# GLs that dont recognize PHA



## Ripcord22A (Mar 4, 2016)

This thread is not about the regularity of PHA but rather about black Masons.  Ive heard that some of the lodges that dont recognize PHA also dont allow black men to petition their lodges.......how is this possible?  I know several white PHA masons, mostly raised in Military lodges, and several black "George Washington" Masons(to steal a line from Bro @dfreybur).  Is it true that there are GLs and Lodges out there that wont admit a Man because he is black?


----------



## Bloke (Mar 4, 2016)

Not true here in Victoria Australia. Not that we have many, but that's reflectant of our population. Most of the Freemasons here who would have experienced racism 100 years ago in society are Indian, "Mediterranean ",  Mauritian, Maori with a few Africans and Asians thrown in. I've never seen or heard of an applicant in Austrailia being treated differently because of the colour of his skin.


----------



## hanzosbm (Mar 4, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> This thread is not about the regularity of PHA but rather about black Masons.  Ive heard that some of the lodges that dont recognize PHA also dont allow black men to petition their lodges.......how is this possible?  I know several white PHA masons, mostly raised in Military lodges, and several black "George Washington" Masons(to steal a line from Bro @dfreybur).  Is it true that there are GLs and Lodges out there that wont admit a Man because he is black?


First, the issue of GLs.  I would be willing to put down money that the flat out answer is 'no'.  I highly doubt that there is any GL that states that black men cannot be admitted.  Furthermore, I doubt that there is any GL that checks the race of every applicant, so I would say not.
Second, are there individual lodges that won't admit black men?  I doubt it.  For a lodge to put in its bylaws that it is excluding men based solely on race would almost certainly result in a very short lifespan of that lodge.
Third, are the individuals, perhaps even the majority to 100% of the members of the lodge, who would deny a black man admittance?  Yes.  And while this is unMasonic and disgusting, every Mason present gets a vote and regardless of how ignorant the reason behind it, if he votes no, that's how it goes.


----------



## Bill Lins (Mar 4, 2016)

I've never seen it put more succinctly.


----------



## MRichard (Mar 5, 2016)

hanzosbm said:


> First, the issue of GLs.  I would be willing to put down money that the flat out answer is 'no'.  I highly doubt that there is any GL that states that black men cannot be admitted.  Furthermore, I doubt that there is any GL that checks the race of every applicant, so I would say not.
> Second, are there individual lodges that won't admit black men?  I doubt it.  For a lodge to put in its bylaws that it is excluding men based solely on race would almost certainly result in a very short lifespan of that lodge.
> Third, are the individuals, perhaps even the majority to 100% of the members of the lodge, who would deny a black man admittance?  Yes.  And while this is unMasonic and disgusting, every Mason present gets a vote and regardless of how ignorant the reason behind it, if he votes no, that's how it goes.



Well, it's not quite so simple. Most of these states are one black ball states and you can't ask someone how they voted. 

If you don't live in the US, you will probably not really be familiar with how deep this issue is.


----------



## MRichard (Mar 5, 2016)

It's a difficult question. Not sure if the grand lodges keep statistics based on race.


----------



## hanzosbm (Mar 5, 2016)

MRichard said:


> Well, it's not quite so simple. Most of these states are one black ball states and you can't ask someone how they voted.



I'm sorry, I don't think I understand what that has to do with it.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Mar 5, 2016)

hanzosbm said:


> Third, are the individuals, perhaps even the majority to 100% of the members of the lodge, who would deny a black man admittance? Yes. And while this is unMasonic and disgusting, every Mason present gets a vote and regardless of how ignorant the reason behind it, if he votes no, that's how it goes.


I agree that this is most likely.


Bill_Lins77488 said:


> I've never seen it put more succinctly.


True!


----------



## MRichard (Mar 5, 2016)

hanzosbm said:


> I'm sorry, I don't think I understand what that has to do with it.



It is very simple. It only takes one black ball to deny someone in most states. The current system makes it rather easy for people of a racist temperament to do their bidding. Why would a grand lodge or lodge for that matter open themselves up to potential lawsuits by specifically excluding Black men?


----------



## goomba (Mar 5, 2016)

I began my Masonic life in one such state and experienced the anti-Masonic things you are talking about.  It is a shame when men whom lead grand bodies and lodges do not grasp things an EA should.


----------



## MarkR (Mar 6, 2016)

MRichard said:


> It's a difficult question. Not sure if the grand lodges keep statistics based on race.


Since the question isn't asked on the petition, I'm quite certain they don't, at least in my jurisdiction.


----------



## hanzosbm (Mar 7, 2016)

MRichard said:


> It is very simple. It only takes one black ball to deny someone in most states. The current system makes it rather easy for people of a racist temperament to do their bidding. Why would a grand lodge or lodge for that matter open themselves up to potential lawsuits by specifically excluding Black men?


I completely agree with you except for the part about the current system having people doing their bidding.  Are you suggesting that Grand Lodges are secretly telling members not to allow black men into the lodge?  If so, that's a pretty big stretch. 

You stated that it's "not that easy" because one black ball can be enough to deny a man entry.  That's true, and that speaks to the individual members of a lodge having the ability to keep someone out based on the color of their skin.  But unless I wasn't clear in my original post, that was my contention all along.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Mar 7, 2016)

hanzosbm said:


> I completely agree with you except for the part about the current system having people doing their bidding. Are you suggesting that Grand Lodges are secretly telling members not to allow black men into the lodge? If so, that's a pretty big stretch.


Certainly is!


----------



## MRichard (Mar 7, 2016)

hanzosbm said:


> I completely agree with you except for the part about the current system having people doing their bidding.  Are you suggesting that Grand Lodges are secretly telling members not to allow black men into the lodge?  If so, that's a pretty big stretch.
> 
> You stated that it's "not that easy" because one black ball can be enough to deny a man entry.  That's true, and that speaks to the individual members of a lodge having the ability to keep someone out based on the color of their skin.  But unless I wasn't clear in my original post, that was my contention all along.



Actually, that is not what I am suggesting. I was answering a question you asked and referring to a statement you made earlier about grand lodges or lodges not specifically excluding Black men. They were two separate statements. I don't like doing the multiple quotes within one post and didn't feel like making a separate post quoting what I was referring to. So perhaps that made it unclear.

