and compiling thoughts to better inform others of some of the arguments presented.


----------



## drapetomaniac (Apr 23, 2010)

Seeing the historical thoughts, maybe we can presume there aren't as many innovations in masonry as we might sometimes think   :001_tongue:


----------



## Ronald D. Martin (Apr 23, 2010)

Here is another take by Roscoe Pound. I think Pound well captured the approach each of these authors took toward Freemasonry. This can be found many places on the internet but I provided a link at the end as to where I just copied this from. There is an entire series about each of these authors in The Builder.

THE BUILDER MAY 1915 - THE PHILOSOPHY OF MASONRY

We come now to a radically different type of Masonic philosophy. To Preston, Masonry is a traditional system of knowledge and its end is to impart knowledge. Hence he thinks of the relation of Masonry to education. To Krause, it is organized morals and its end is to put organized mankind behind the universal moral ideas of humanity. Hence he thinks of the relation of Masonry to law and government. To Oliver, it is a mode of approach to God and its end is to bring us to the Absolute by means of a pure tradition. Hence he thinks of the relation of Masonry to religion. Pike gives us instead a metaphysic of Masonry. To him Masonry is a mode of studying first principles and its end is to reveal and to give us possession of the universal principle by which we may master the universe. Hence he thinks of the relation of Masonry to the fundamental problems of existence. In part this view was inevitable in one who thought and wrote in a country under the influence of the transcendental philosophy. In part also it was to be expected in a member of a profession whose philosophical ideas, so far as its leaders held any at all, were thoroughly Hegelian. In part it grew out of Pike's wide reading in the philosophical writings of antiquity and his bent for mysticism. Thus his philosophy of Masonry is a product of the man and of the time and we must look first at each of these in order to treat it intelligently.

http://www.masonicinfo.com/pikesphilosophy.htm


----------



## dhouseholder (Apr 24, 2010)

Ronald D. Martin said:


> Here is another take by Roscoe Pound. I think Pound well captured the approach each of these authors took toward Freemasonry. This can be found many places on the internet but I provided a link at the end as to where I just copied this from. There is an entire series about each of these authors in The Builder.
> 
> THE BUILDER MAY 1915 - THE PHILOSOPHY OF MASONRY
> 
> ...



While this is enlightening, I think this borders on what is known as an Ad hominem logical fallacy in which...

    Person 1 makes claim X
    There is something objectionable about Person 1
    Therefore claim X is false


----------



## Ronald D. Martin (Apr 24, 2010)

Hi Brother,

I don't know for sure, but I am thinking that you probably haven't read the full article written by Bro Roscoe Pound - relative to Pike.. The article is actually complimentary of Pike. Pound's writing style is normally very thorough and he disects the subject and then expounds upon it. He applied an equal hand in each article he wrote about each author. However, just as with Roscoe Pound's major contributions to our legal system some liked it and some didn't


----------



## Ronald D. Martin (Apr 24, 2010)

I might add that I personally like Pike but we know that a lot of things he wrote contained some errors and that he copied many things from many places and put into his writing. The new book coming out by Ill. Bros Art deHoyos and Rex Hutchens will provide for each page of Morals and Dogma the sources where Pike got the material. Pike in the intro to M&D states that 50% of the material was that of others and 50% was his personal thoughts on the topics. It was a huge undertaking much like what Mackey says about his own work on his encyclopedia of Freemasonry.


----------



## PeterLT (Apr 24, 2010)

I've been watching how this string is developing and though I still contend that Freemasonry is not a religion per se, I can see how the enormous volumes of masonic works might make some take it to heart _religiously_. I also think that one has to be somewhat critical and perhaps even leery of what was written in the past. It is true that in some respects Freemasonry has not changed and even though the landmarks of the Craft are unchangeable, they have been bent in multiple directions in the years since 1858. My point being that they were written in a different time by people who lived in a different world.

Our definitions have changed over the years and the popular view of what constitutes a religion now is not what held true even 100 years ago. Nowadays, 5 hippies singing to a dead tree constitutes a tax exempt religion. 

Still, if you've read Morals & Dogma and survived without bleeding eyes, you're a better man than I.


----------



## thehibster (Apr 25, 2010)

Iâ€™m still new to Masonry, raised on February 24 this year, and I have been reading and studying as much as I can about our organization, but admit there is still much I donâ€™t understand.

The posts of the learned brethren on this forum have helped me to understand the definitions of religion, and when participating in the A.L.L. program the differences between a fraternity and a religion were expanded upon by the Lodge Counselor.  I understand and agree that Masonry is not a religion, but what I do not understand is why we as Freemasons feel the need to so vigorously defend this point.  What are the dangers in being confused with a religion?

