# LA puts Prince Hall recognition on the next GL agenda



## drapetomaniac

Resolution No, 2010-15
To be filed at 2010 Annual Grand Communication
The Grand Lodge of the State of Louisiana F&AM

Whereas: Freemasonry professes a belief in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man;
and

Whereas: For various historical reasons, Louisiana has two Masonic Grand Lodges. Members of the Grand Lodge of the State of Louisiana, F &AM are predominantly white while members of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Louisiana, F&AM are predominantly black; and

Whereas: The tenets of Freemasonry empower men to rise above differences which divide in order to work together for good for all mankind; and

Whereas: While respecting our history, it is time to move Freemasonry forward and recognize Masonic brothers as Brothers; and

Whereas: Forty-one other grand lodges in the United States now recognize their respective Prince Hall counterparts as regular in some form.

Therefore Be It Resolved: That the Foreign Correspondence Committee or other appropriate committee as determined by the Grand Master, shall be instructed to establish communications with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Louisiana F &AM and shall determine the regularity of the Prince. Hall Grand Lodge of Louisiana F&AM. The goal of this endeavor shall be to establish full Masonic communication with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge and allow visitation of brethren between Lodges and Prince Hall Lodges if the Prince Hall Grand Lodge is determined to be regular; .

Be It Further Resolved: that the intent of this resolution is simply to allow members of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana to recognize their Masonic neighbors as true brothers. Nothing herein shall be construed to recommend any type of merger or unification between the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, F&AM and Prince Hall Grand Lodge.

Submitted by Glenn A. Turner, PM, Yellow Pine Lodge No. 282, F&AM


----------



## Blake Bowden

Are you listening Texas?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bigmel

We need to do this in Texas.   We need to move forward.


----------



## Bill Lins

Better late than never.


----------



## Blake Bowden

I'm still giddy over reading this...


----------



## fairbanks1363pm

im not getting to excited until i see a positive outcome here.


----------



## Jamesb

fairbanks1363pm said:


> im not getting to excited until i see a positive outcome here.


 
Me neither, but more and more we are seeing the slide to the positive.


----------



## owls84

I wonder if PHA put LA recognition on thier agenda first or if LA took initive because they feel they should recognize all organizations that practice regular Masonry the same? Hmmm, I wonder.:confused1:


----------



## TexMass

A couple of years ago, we had some Masons from LA visiting Orleans lodge in MA.  The Master of the LA lodge was originally from MA and a member of the Orleans lodge.  They had sent a request to the PHA GL in Boston asking to visit and was told they would be honored however, their LA jurisdiction did not recognize them and suggested it would be best that they did not put themselves in a difficult postion by visiting.  So, it didn't happen.  Sad.  No one here just 'shows up' to a PHA lodge or vice versa.  It has been customary that you contact the Master of the lodge first.  I don't think it's written down like that but that's the way it's practiced.


----------



## rockhammer53

As it states, it is not a merger but a recognition of each other. Texas is a good place for a similar dialog to begin. I don't know if the two Lodges would ever merge but to BEGIN a DIALOG, start to show the better side of Masonry, to be Men of Honor and show that the basic tenants of Freemasonry are in fact, Good Men becoming Better. Who knows, maybe it would work.


----------



## scotd123

I am new to the site; this is my first forum discussion to review and, in fact, my first post.  I am impressed with rockhammer53's comment about us being Men of Honor and demonstrating the basic tenant of Freemasonry.  It seems that at some point I remember hearing that, when one is evaluating another man, he should look to the internal and not the external qualifications.  This recognition is long overdue.  I pray that La approves this and that Texas follows suit.


----------



## Hippie19950

I seem to have misunderstood something I read a while back I guess (as usual). I was sure I read where the Texas PHA had asked the GLOT for "Mutual Recognition" and it was accepted.. Apparently it was something else. I think it should be OK to recognize each other as Brothers, I have stated that before. Again though, providing the PHA Brethren want the same. I know a few here in town, and though we do not discuss the inner workings of the lodges, we do discuss our public activities, and what we would like to see happen in general, not just with Masonry.


----------



## drapetomaniac

I'm hearing from LA brothers that the LA resolution to acknowledge PHA (actually just to investigate acknowledging) failed under miserable conditions.


----------



## rockhammer53

I guess that's where things will stay for another generation...it's hard to jump the hurdles that our predecessors have thrown down. It was no surprise.


----------



## TexMass

TX GL and PHA have accepted mutual recognition but no visitation or dual membership is allowed.  In MA, the Grand Officers of PHA in MA are inveted to each quarterly meeting of the GL of MA.  Sorry it's so big but I couldn't reduce it.




http://www.mwphglotx.org/images/compact/Web Page of Compact Signing.gif


----------



## drapetomaniac

rockhammer53 said:


> I guess that's where things will stay for another generation...it's hard to jump the hurdles that our predecessors have thrown down. It was no surprise.


 
Well, once it comes up to the floor or has the opportunity to be, it's not our predecessors but our peers and ourselves.  

I feel sorry for the those in the room who actually believed in the brotherhood of man. It's a difficult thing when those closest to you reveal something ugly.