In the first part of the statement I stated that the current system makes it easy for RACISTS to do THEIR (racists') bidding. If I wanted to refer to the grand lodge, I would have stated the grand lodge. The point is that the system is flawed. We are basically still dealing with segregated lodges in some states in this day and age.

And I stated that it was rather easy rather than "not that easy".


----------



## hanzosbm (Mar 7, 2016)

MRichard said:


> Actually, that is not what I am suggesting. I was answering a question you asked and referring to a statement you made earlier about grand lodges or lodges not specifically excluding Black men. They were two separate statements. I don't like doing the multiple quotes within one post and didn't feel like making a separate post quoting what I was referring to. So perhaps that may it unclear.
> 
> In the first part of the statement I stated that the current system makes it easy for RACISTS to do THEIR (racists') bidding. If I wanted to refer to the grand lodge, I would have stated the grand lodge. The point is that the system is flawed. We are basically still dealing with segregated lodges in some states in this day and age.


Ah, I see.  Thank you for clarifying and I'm sorry that I misunderstood.

While I agree that the current system allows racists to exclude people (and I suppose this could extend to people not liking others because of any number of reasons like church, sexual orientation, political leanings, etc) and I wish that this was not the case, I do still believe in the single black ball system. 

In the EA degree we are told that if we are at variance with a brother of a lodge that it is better that one or both of us are to retire rather than disturb the harmony of the Lodge.  For this reason, I think it is imperative that the vote be unanimous.  If I have a problem with a man, for whatever reason, and know that I will not be able to attend Lodge with him, I will obviously vote 'no'.  However, if he is initiated anyway, the Lodge has now created a situation where one or both of us will not be able to attend.  This is counter productive. 

It is sad that racists have found their way into our Lodges.  Ideally, the west gate ought to be guarded more closely to prevent this, however, I contend that the _system_ is an effective one if it is properly utilized by its members.


----------



## MRichard (Mar 7, 2016)

I think the single black ball system is a huge problem. But that is just my opinion. I would prefer multiple black balls.


----------



## MRichard (Mar 7, 2016)

hanzosbm said:


> however, I contend that the _system_ is an effective one if it is properly utilized by its members.



I agree with this. The problem is that it has been traditionally abused by some.


----------



## CLewey44 (Mar 7, 2016)

I have heard of at least one lodge around here that doesn't allow black members. I mentioned it to a fellow 'white' Mason from my lodge and they were as disgusted as I was to hear that. The reasoning was that black men in the U.S. aren't free born which is even more ridiculous. I told the guy that told me of this racist lodge " if their ancestors' misfortunes are causing them to not be considered free born, then wouldn't that mean anyone with Jewish or Native American blood are not considered free-born??" He just said, you're right. Therefore, pretty much nobody in the U.S. could be a Mason really.

I'm not going to stir the hornets nest at this point in my Masonic walk but I would imagine there is no actual evidence that they're being racist since where it's located, there aren't many black men that would even want to join that particular lodge. The problem is, if you consider it a problem, that when a blackball is placed in a ballot, the person does not have to justify why they voted against an individual therefore allowing these actions. I personally don't think you should have to justify voting for or against someone, but if any sort of racist levity is displayed or mentioned, I would say that member should be reprimanded and possibly removed from the fraternity for un-Masonic behavior. I would quit going to my lodge and demit if I ever heard any sort of racist rants or "i'm not voting for them due to skin color, religion, or even sexual preference" I would imagine as Masonic lodges get younger and younger, the race issue will continue to die off. We want black members in my lodge. I'd love to see a sea of different ethnicities, backgrounds and religions.

As for that particular lodge, it isn't doing too well anyways. The fellow that told me about it is a member but stopped going because the lodge had been injected with a toxic protocol of treating those that make mistakes on ritual like fools and more especially he stopped going because when he'd miss a meeting, one or two members were breaking his balls about it. That's not right either.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Mar 7, 2016)

CLewey44 said:


> I would imagine as Masonic lodges get younger and younger, the race issue will continue to die off. We want black members in my lodge. I'd love to see a sea of different ethnicities, backgrounds and religions.


I agree and feel the same way.


MRichard said:


> I think the single black ball system is a huge problem. But that is just my opinion. I would prefer multiple black balls.


I have to disagree with you on this point brother. I most certainly see your point but I support the one black ball for a variety of reasons. Bad things happen in good systems and we must strive to enlighten brothers that would vote against a candidate just because of his color, religion, sexual orientation, etc. This is just my personal opinion.


----------



## MRichard (Mar 7, 2016)

Warrior1256 said:


> I agree and feel the same way.
> 
> I have to disagree with you on this point brother. I most certainly see your point but I support the one black ball for a variety of reasons. Bad things happen in good systems and we must strive to enlighten brothers that would vote against a candidate just because of his color, religion, sexual orientation, etc. This is just my personal opinion.



The justifications I have heard are just not good enough. Let the investigation committee do their job and expand the methods they can use to investigate a candidate. Let them explain their findings. Let individuals report concerns to the IC, anonymously  if need be. Investigate the allegation. Make the candidate sign an agreement authorizing a background investigation. 

The system can be improved. Those were just some examples off the top of my hand. It can be done better. I have no doubt about that.


----------



## CLewey44 (Mar 7, 2016)

MRichard said:


> I think the single black ball system is a huge problem. But that is just my opinion. I would prefer multiple black balls.



giggidy...but seriously, I think the investigation committee should really report something of a physical nature or at least talk about any observations they had instead of just automatically saying "he's favorable" or whatever. Not everyone gets to meet the man before he's initiated so really most members are voting blindly without any sort of report or observations. Idk, it's a tough thing to fix and Masonic law isn't perfect at times.


----------



## hanzosbm (Mar 7, 2016)

CLewey44 said:


> Not everyone gets to meet the man before he's initiated so really most members are voting blindly without any sort of report or observations.


While I agree that this is the way things are often done, I also view this as part of the problem.  But herein lies the beauty of the one blackball system.  I do not agree with simply taking the advice of the investigation committee, so I usually approach the man who has petitioned and offer him my business card and let him know that I'd like to get to know him prior to voting.  That's my polite way of saying that he will not be getting my vote unless I am satisfied through direct interaction that he is worthy.  We have no one to blame for the sloppy admittance but ourselves. 