As I understand thus far, my goal as a Freemason is to improve myself and my relationship with my Creator in part by practicing the tenants of our fraternity; brotherly love, relief and truth.  If nothing else, becoming a Mason has moved me closer to the core ideals of my faith.   

Freemasonry encourages its members to be good men and servants of their Creator and fellow man.  What religion could do more?  Unfortunately, organized religion is by nature divisive and inspires misguided men to hate others who do not embrace their faith, even to the point of killing one another.  Freemasonry unites men of all faiths and charges them to work and agree with each other.  Would I be crossing the line if I said that Freemasonry was better than religion?


----------



## PeterLT (Apr 25, 2010)

> What are the dangers in  being confused with a religion?


The dangers are many and wide. Let me elaborate on just a few:

1. Freemasonry is universal and as such attracts men far and wide from a great many walks of life and religious paths. This is the feature that serves as a leveler of men. We all meet on the square with the cement of brotherly love and affection that binds us as a common band of brothers. This feature is essential to the Craft being what it is; to lose it would cause it to fall.

3. As I've already stated, a religion must be exclusive to be a religion, "My religion is the *only* way to salvation."  Again, this would negate the universality of the Craft.

4. If Freemasonry were to be accepted by the members to be a religion it would validate the unjust criticism leveled by anti masons everywhere. It would open the proverbial "can of worms", who knows where that would lead? 

5. While we do have a lodge hierarchy, we do not have a central prelate such as a pope or archbishop or ministers to spread the faith and enforce religious doctrine. I suppose one could argue that the role of Grand Lodge is to do just such a thing, it is in reality more of an administrative system based on input of the membership through merit and election not divine power bestowal.

6.  The craft has evolved through the ages taking great care not to tread on the grounds of religion. While each and every member is encouraged to follow the precepts of his own faith, we are not concerned with the dynamics of that faith. We only convey a common system of morality, the "golden rule", which can be found in some form in all faiths.

Yes, we do overlap on some common common ground found in all faiths but we do not endorse any of them, we hold all faiths upon which good and true men agree on an equal footing. This is a vital difference with religion and probably the strongest point which sets Freemasonry apart from any religion.

I'm sure others on the forum are much more enlightened than I on this subject but in my small way, I hope that sheds some light on the differences and the reasons why Freemasonry can not become a religion. It would simply be the end of the Craft.

Peter


----------



## Ronald D. Martin (Apr 25, 2010)

I think Brother Peter did a good job of outlining a number of the reasons. I believe it is wise to stay within the confines of the older western definition of religion otherwise as the earlier example I provided suggests religion becomes whatever someone wants it to be - which is fine for individuals I guess but not for Masonry as it changes the character of Freemasonry. Salvation, as defined by the acknowledged mainstream religions, is not found in Freemasonry. However, that is also part of the slippery slope where some want to claim that the internal work that we do in Freemasonry is the type of work that their religion requires them to do to bring about salvation. So, I would argue that the meanings we apply to words do count. One need not look simply at Freemasonry, just look at the world around us. Many things have been changed right under our own noses simply by changing the intended meanings and use of words.


----------



## PeterLT (Apr 25, 2010)

I agree with Brother Ronald, we must ever be watchful. I suppose that the craft has not done a very good job at defending itself and extolling what it truly is but that is changing.

Peter


----------



## dhouseholder (May 19, 2010)

PeterLT said:


> First off, and perhaps most importantly, it is absolutely futile to try to convince a person immersed in religious dogma that he is wrong. It’s just too earth shattering and strikes too close to the heart. I would argue on two points. The first, that the Craft is inclusive and apart from formal exclusive dogma.


 
Not to resurrect a dead thread, but, I did just think of a pretty big religion that is also inclusive and does not have a  formal exclusive dogma, Unitarian Universalists.

http://www.uua.org/visitors/index.shtml


----------



## PeterLT (May 19, 2010)

It does appear that it is a home for the lost more than a religion. While I don't disagree or condemn any of their precepts, it does look more to me like a "Publisher's Clearing House" of religious and not-so-religious beliefs. Interesting as a quasi faith but not on the same level as Freemasonry. It does give the caveat that one could be refused admission into the Craft by virtue of being an Athiest, even though he belongs to a recognized religion.

Interesting, good job digging that up. Shows thinking outside the box.

Peter


----------



## "Lewis" (May 23, 2010)

"reÂ·liÂ·gion
   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
â€“noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

-Although this definition may be translated into a more modern meaning...