----------



## RedTemplar

Mutual Recognition? Your girlfriend is or is not pregnant. Ain't no such thing as a little bit knocked up.


----------



## RedTemplar

Brothers, I just read in the Masonic Society that for "technical issues" the resolution was turned down.


----------



## drapetomaniac

Technical issues, followed by a resubmission, also declined for more technical reasons, including a discussion where bigotries became vocal and public.


----------



## rockhammer53

No further comment from me...bigotries and such are still the problem, from BOTH sides. C U.


----------



## drapetomaniac

We know how this all started.  
It's easy for either side to take responsibility for their own actions.  

I'm not a member of the "other side"  (or maybe I am?), I'm more concerned with my immediate membership and what those who sit next to me do.

Right now, when I drive east to visit family, I'm not confident I can visit a typical lodge on the way and be accepted.

Let's sweep around our own front door.


----------



## gtahuahua

I think this is a great step for LA. I think something like this is needed in TX.


----------



## drapetomaniac

We're almost there.  A lot of folks don't seem to be aware of this:
http://www.mwphglotx.org/compact.htm

I think, in part, due to the miseducation in the ALL program on the subject. I wince every time I see the yellow book show up.


----------



## owls84

I so agree Drape. We have rewrote it to reflect the current times.


----------



## JTM

so in that last paragraph of the compact... have they achieved that?


----------



## drapetomaniac

There was a recent post in another thread where it seemed like it happened very quickly and they've received multiple other international recognitions.

Funny, if I moved to England or Mexico and visited Texas, I could could sit in their lodge.


----------



## Huw

Hi Jack.



TexMass said:


> TX GL and PHA have accepted mutual recognition but no visitation or dual membership is allowed.


 
Oh, that's interesting.  That's not what we'd understand by the word "recognition" here in UGLE.

Over here, recognition means that we can visit one another, join one another's Lodges, etc.  If we can't visit with another jurisdiction, then we wouldn't normally say that we "recognise" them at all.  We have occasionally had situations where UGLE has temporarily asked us not to visit with another GL (even though it is officially recognised) because of some current argument or difficulty (which would either be resolved and visiting resumed, or would be followed by withdrawal of recognition if not resolved).  If there's a standing ban on visiting, as opposed to a temporary situation, then for us that means recognition has been withdrawn.

I'm not clear what "recognition" means in the sense which you appear to be using.  If you can't sit together as Brothers, then how does recognition differ from non-recognition?

T & F,

Huw

P.S.  In case someone gets the wrong idea:  no, I'm not trying to stir up an argument here.  I genuinely don't understand what you mean by recognition, and I'd like to understand better.


----------



## owls84

Huw, basically we are saying (this is from GL when asked) is we recognize you as practicing "regular" Freemasonry and we recognize you as Brethren but since we share the same jurisdiction we do not want visitation at this time. 

Don't worry some of us don't understand it either. One way you are saying we are on the level then we turn around and say no we aren't. This was voted on by both PHAoTX and the GLoTX so it is what it is.


----------



## Huw

Yes, I see. Thanks Josh.

In UGLE, our rulebook ties visiting rights to recognition (and also conferring Degrees for one another, joining between jurisdictions, and so on), so to us it's all pretty much the same thing:  either we recognise a GL and all the rest follows fairly automatically, or we don't recognise them.  Also, UGLE has always been more flexible than a lot of the US GLs about territorial exclusivity:  we're accustomed to the idea of sharing territory because we have numerous overseas Districts where we share with other recognised GLs, and we even have a few Lodges of recognised overseas jurisdictions meeting on our home territory in England (although I don't think our HQ would permit any new ones), and visiting is freely allowed in all these cases.

Obviously the relationship between GLoTX and PHAoTX is whatever they have voted it to be, and in that sense it is nobody else's business.  However, it doesn't sound like what I'd call "recognition" in the sense that I understand that word:  it appears from your description that the relationship doesn't have very much practical meaning.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Bryan

As far as I know the PH GL of Louisiana has expressed no interest to the GL of Louisiana about having any form of recognition.  To my knowledge This is the first time this resolution has been introduced for consideration by the GL of Louisiana.  This resolution was not received and was not debated.

The GL of Louisiana did however pass a "when in rome do as the romans do" type resolution that allows a member of the GL of Louisiana when visiting a grand jurisdiction that we have relations with to observe their regularity laws.  However this does not in any way allow a Louisiana mason to sit in or have masonic communication in a clandestine lodge of masons.  

In short If I were to visit the GL of Oklahoma which the GL of Louisiana has full fraternal relations and it just so happens that PH masons are present then I am no longer required to leave the lodge I'm visiting.   Before this resolution if there were masons present that are not recognized by the GL of Louisiana I would not be able to attend that lodge.   

I believe that it is inevitable that at some point in the future some type of relationship will develop between the PH GL of Louisiana and the Grand Lodge of Louisiana.  How far down the road that is I don't know.   