Going back to racism within lodges, this is another reason for the single blackball rule.  Yes, the racists can keep out black men with a single black ball, but we can also keep out the racists with a single black ball.  Removing the racists that are currently in the lodge will be next to impossible, but you can stop new ones from coming in.  Requiring multiple black balls means that a lodge with rampant racism will continue.  While I lament the fact that good men are being denied entrance due to the color of their skin, if given the choice between admitting a few more black men now or ridding our lodges of racists to allow us to admit many more worthy black men in the future, I'll choose the latter.

And of course, while this discussion has been focused on black men, the same principles apply any characteristic by which a man might be discriminated against.


----------



## Mel Knight (Mar 7, 2016)

I thought recognition is determined by state not lodges.


----------



## MRichard (Mar 7, 2016)

hanzosbm said:


> ... but we can also keep out the racists with a single black ball.



Not likely. How many guys are likely to admit they are racist when petitioning a lodge?


----------



## MRichard (Mar 7, 2016)

Mel Knight said:


> I thought recognition is determined by state not lodges.



That is true. By the grand lodge. If there are two regular grand lodges, then the senior grand lodge has to consent or waive jurisdiction.


----------



## CLewey44 (Mar 7, 2016)

MRichard said:


> Not likely. How many guys are likely to admit they are racist when petitioning a lodge?



That's kind of what I was thinking. A man can look at a black man (or a Latino, Asian, Arabic or whatever) and not vote him in by just looking at him, a racist would have the ability to hide that for the most part and likely not mention that on a petition.


----------



## CLewey44 (Mar 7, 2016)

hanzosbm said:


> While I agree that this is the way things are often done, I also view this as part of the problem.  But herein lies the beauty of the one blackball system.  I do not agree with simply taking the advice of the investigation committee, so I usually approach the man who has petitioned and offer him my business card and let him know that I'd like to get to know him prior to voting.  That's my polite way of saying that he will not be getting my vote unless I am satisfied through direct interaction that he is worthy.  We have no one to blame for the sloppy admittance but ourselves.
> 
> Going back to racism within lodges, this is another reason for the single blackball rule.  Yes, the racists can keep out black men with a single black ball, but we can also keep out the racists with a single black ball.  Removing the racists that are currently in the lodge will be next to impossible, but you can stop new ones from coming in.  Requiring multiple black balls means that a lodge with rampant racism will continue.  While I lament the fact that good men are being denied entrance due to the color of their skin, if given the choice between admitting a few more black men now or ridding our lodges of racists to allow us to admit many more worthy black men in the future, I'll choose the latter.
> 
> And of course, while this discussion has been focused on black men, the same principles apply any characteristic by which a man might be discriminated against.



I think the one ball rule is good. Now as a rule, usually a revote is done to ensure that it wasn't a mistake. As few a people that get blackballed in the first place in this day and age of 'let anyone in' practically, to me, if someone were to not vote them in, must be a pretty good reason. Like I said before, however, if any sort of racist b.s. was being discussed, in or out of lodge as far as I'm concerned, then that individual would need to dealt with. Nobody is perfect and a lot of good men, black or white, have said things they may regret, but as a general rule, lets get that rhetoric out of our lodges and more importantly out of our society.


----------



## CLewey44 (Mar 7, 2016)

PHA has a great tradition, legacy and history of honor but to me,  it seems to be a throwback to the segregation days. Since black men weren't allowed to join "regular" lodges, they started their own, which I find extremely brave and admirable for that time. I think the only way to remove racism is to integrate all lodges, PHA and non-PHA, in each state as one Grand Lodge.  I think PHA is beautiful and should be apart of the Masonic family but maybe sort of like the Scottish Rite or York Rite, as an additional degree or other appendant body. It isn't intended to segregate in this day and age but at one time it was "necessary" with the old segregation laws that have been abolished for a long time. "Separate but Equal" was the norm in everyday life at one time but is not the norm anymore and I think in Masonry, one way to get rid of racism is to integrate all lodges. A state simply recognizing PHA isn't enough to me. And by the way, some states don't do that, even in the 21st century. If we want to be on the level, then let's be on the level. If a racist man walks in to petition a lodge and was to see men of all colors, creeds, religions and orientations, that'd really weed out the bigots and racists. 

I understand there are white PHA Masons and that is awesome. I even considered it when I was coming in but I didn't know how I'd be received or if that was faux pas or not. I know now it would have been fine but why is this passive-aggressive segregation still around or considered necessary?


----------



## MRichard (Mar 7, 2016)

CLewey44 said:


> I think the one ball rule is good.



It is 3 black balls in my state. It is better but doesn’t eliminate the problem.


----------



## MRichard (Mar 7, 2016)

PHA has a rich history. I don't think the grand lodges should be merged. I would settle for plural memberships with their jurisdiction. Most PHA grand lodges do not allow plural memberships even within their own grand lodge to the best of my knowledge. I doubt that most of them would want to merge either.


----------



## MRichard (Mar 7, 2016)

Actually, Prince Hall & 14 others did join a regular lodge. It was a British military lodge and they were raised there as well. The issue was with US lodges.


----------



## CLewey44 (Mar 7, 2016)

MRichard said:


> The issue was with US lodges.



Exactly and that's where the problem still lies, on both sides. PHA and non-PHA.


----------



## Mindovermatter Ace (Mar 7, 2016)

I assume you all live in places where mutual amity exist with the two Grand Lodges because there are places that don't admit blacks. AR, TN, KY and a few others. There has even been instances where some blacks who are members of state Grand Lodges in the north that have denied admission to blacks when visiting a southern lodge. Just because you haven't heard of it or it hasn't happened near you doesn't mean it hasn't happened at all because it has.


----------



## MRichard (Mar 8, 2016)

I am sure there are places in your grand lodge as well. We have full amity here in Texas. That doesn't mean that you won't encounter racism in some places.


----------



## MRichard (Mar 8, 2016)

Double post


----------



## CLewey44 (Mar 8, 2016)

Mindovermatter Ace said:


> I assume you all live in places where mutual amity exist with the two Grand Lodges because there are places that don't admit blacks. AR, TN, KY and a few others. There has even been instances where some blacks who are members of state Grand Lodges in the north that have denied admission to blacks when visiting a southern lodge. Just because you haven't heard of it or it hasn't happened near you doesn't mean it hasn't happened at all because it has.