----------



## PeterLT (May 23, 2010)

> a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the  universe,



Freemasonry has no set dogma on this. We concentrate on man's place and conduct towards his fellow creatures within the universe. The creation of the universe is up to an individual's religion to define.



> usually involving devotional and ritual observances,



Our devotional observances are not specific to Freemasonry. They are specific to the religion of the Brethren.



> often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs



Our system of morality is not based on any specific religious belief but could be said to apply to all morally upright religions. Therefore Freemasonry has no innate morals but takes those from the common good and teaches them symbolically. We simplify what is already a given and present it unspoiled by religious dogma and politics.


Peter


----------



## Ronald D. Martin (May 25, 2010)

Brother Peter,

As usual in life <s> there is much more behind the quotes I earlier provided, however I will offer this as a bit more clarification according to Albert Pike "*Masonry is not a religion.* He who makes of it a religious belief, falsifies and denaturalizes it. The Brahmin, the Jew, the Mahometan, the Catholic, the Protestant, each professing his peculiar religion, sanctioned by the laws, by time, and by climate, must needs retain it, and cannot have two religions; for the social and sacred laws adapted to the usages, manners, and prejudices of particular countries, are the work of men.â€ (M&D p. 161).


----------



## PeterLT (May 25, 2010)

I agree with Bro. Pike. And yes, quotes are often misquoted or incomplete. Thanks for enlightening me on that.


----------



## Christopher (Jun 4, 2010)

PeterLT said:


> The dangers are many and wide. Let me elaborate on just a few:



Please allow me to respond to your statement point by point.

3.  I politely disagree with this statement.  As pointed out earlier in the thread, to even use the concept of salvation as part of the definition of religion is to already judge the world through a Christian lens.  A full 2 billion people in Asia adhere to religions that posit reincarnation over an Abrahamic-style afterlife, and that have little trouble conceiving of other religions as reaching towards God in the same way they are.  Even in Protestant America, a full 70% of Christians believe that many religions can lead to salvation, according to the Pew Forum on Religion.  

Either way, Masonry *is* religiously exclusive.  If you petition a lodge in Texas, you will be required to state a belief in a Supreme Being, some fashion of divinely-inspired writings, and some form of immortality.  With that, Masonry has made a judgment call on certain beliefs, and has set itself a certain dogma.  If you include the landmarks, and the fact that recognition of lodges and grand lodges is dependent upon shared orthodoxy in belief and practice, then Masonry begins to look as dogmatic and schismatic as any Christian denomination, and the break between English and French Masonry starts to resemble the Great Schism of 1054.

4.  I'm not sure the ignorance of other people or their attacks on our institution are a good basis for policy decisions, though I agree it would be a headache we neither need nor deserve.

5. I know of very few religions that have such a thing.  Many religions don't seek doctrinal regularity, or it is imposed by community consensus, not any sort of episcopal authority.  Most Christian denominations don't even have a central authority, much less a central source of dogma.  However, the lodge and it's officers do provide most of the services of a church and it's staff.

I would say that religious leaders fall into the following categories:

1.  Priests.
2.  Monks.
3.  Pastors.
4.  Legal scholars.
5.  Ritual leaders.

Priests are charged with treating with God or the gods on the behalf of the community, either by dint of unique authority to do so, or special training.  Monks are held up as exemplars of the ethical and practical teachings of the faith, and are thus considered a source of wisdom and instruction.  Pastors administer communal property and offer counseling and comfort to the community.  In religions with heavy legal systems, community leaders are those best trained to instruct the community in how to follow the laws and regulations of their religions.  In extremely egalitarian religious communities or those with little structure, persons familiar with communal rites may be called upon to lead the rites, though they have no special authority to do so.

I would charge that lodge officers fall into all of these categories, except the first.  Those who put on degrees certainly qualify as ritual leaders, and the lodge officers very much qualify as pastors, as they govern the disposition of the lodge property, visit sick members, and mediate disputes.  To some degree, they are also called upon to exhibit the ethical teachings of the Order like a monk, and rule on questions of ritual and procedure like a legal scholar.  They also invoke Deity in all the proceedings of the lodge, but I don't think that's enough to really qualify as priests, as they don't perform divine services.

I think Masonry, with a couple tweaks, could most certainly stand on its own as a religion.  I think it's helpful to look at religion from an anthropological perspective, as Bro. Martin has pointed out.  What does a religion provide to its adherents?