Well, I didn't know that some GLs did that. It's bad enough to not recognize PHA but to not even allow visitation, PHA or not, from other jurisdictions is despicable. Masonry in the U.S. (and maybe abroad too, not sure) for some reason has a race issue still and it needs to be addressed as I posted earlier and possibly merged all as one to prevent such absurdity. Racism and bigotry is extremely UNMASONIC.


----------



## hanzosbm (Mar 8, 2016)

Mindovermatter Ace said:


> I assume you all live in places where mutual amity exist with the two Grand Lodges because there are places that don't admit blacks. AR, TN, KY and a few others. There has even been instances where some blacks who are members of state Grand Lodges in the north that have denied admission to blacks when visiting a southern lodge. Just because you haven't heard of it or it hasn't happened near you doesn't mean it hasn't happened at all because it has.


This is false.  While I can't speak from personal experience regarding AR and TN, I am a KY Mason and this is not correct.


----------



## dfreybur (Mar 8, 2016)

CLewey44 said:


> I think the only way to remove racism is to integrate all lodges, PHA and non-PHA, in each state as one Grand Lodge.



Prince Hall Masonry is older than my country.  I have no wish to lose that fine heritage by assimilation.

Then again if I'm in attendance in one of the jurisdictions where I hold vote and the local PHA jurisdiction offered unification it is highly likely I would vote in favor.  The direction of such a proposal matters.


----------



## Mindovermatter Ace (Mar 8, 2016)

If what sad was false then tell me the name of some black members in the jurisdiction of Kentucky please. 


Aaron Christopher 
Cervantes #5 
Grand Lodge of Louisiana F&AM


----------



## hanzosbm (Mar 8, 2016)

Mindovermatter Ace said:


> If what sad was false then tell me the name of some black members in the jurisdiction of Kentucky please.



Well here's an article from this site discussing a black Master as well as comments from another black brother who indicates that he has visited numerous lodges within Kentucky.

http://www.myfreemasonry.com/threads/first-black-master-in-kentucky.20858/


----------



## Mindovermatter Ace (Mar 8, 2016)

I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarity. I won't hesitate to share the information you've given me when brothers include the jurisdiction of Kentucky in these types of discussions. 


Aaron Christopher 
Cervantes #5 
Grand Lodge of Louisiana F&AM


----------



## hanzosbm (Mar 8, 2016)

Mindovermatter Ace said:


> I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarity. I won't hesitate to share the information you've given me when brothers include the jurisdiction of Kentucky in these types of discussions.


Thank you, brother.


----------



## CLewey44 (Mar 8, 2016)

dfreybur said:


> Prince Hall Masonry is older than my country.  I have no wish to lose that fine heritage by assimilation.
> 
> Then again if I'm in attendance in one of the jurisdictions where I hold vote and the local PHA jurisdiction offered unification it is highly likely I would vote in favor.  The direction of such a proposal matters.



As I said earlier in the forum, I think it'd be an excellent appendant body or extra degree maybe. I don't think it should go away but the reason behind it is the problem, segregate. And it's still alive and well in some states unfortunately.

I think too, it'd help dwindling lodge attendance possibly. We'd be less spaced out and so fourth. Some PHA lodges share the same lodge as a non-PHA lodge which I find strange. You're both there for the same reason but segregate yourselves for no particular reason on different nights of the month. Why?


----------



## CLewey44 (Mar 8, 2016)

hanzosbm said:


> Well here's an article from this site discussing a black Master as well as comments from another black brother who indicates that he has visited numerous lodges within Kentucky.
> 
> http://www.myfreemasonry.com/threads/first-black-master-in-kentucky.20858/



That's good. However, I wonder what the KY GL books say. I speculate the lodges visited were just being cordial. Which is good. At the very least they're trying. Again, I don't know what the GL laws say so I could be way off here.


----------



## hanzosbm (Mar 8, 2016)

CLewey44 said:


> That's good. However, I wonder what the KY GL books say. I speculate the lodges visited were just being cordial. Which is good. At the very least they're trying. Again, I don't know what the GL laws say so I could be way off here.


Well, I'd have to dig out the documents that I have to be sure, but if a black man was installed as Kentucky WM, I can't imagine there's an issue on the books.


----------



## Mindovermatter Ace (Mar 8, 2016)

As far as the south goes, from what I know, Alabama has one black card holder and one newly initiated EA. Georgia has one, and Louisiana has maybe five or six including myself.  Yes racism still exist here within the jurisdiction. The lodge I joined is called "the Prince Hall lodge" by racist masons in northern Louisiana. I don't know about FL, TX etc. but I have heard about instances in territories that share mutual recognition, where lodges have refused black masons from entering the lodge. You don't hear about things like this unless it makes the news or something.

A brother who is a member of the GLoNY now, left the Prince Hall jurisdiction because his old lodge refused to initiate a Caucasian guy. 

Also in Louisiana it's not the GLoLA who has refused mutual amity but the Prince Hall Grand Lodge. 

Racism exist on both sides, sad to say. Ironic we can united men of different faiths but not men of different ethnic backgrounds. One day We shall overcome this adversity. God willing. 


Aaron Christopher 
Cervantes #5 
Grand Lodge of Louisiana F&AM


----------



## Mindovermatter Ace (Mar 8, 2016)

CLewey44 said:


> As I said earlier in the forum, I think it'd be an excellent appendant body or extra degree maybe. I don't think it should go away but the reason behind it is the problem, segregate. And it's still alive and well in some states unfortunately.
> 
> I think too, it'd help dwindling lodge attendance possibly. We'd be less spaced out and so fourth. Some PHA lodges share the same lodge as a non-PHA lodge which I find strange. You're both there for the same reason but segregate yourselves for no particular reason on different nights of the month. Why?





I agree. Why rent your building out to people you don't recognize as masons? It makes those who aren't perceive themselves as being the same and makes it appear as if they accept them as masons. 

Personally I don't agree with that or healing. 


Aaron Christopher 
Cervantes #5 
Grand Lodge of Louisiana F&AM


----------



## CLewey44 (Mar 8, 2016)

Mindovermatter Ace said:


> I agree. Why rent your building out to people you don't recognize as masons? It makes those who aren't perceive themselves as being the same and makes it appear as if they accept them as masons.
> 
> Personally I don't agree with that or healing.
> 
> ...



This stuff can't be fixed unless it's talked about. Time to get rid of these unnecessary things. I would start by inviting all PHA members to visit a local non-PHA lodge and get acquainted and talk about these things. Let's get on the level here for real. Both GLs should be discussing this all of the time. Do a statewide vote maybe. Counting each vote from both PHA and non-PHA Blue Lodges in favor of coming together or not. Each secretary should present some correspondence from the GLs' on why it should be this way. No need for separation anymore.


----------



## Mindovermatter Ace (Mar 8, 2016)

MRichard said:


> I am sure there are places in your grand lodge as well. We have full amity here in Texas. That doesn't mean that you won't encounter racism in some places.





CLewey44 said:


> This stuff can't be fixed unless it's talked about. Time to get rid of these unnecessary things. I would start by inviting all PHA members to visit a local non-PHA lodge and get acquainted and talk about these things. Let's get on the level here for real. Both GLs should be discussing this all of the time. Do a statewide vote maybe. Counting each vote from both PHA and non-PHA Blue Lodges in favor of coming together or not. Each secretary should present some correspondence from the GLs' on why it should be this way. No need for separation anymore.




I agree wholeheartedly. We can't resolve issues we refuse to address.


----------



## MRichard (Mar 8, 2016)

hanzosbm said:


> Well here's an article from this site discussing a black Master as well as comments from another black brother who indicates that he has visited numerous lodges within Kentucky.
> 
> http://www.myfreemasonry.com/threads/first-black-master-in-kentucky.20858/



I actually know Diamond. He is a PM from the Grand  Lodge of Hawaii.  I thought he told me he visited a Kentucky lodge and they gave him something.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Mar 8, 2016)

Racism is very prevalent in Freemasonry in the south. Always has been. I started a new job today, and as I was working I noticed my Co worker had a Masonic emblem on his belt. I then asked if he was a mason, he said yes. As I tried to talk with him, he shunned me, but turned around and started talking about freemasonry with a "white" gentleman that wasn't even a brother. Ask me how I know if the other gentleman wasn't a mason, because I asked.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Mar 8, 2016)

This issue is so out of hand, when I do meet a GL brother that does not share the majorities view on race relations, it shocks me and throws me for a loop.


----------



## Glen Cook (Mar 8, 2016)

deleted


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Mar 8, 2016)

Truth be told, there are black men that joined PHA GL'S because that is the only option they had other than joining a bogus masonic organization because the GL in that state refuses to admit  black man. The GL of GA threatened to pull the charter of one of their subordinate lodges because they admitted a black man. As I referenced in a previous post. The reasoning, because they violated one of the Ancient Land Marks. What ancient landmark was violated by entering a black man ?


----------



## alterian (Mar 8, 2016)

When I attempted to petition in Texas I was welcomed. I arrived before a stated meeting, I talked to a couple men, they gave me a tour, talked to me about membership, it was a good experience. I attempted to petition a MS lodge in GA and it wasn’t the same here. It felt like I wasn’t there, like I was being ignored. I went to 2 different lodges and it felt the same for both. I felt very welcomed at a PHA lodge. They talked to more in the half hour I spent with them then the combined 2 hours at the other lodges. Could it have been because of my race/heritage, possibly, I’d like to think it’s just the way the brothers are. I was told to stay away from PHA lodges. That made me think, why tell me that, ignore me and make me feel unwelcomed when I visit.

I’m glade I was accepted into a lodge, MS and PHA are the same to me. I hope that when I run into someone and they ask which lodge I’m from they don’t look down on me for being PHA. I would accept any brother be it MS or PHA. Hopefully one day all MS brothers will do so in return.

I didn’t mean any of this in any negative way, just stating my story. I’m sure the lodges I went to have some great brother, the shoe just didn’t fit the foot.

What’s the current status on recognition from those GL’S, who has requested recognition and who hasn’t? I know some times it can be PHA GL that don’t request/want it which is why I want to know who has (if it can be discussed on here)


----------



## MRichard (Mar 8, 2016)

I visited a PHA lodge tonight for the first time with a lodge brother and two other brothers from the GLOT. It was a great experience. They do things differently. 

They gave us trowels engraved with their lodge name. Working tools.


----------



## MRichard (Mar 9, 2016)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Truth be told, there are black men that joined PHA GL'S because that is the only option they had other than joining a bogus masonic organization because the GL in that state refuses to admit  black man. The GL of GA threatened to pull the charter of one of their subordinate lodges because they admitted a black man. As I referenced in a previous post. The reasoning, because they violated one of the Ancient Land Marks. What ancient landmark was violated by entering a black man ?



Remember, they are a sovereign grand lodge. Also, the man eventually became WM of that lodge. It is not easy to be the Jackie Robinson of anything but a true bridge builder does it for the ones that will follow him.

The Bridge Builder

BY WILL ALLEN DROMGOOLE

An old man going a lone highway,
Came, at the evening cold and gray,
To a chasm vast and deep and wide.
Through which was flowing a sullen tide
The old man crossed in the twilight dim,
The sullen stream had no fear for him;
But he turned when safe on the other side
And built a bridge to span the tide.

“Old man,” said a fellow pilgrim near,
“You are wasting your strength with building here;
Your journey will end with the ending day,
You never again will pass this way;
You’ve crossed the chasm, deep and wide,
Why build this bridge at evening tide?”

The builder lifted his old gray head;
“Good friend, in the path I have come,” he said,
“There followed after me to-day
A youth whose feet must pass this way.
This chasm that has been as naught to me
To that fair-haired youth may a pitfall be;
He, too, must cross in the twilight dim;
Good friend, I am building this bridge for him!”


----------



## MRichard (Mar 9, 2016)

Mindovermatter Ace said:


> Also in Louisiana it's not the GLoLA who has refused mutual amity but the Prince Hall Grand Lodge.



Well, maybe you can clear this up. One member that used to post here stated that the Grand Lodge of Louisiana considers PHA clandestine and it would take a constitutional amendment to change that.