With the caveat that I was not an anthropology or psychology major in college, and that books about this subject have been written extolling all of these with better precision and more detail, in my own opinion I see that it offers mainly the following things:

1.  A common worldview and way of thinking about and perceiving the world.
2.  A code of ethics.
3.  A story or myth (in the literary sense of the word) serving as a common foundation for the worldview and code of ethics.
4.  A set of basic beliefs and a sense of orthodoxy.  (This can include seemingly inclusive beliefs.  If a foundation of your religion is "all religions are true", this is still an exclusive belief because it keeps out of the community any who say their path is the only truth, or the only way to God.)
5.  A sense of meaning for the events of life.
6.  An opportunity for communal devotion or practice.

Again, I would say Masonry has all but number 5.  We certainly have a unifying story, a code of ethics, and certain views of the world ("brotherhood of man under the Fatherhood of God").  I would argue our entrance requirements qualify as basic beliefs.  No one says one's theology has to be detailed or complicated in order to qualify as a religion.  I also think our degrees are opportunities for communal religious practice, even if it doesn't include theistic devotion.  With the addition of meaningful life event rituals and divine service, it would be ready to roll.  Although, with Masonic funerals, DeMolay initiations for adolescents, and some Masonic wedding and baptism rituals I've seen on this forum and on the Net, perhaps it already has the life event bit down...


----------



## PeterLT (Jun 4, 2010)

I thought this might be a good way to respond, hope it doesn't get too long.
 
3. I politely disagree with this statement. As pointed out earlier in the thread, to even use the concept of salvation as part of the definition of religion is to already judge the world through a Christian lens.


One must take into account that the origins and the basis for Freemasonry are Christian. If it had sprung from India I would submit that the Craft would be entirely different. That said, regardless of religious beliefs on the afterlife, heaven, hell or anything else spiritual or philosophical; Freemasonry does not concern itself with these matters, it is the concern of the individual Mason.  Masonry, as practiced (or forbidden) in different lands, is very much influenced by the dominant religion of the locale.


A full 2 billion people in Asia adhere to religions that posit reincarnation over an Abrahamic-style afterlife, and that have little trouble conceiving of other religions as reaching towards God in the same way they are. Even in Protestant America, a full 70% of Christians believe that many religions can lead to salvation, according to the Pew Forum on Religion. 

Either way, Masonry *is* religiously exclusive. If you petition a lodge in Texas, you will be required to state a belief in a Supreme Being, some fashion of divinely-inspired writings, and some form of immortality.
  And in my jurisdiction, the only requirement is that you believe in the existence of a Supreme Being, period. Be careful not to confuse the Craft itself with the governance of the Craft.
  With that, Masonry has made a judgment call on certain beliefs, and has set itself a certain dogma. If you include the landmarks, and the fact that recognition of lodges and grand lodges is dependent upon shared orthodoxy in belief and practice, then Masonry begins to look as dogmatic and schismatic as any Christian denomination, and the break between English and French Masonry starts to resemble the Great Schism of 1054.


Again, any differences are largely a matter of governance in different jurisdictions largely influenced by the religious beliefs and social mores of the locale. While there may be some historical parallels between Freemasonry and Christianity, the same could be said about virtually any fraternal group, organization or even governments in history.

4. I'm not sure the ignorance of other people or their attacks on our institution are a good basis for policy decisions, though I agree it would be a headache we neither need nor deserve.


The traditional silence of the Craft in meeting it’s detractors head on has been a self inflicted wound for far too long. 

5. I know of very few religions that have such a thing. Many religions don't seek doctrinal regularity, or it is imposed by community consensus, not any sort of episcopal authority. Most Christian denominations don't even have a central authority, much less a central source of dogma. However, the lodge and it's officers do provide most of the services of a church and it's staff.


It’s not fair to the discussion to draw such a conclusion and apply it to Freemasonry as faith by consensus is a relatively new phenomena. Regardless on which view of Masonic origins one feels comfortable with, it can be safely said that the Craft predates our modern view of religion and what is or is not one. Freemasonry is from a time when there was in fact doctrinal authority that governed all to smallest degree. The officers do not, or at least should not, provide any services of a church. Even the Chaplain’s position is not a clerical per se and can be done by any one in the lodge. Other officers are not there to promote religious faith or adherence to any particular faith but to administer the lodge only following jurisdictionally accepted methods.   