----------



## hanzosbm (Mar 9, 2016)

MRichard said:


> Well, maybe you can clear this up. One member that used to post here stated that the Grand Lodge of Louisiana considers PHA clandestine and it would take a constitutional amendment to change that.


I can't speak for LA, but my mother lodge is in Kentucky and I move away from KY prior to any form of recognition between mainstream and Prince Hall, so I can speak to that. 

At that time, yes, Prince Hall was considered Clandestine, although I think most brothers would simply use the term 'unrecognized' out of respect.  The issue (as it has been communicated to me) was that both the mainstream Grand Lodge of Kentucky and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Kentucky (I apologize if I'm not using the correct terms) both considered themselves sovereign.  Therefore, for either of them to request recognition from the other would be seen as a sign of inferiority.  Sort of like saying 'if I have to ask you for your permission to be a Mason, you must have authority over me'.  Both sides saw it as a case of 'if they want to be recognized by us, fine, but they have to come ask us'.  Well, with both sides taking that stance, there was never going to be mutual recognition.  Obviously, SOMETHING has changed as there is now recognition (albeit without visitation for the time) but I don't know the exact mechanics of how that happened. 

Going back to my previous statements here, sadly, Kentucky does have racist Masons within some of their/our lodges.  That being said, my experience is that this is a very small percentage.  I think that for many years, the attitude wasn't one of active rejection, but simply 'they don't need us and we don't need them' in terms of Prince Hall.  The older generations, even if not racist, were just fine with that stance.  The younger generations disagree and are actively working towards bringing the two together, but it's a slow process.  My understanding is that the decision to not have visitation was designed as a temporary measure, and, unfortunate as it might be, I think it's for the best to avoid rocking the boat too quickly.


----------



## MRichard (Mar 9, 2016)

The senior grand lodge has to consent or waive jurisdiction for the UGLE to grant recognition. @Glen Cook could explain it better. But each grand lodge is sovereign, that is correct. It appears that the grand lodges in Oklahoma are in full amity, yet the PHA grand lodge has not taken the extra step need to get full recognition from the UGLE. It should be merely a formality.


----------



## tldubb (Mar 9, 2016)

CLewey44 said:


> As I said earlier in the forum, I think it'd be an excellent appendant body or extra degree maybe. I don't think it should go away but the reason behind it is the problem, segregate. And it's still alive and well in some states unfortunately.
> 
> I think too, it'd help dwindling lodge attendance possibly. We'd be less spaced out and so fourth. Some PHA lodges share the same lodge as a non-PHA lodge which I find strange. You're both there for the same reason but segregate yourselves for no particular reason on different nights of the month. Why?


That is not true it is forbidden for a PHA Lodge to share a building with a non-PHA lodge...at least in my jurisdiction which is amongst one of the oldest.


----------



## MRichard (Mar 9, 2016)

hanzosbm said:


> At that time, yes, Prince Hall was considered Clandestine, although I think most brothers would simply use the term 'unrecognized' out of respect.  The issue (as it has been communicated to me) was that both the mainstream Grand Lodge of Kentucky and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Kentucky (I apologize if I'm not using the correct terms) both considered themselves sovereign.  Therefore, for either of them to request recognition from the other would be seen as a sign of inferiority.  Sort of like saying 'if I have to ask you for your permission to be a Mason, you must have authority over me'.  Both sides saw it as a case of 'if they want to be recognized by us, fine, but they have to come ask us'.  Well, with both sides taking that stance, there was never going to be mutual recognition.  Obviously, SOMETHING has changed as there is now recognition (albeit without visitation for the time) but I don't know the exact mechanics of how that happened.



Went through the same thing in Texas and I would imagine the issues are somewhat similar in the Southern states but to different degrees. Recognition without visitation was done in approximately 2007. Visitation was approved in December of 2014. You have to get approved for inter-jurisdictional visitation through both grand lodges and it is up to the WM of the visiting lodge to approve and that has to be done for each lodge of the other jurisdiction you want to visit but only has to be done one time for each lodge. It is probably easier to visit a grand lodge in another state.


----------



## tldubb (Mar 9, 2016)

Please give me an example of such lodges PHA and none PHA that share buildings..and was there any type of dispensation from the GL?


----------



## dfreybur (Mar 9, 2016)

tldubb said:


> Please give me an example of such lodges PHA and none PHA that share buildings..and was there any type of dispensation from the GL?



My mother lodge Pasadena 272 California F&AM owns our building.  There are several tenant lodges.  One tenant is Hiram 12 MW PHA California F&AM.

Recognition was voted in when I was a deacon in the line so 95/96.  Hiram lodge had already approached us about tenancy.  It took a half year until Hawaii voted for recognition as the PHA jurisdiction was CA+HI at the time so both states had to recognize.  Then another half year before the Gr Sec on all 3 sides published their lists of lodges.

The day visitation was allowed we invited Hiram 12 to move in. No dispensation on our end just the slow paperwork process of sending the lists of lodges to make sure every lodge (both of us plus the other tenant lodges) was on one of the lists.

I have no idea if Hiram 12 required dispensation from MWPHGLofCA+HI at the time.


----------



## tldubb (Mar 9, 2016)

Stand corrected on my part..did my research..


----------



## CLewey44 (Mar 9, 2016)

tldubb said:


> That is not true it is forbidden for a PHA Lodge to share a building with a non-PHA lodge...at least in my jurisdiction which is amongst one of the oldest.





tldubb said:


> Please give me an example of such lodges PHA and none PHA that share buildings..and was there any type of dispensation from the GL?



In Oklahoma I've been to one that does.


----------



## Glen Cook (Mar 9, 2016)

tldubb said:


> Please give me an example of such lodges PHA and none PHA that share buildings..and was there any type of dispensation from the GL?


In Utah, the two PHA COL lodges meet in GL UT buildings. I cannot say if there was a dispensation.


----------



## MRichard (Mar 10, 2016)

hanzosbm said:


> I can't speak for LA, but my mother lodge is in Kentucky and I move away from KY prior to any form of recognition between mainstream and Prince Hall, so I can speak to that.
> 
> At that time, yes, Prince Hall was considered Clandestine, although I think most brothers would simply use the term 'unrecognized' out of respect.  The issue (as it has been communicated to me) was that both the mainstream Grand Lodge of Kentucky and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Kentucky (I apologize if I'm not using the correct terms) both considered themselves sovereign.  Therefore, for either of them to request recognition from the other would be seen as a sign of inferiority.  Sort of like saying 'if I have to ask you for your permission to be a Mason, you must have authority over me'.  Both sides saw it as a case of 'if they want to be recognized by us, fine, but they have to come ask us'.  Well, with both sides taking that stance, there was never going to be mutual recognition.  Obviously, SOMETHING has changed as there is now recognition (albeit without visitation for the time) but I don't know the exact mechanics of how that happened.
> 
> Going back to my previous statements here, sadly, Kentucky does have racist Masons within some of their/our lodges.  That being said, my experience is that this is a very small percentage.  I think that for many years, the attitude wasn't one of active rejection, but simply 'they don't need us and we don't need them' in terms of Prince Hall.  The older generations, even if not racist, were just fine with that stance.  The younger generations disagree and are actively working towards bringing the two together, but it's a slow process.  My understanding is that the decision to not have visitation was designed as a temporary measure, and, unfortunate as it might be, I think it's for the best to avoid rocking the boat too quickly.



Just noticed that the PHA grand lodge in KY is not recognized by the UGLE. I believe they have a recognition agreement without visitation between the two grand lodges. That is all you need to be recognized but there must be another step like a request to the UGLE itself. Same thing in Oklahoma. Some PHA don't show up on the UGLE because they are under another states charter and don't have a grand lodge in that area. Not sure in which states though.


----------



## Glen Cook (Mar 10, 2016)

MRichard said:


> Just noticed that the PHA grand lodge in KY is not recognized by the UGLE. I believe they have a recognition agreement without visitation between the two grand lodges. That is all you need to be recognized but there must be another step like a request to the UGLE itself. Same thing in Oklahoma. Some PHA don't show up on the UGLE because they are under another states charter and don't have a grand lodge in that area. Not sure in which states though.


To my understanding, UGLE does not solicit recognition.

To clarify, some states don't show up, because there is no PHA GL with that state's name. Utah, for instance, is part of PHA of COL and Its Jurisdictions.


----------



## MRichard (Mar 10, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> To my understanding, UGLE does not solicit recognition.
> 
> To clarify, some states don't show up, because there is no PHA GL with that state!s name. Utah, for instance, is part of PHA of COL and Its Jurisdictions.



There must be a formal recognition request that has to be made even if you are in full or partial amity with the other grand lodge.


----------



## dfreybur (Mar 10, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> To my understanding, UGLE does not solicit recognition.



Right - Every time a state achieves local recognition the PHA jurisdiction there has to ask the UGLE for recognition.  Then the UGLE has historically rubber stamped their approval.  For some set or reasons that is not answered in public Oklahoma has not made that request.  Those of us who have not attended GL at MWPHGLofOK don't know what discussion has happened on the topic.

Asking doesn't only apply to UGLE.  Some states have "blanket" policies to grant recognition when any state achieves recognition but most don't.  Among my jurisdictions California offers mutual recognition and waits for a positive response, Illinois grants "blanket" recognition without waiting for response and I haven't studied the Texas policy enough to know how we do it.



> To clarify, some states don't show up, because there is no PHA GL with that state!s name. Utah, for instance, is part of PHA of COL and Its Jurisdictions.



True in both branches of our family.  I remember when GLofWA+AK split into GLofWAS and GLofAK.  I remember when MWPHGLofCA+HI slit into MWPHGLofCA and MWPHGLofHI.  Not every state is covered by both branches of our family yet.


----------



## Glen Cook (Mar 10, 2016)

tldubb said:


> Stand corrected on my part..did my research..


This refers to clandestine groups, not GLs which are in amity


----------



## Bloke (Mar 10, 2016)

Mindovermatter Ace said:


> .... Yes racism still exist here within the jurisdiction. The lodge I joined is called "the Prince Hall lodge" by racist masons in northern Louisiana....



I've been away, but frankly, my lodge is known as a bunch of rebels (in Australia, nothing to do with Amercia's civil war and the South  )... We'd wear that badge with pride.

I think multiple black balls to stop a man joining are good, better than just once allowing to bar a man. Let's also remember there are two reasons to black ball, to stop a man becoming a Freemason and/or to stop a man joining your specific lodge. Here, if a black ball is dropped, it is shown as a complete failure of the lodge to process and introduce the potential candidate prior to initiation...

There is a flip side to this discussion - why would you want to join a lodge where racism prevails ? No thank you...


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Mar 11, 2016)

Bloke said:


> I've been away, but frankly, my lodge is known as a bunch of rebels (in Australia, nothing to do with Amercia's civil war and the South  )... We'd wear that badge with pride.
> 
> I think multiple black balls to stop a man joining are good, better than just once allowing to bar a man. Let's also remember there are two reasons to black ball, to stop a man becoming a Freemason and/or to stop a man joining your specific lodge. Here, if a black ball is dropped, it is shown as a complete failure of the lodge to process and introduce the potential candidate prior to initiation...
> 
> There is a flip side to this discussion - why would you want to join a lodge where racism prevails ? No thank you...


Because racism shouldn't be allowed in Freemasonry and how other to break race barriers than to try and join. Take the GL of TN for instance, I know of a couple outstanding black gentleman that tired to join the GL of TN subordinate lodges and was told blacks had to be PHA. If I'm not mistaken there are no black freemasons in the GL of TN nor has there ever been. What does that tell you?  Some will say, well we don't have that many blacks as far as population that would want to join. That's a lie, Im from TN and I've traveled all over the state even to the most rural areas where there were a handful of blacks.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Mar 11, 2016)

Bloke said:


> Here, if a black ball is dropped, it is shown as a complete failure of the lodge to process and introduce the potential candidate prior to initiation...


 I disagree as stated earlier, there are times when a Brother knows something about that candidate that he cannot divulge.  In my case I am a member of the GL of Oregon and the GL of NM.  I currently reside in NM.  If i take a vacation to go back to Oregon and attend lodge and they are voting on someone that has already had their petition read, inv commitee conductedd and reported on and I show up the night of the Vote and I kow this guy to be a horrible person I cna and should drop the black ball.