I would say that religious leaders fall into the following categories:

1. Priests.
2. Monks.
3. Pastors.
4. Legal scholars.
5. Ritual leaders.

Priests are charged with treating with God or the gods on the behalf of the community, either by dint of unique authority to do so, or special training. Monks are held up as exemplars of the ethical and practical teachings of the faith, and are thus considered a source of wisdom and instruction. Pastors administer communal property and offer counselling and comfort to the community. In religions with heavy legal systems, community leaders are those best trained to instruct the community in how to follow the laws and regulations of their religions. In extremely egalitarian religious communities or those with little structure, persons familiar with communal rites may be called upon to lead the rites, though they have no special authority to do so.

I would charge that lodge officers fall into all of these categories, except the first. Those who put on degrees certainly qualify as ritual leaders, and the lodge officers very much qualify as pastors, as they govern the disposition of the lodge property, visit sick members, and mediate disputes. To some degree, they are also called upon to exhibit the ethical teachings of the Order like a monk, and rule on questions of ritual and procedure like a legal scholar. They also invoke Deity in all the proceedings of the lodge, but I don't think that's enough to really qualify as priests, as they don't perform divine services.


I do agree that there are those among the Brethren that are good at ritual and in that sense could be called leaders. The Worshipful Master could be said to be a scholar of sorts although I’ve met a few that  would put that definition to the test. Again, four legs do not make a horse a table. The same contention that lodge officers are monk-like or pastor-like or scholar-like does not make the Craft a religion any more that the Master being the head of his lodge make him the same as the President. 

I think Masonry, with a couple tweaks, could most certainly stand on its own as a religion. I think it's helpful to look at religion from an anthropological perspective, as Bro. Martin has pointed out. What does a religion provide to its adherents?

With the caveat that I was not an anthropology or psychology major in college, and that books about this subject have been written extolling all of these with better precision and more detail, in my own opinion I see that it offers mainly the following things:

1. A common worldview and way of thinking about and perceiving the world.
2. A code of ethics.
3. A story or myth (in the literary sense of the word) serving as a common foundation for the worldview and code of ethics.
4. A set of basic beliefs and a sense of orthodoxy. (This can include seemingly inclusive beliefs. If a foundation of your religion is "all religions are true", this is still an exclusive belief because it keeps out of the community any who say their path is the only truth, or the only way to God.)
5. A sense of meaning for the events of life.
6. An opportunity for communal devotion or practice.


All the above points could be attributed to the United States, it’s history, it’s communal beliefs, it’s Constitution and even it’s money (In God We Trust). Is the United States a religion? Well, the answer to that is much along the lines of ,”Is Freemasonry a religion”….it depends on who you ask. But the fundamental truth about the craft that sets it apart from religion is the universality which binds men from across the spectrum in a way that religion does not and, dare I say, does not want to.

Again, I would say Masonry has all but number 5. We certainly have a unifying story, a code of ethics, and certain views of the world ("brotherhood of man under the Fatherhood of God"). I would argue our entrance requirements qualify as basic beliefs. No one says one's theology has to be detailed or complicated in order to qualify as a religion. 


“On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty for God and my country and to obey the Scout laws…”  by your reasoning, the Boy Scouts of America are a religion.


I also think our degrees are opportunities for communal religious practice, even if it doesn't include theistic devotion. 


Degrees are not religious practice. They are moral lessons imparted through legend. That they are universal reflects on the fundamental basics of the lesson imparted not the faith of the individual.
 

With the addition of meaningful life event rituals and divine service, it would be ready to roll. Although, with Masonic funerals, DeMolay initiations for adolescents, and some Masonic wedding and baptism rituals I've seen on this forum and on the Net, perhaps it already has the life event bit down... 


While the Craft does share many of the aspects one would encounter in a religious setting, it is not a religion. Now I may be a bit out of touch on some things but as I recall, a Masonic funeral I attended still had the last rites administered by a Minister and not the Worshipful Master. True, there were prayers said by the Brethren and the Chaplain did lead us in a few of them but the conduct of the Masonic side of the funeral was a formal way of acknowledging and recognizing our departed brother’s service to the Craft. This might not be the way it’s done in your jurisdiction or in India or in Ghana or South Africa but that is not a matter of Freemasonry being a religion, it is a matter of jurisdiction.  The Craft fundamentally remains as it was in the beginning, a system of morality, veiled in allegory, illustrated by symbols. This system is universal in nature and can be found in virtually all religions. Freemasonry is applicable to all but specific to none. Any differences from place to place are not indicative of the Craft but to those who administer it in a particular locality. Again, my contention remains that while some may practice our gentle Craft “religiously”, it is not a religion.


In closing, Christopher you make a great presentation! Very thoughtful and well presented, I'm glad to count you as one of my Brothers.:SNC:


----------