Now hopefully that man is at the lodge prior to us opening and I would see him and beable to pull a few bros aside and ask why he was there, ect ect and let them know hes a bad dude.  sometimes that cant ahappen.



Travelling Man91 said:


> Because racism shouldn't be allowed in Freemasonry and how other to break race barriers than to try and join.


 
I agree, however that mindset makes me think of the bakery in Oregon that was sued by a gay couple becuase the bakery refused to make them a wedding cake because the owner said it would go against their religious beliefs.  The couple sued them for everything the bakery had and was actually forced to go out of business as they lost everything. 

If i was in that situation, especially in a city like portland oregon that is very gay friendly, I would go find a bakery that would bake my damn cake.  Take your money elsewhere. 

Why join a lodge where you are not going to be accepted.  That is why you should check out a few lodges if possible before petitioning, or if you are already a mason and moved to a new jurisdiction to attend a few lodges and talk to as many brothers as possible before choosing a lodge to affiliate with.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Mar 11, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> I disagree as stated earlier, there are times when a Brother knows something about that candidate that he cannot divulge.  In my case I am a member of the GL of Oregon and the GL of NM.  I currently reside in NM.  If i take a vacation to go back to Oregon and attend lodge and they are voting on someone that has already had their petition read, inv commitee conductedd and reported on and I show up the night of the Vote and I kow this guy to be a horrible person I cna and should drop the black ball.
> 
> Now hopefully that man is at the lodge prior to us opening and I would see him and beable to pull a few bros aside and ask why he was there, ect ect and let them know hes a bad dude.  sometimes that cant ahappen.
> 
> ...


I disagree. In other words, continue to let them discriminate and not accept men of different races ? Just go somewhere your accepted. That's the problem, the GL of TN has never accepted a black man to my knowledge, so where would they go ? A man shouldn't have to go out of state to become a mason. These racist bigots in the GL on both sides need to get get with the current times or  decide if free masonry is really for them. What if they didn't want to be PHA. A man should not be secluded to one Masonic affiliation just because of his race.


----------



## David Carroll jr (Apr 5, 2016)

hanzosbm said:


> First, the issue of GLs.  I would be willing to put down money that the flat out answer is 'no'.  I highly doubt that there is any GL that states that black men cannot be admitted.  Furthermore, I doubt that there is any GL that checks the race of every applicant, so I would say not.
> Second, are there individual lodges that won't admit black men?  I doubt it.  For a lodge to put in its bylaws that it is excluding men based solely on race would almost certainly result in a very short lifespan of that lodge.
> Third, are the individuals, perhaps even the majority to 100% of the members of the lodge, who would deny a black man admittance?  Yes.  And while this is unMasonic and disgusting, every Mason present gets a vote and regardless of how ignorant the reason behind it, if he votes no, that's how it goes.


I know many lodges that will not admit Black men and if you broach the subject you will find yourself out in the cold. I hate it with a passion but it is what it is and until we can change it we are stuck with it.


----------



## Bloke (Apr 5, 2016)

David Carroll jr said:


> .. I hate it with a passion but it is what it is and until we can change it we are stuck with it.



Well brother, without trying to sound smart or being flippant - get cracking on that problem ! IT sounds like it will require constant and purposeful nudging rather than a sledge hammer to move that attitude...

"If it is to be, it is up to me".


----------



## Kenneth NC Mason (Apr 6, 2016)

I think the whole " can someone get into this lodge in this state because he's black" is irrelevant. I know a brother in Utah who is black that was raised in the mainstream lodge but then was blackballed for York Rite because of some people in the old guard.  In NC a black man or any man for that matter can petition a lodge , however there still is some animosity as far as whether or not they'd get in. Just because a state recognizes PH doesn't mean racism still doesn't exist and vice versa. Ex: even though FL LA MS and GA don't recognize PHA I hope a man of any color would be admitted into their lodge..: and I'm sure it's happened once or twice

Regardless .... Just remember to do good unto all and that EVERY human being has a claim on your kind offices


----------



## Glen Cook (Apr 6, 2016)

Kenneth NC Mason said:


> I think the whole " can someone get into this lodge in this state because he's black" is irrelevant. I know a brother in Utah who is black that was raised in the mainstream lodge but then was blackballed for York Rite because of some people in the old guard.  In NC a black man or any man for that matter can petition a lodge , however there still is some animosity as far as whether or not they'd get in. Just because a state recognizes PH doesn't mean racism still doesn't exist and vice versa. Ex: even though FL LA MS and GA don't recognize PHA I hope a man of any color would be admitted into their lodge..: and I'm sure it's happened once or twice
> 
> Regardless .... Just remember to do good unto all and that EVERY human being has a claim on your kind offices


Have the brother make contact with me.


----------



## David Carroll jr (Apr 6, 2016)

Kenneth NC Mason said:


> I think the whole " can someone get into this lodge in this state because he's black" is irrelevant. I know a brother in Utah who is black that was raised in the mainstream lodge but then was blackballed for York Rite because of some people in the old guard.  In NC a black man or any man for that matter can petition a lodge , however there still is some animosity as far as whether or not they'd get in. Just because a state recognizes PH doesn't mean racism still doesn't exist and vice versa. Ex: even though FL LA MS and GA don't recognize PHA I hope a man of any color would be admitted into their lodge..: and I'm sure it's happened once or twice
> 
> Regardless .... Just remember to do good unto all and that EVERY human being has a claim on your kind offices



Although Louisiana Grand Lodge does not recognize PHA yet, we do have a few men of color in the Louisiana GL. Of course this was much to chagrin and consternation of some of our more seasoned but not very mature Brethern.


----------



## Kenneth NC Mason (Apr 7, 2016)

Glen Cook

I should have clarified . He was raised in Indiana and was blackballed for YR there. He now lives in Utah.


----------



## Glen Cook (Apr 8, 2016)

Kenneth NC Mason said:


> Glen Cook
> 
> I should have clarified . He was raised in Indiana and was blackballed for YR there. He now lives in Utah.


Well, that makes me feel better about my jurisdiction. 

Still have him look me up if he wishes to attend lodge. 

I do wonder, though, how did he know the reason for the blackball?


----------