In all fairness the GL of Louisiana was (to the best of my  knowledge) the first Masonic GL formed within the State of Louisiana and for 200 years has been recognized as such.  The Grand Lodge of Louisiana has been since its formation in 1812 recognized as being "supreme within its jurisdiction".     Our current law defines any lodge operating within the State confines of Louisiana that is not a subordinate lodge of The Grand Lodge of Louisiana as being clandestine.    It does not matter if it is PH or GL of Texas, GL of Bulgaria  or some other grand jurisdiction it would be the same.    

It is my opinion that if anyone in the state of Louisiana wishes to have relations with the GL of Louisiana then.. they should petition a subordinate Lodge of the GL of Louisiana and be initiated, passed and raised in said lodge or be a member of a grand jurisdiction outside the confines of the sate of Louisiana that the GL of Louisiana has full fraternal relations with.   

I would point out that there are white PH masons and there are also black mainstream masons so.. I really don't see that race as much to do (as it did and has in years past) with recognition.


----------



## Huw

Hi Bryan.



Bryan said:


> As far as I know the PH GL of Louisiana has expressed no interest to the GL of Louisiana about having any form of recognition.


 
Fair enough. It is a worldwide masonic protocol that to establish recognition the younger GL must ask the older. If PHAoLA haven't asked for recognition, then GLoLA can't give it.

However, has anyone established whether PHAoLA would like to request recognition? Perhaps they've never bothered to ask because they're assuming that there's no chance of getting it. And given the way things have gone in some other Southern States, they might even be right to think that. What do you reckon would happen if PHAoLA put in a recognition request?



Bryan said:


> The GL of Louisiana did however pass a "when in rome do as the romans do" type resolution ... just so happens that PH masons are present then I am no longer required to leave the lodge I'm visiting.


 
It seems to me that this approach necessarily creates a very difficult moral position. You communicate masonic secrets with someone you meet under such circumstances, yet you don't recognise him as a mason ... so how does that sit with your Obligation? I wouldn't be at all comfortable with this, and I'd vote no if it were proposed in my own GL.

Of course, being from UGLE, I don't have a problem sitting with Brethren from most of the PHGLs, because we recognise them ... but in the particular example you mentioned, Oklahoma, that's actually one of the PHA which we don't yet recognise, so I'd have to walk out.



Bryan said:


> Our current law defines any lodge operating within the State confines of Louisiana that is not a subordinate lodge of The Grand Lodge of Louisiana as being clandestine.


 
Well of course, that's simply a statement of the doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction, which used to be common in the US. Obviously in order to have any sort of accommodation with PHA, then this law would need to be changed, as most other State GLs have now done.

My own GL has always taken a softer line on sharing territory. We've shared overseas territory with other GLs for centuries, and even in our home territory we've allowed a few Lodges of other recognised jurisdictions. We wouldn't sit still for someone else opening a Lodge in England without our permission, but our rules have always allowed us to agree to it when we think there's a good enough reason.

(Incidentally, UGLE still has one Lodge on US territory. Quiz question for the assembled Brethren: where is it?)



Bryan said:


> It is my opinion that if anyone in the state of Louisiana wishes to have relations with the GL of Louisiana then.. they should petition a subordinate Lodge of the GL of Louisiana


 
But earlier you said that you expected that some relationship with PHAoLA was eventually inevitable. So are you saying that you don't want that but believe it will happen anyway?

Of course, if you were starting from a blank slate, then everyone would agree: obviously it'd be sensible to set up just one GL. But starting from an existing situation of two GLs which both have a substantial history and tradition, it's not reasonable to expect that either of them would want to turn away from their heritage and fold up.



Bryan said:


> I would point out that there are white PH masons and there are also black mainstream masons so.. I really don't see that race as much to do (as it did and has in years past) with recognition.


 
True, clearly the segregation isn't as absolute as it used to be. Nevertheless, it looks to me that such members are still very rare on both sides of the fence. Therefore, even if race isn't quite such an overwhelming factor as before, I can't help thinking that it's still a big factor for some members.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Traveling Man

Huw said:


> (Incidentally, UGLE still has one Lodge on US territory. Quiz question for the assembled Brethren: where is it?)



May I correct you?

There are two:

Harmonic Lodge # 356
St. Thomas Lodge # 9679

But they meet in the same building…

Cheers Mate!


----------



## drapetomaniac

Huw said:


> Fair enough. It is a worldwide masonic protocol that to establish recognition the younger GL must ask the older. If PHAoLA haven't asked for recognition, then GLoLA can't give it.


 
In that regard. Our Grand Lodge rescinded recognition to another district (about 10) decades ago because it recognized Prince Hall, which caused recognition to be reversed and set recognition and US masonry back about a century.  Then it declared any  one recognizing "Negro Lodges" risked de-recognition.  

At no time have I ever seen a racist GL action or tradition put it at risk for de-recognition - only recognizing all men as equal and meeting on the level has put a GL at risk.

We can talk in bureaucratic circles, but every sane man knows Prince Hall exists because men abandoned regular masonry and it's principles. 

What is the worldwide masonic protocol on racism?  On judging a man on his external?  I think it's pretty clear and ignored for generations.

What will be done with the GLs who in the past excluded men based on the external, still appear to and have never rectified their explicite, extreme and blatant violation of one of our first lessons?

Beat a good man down, slap him and while he's trying to stand level to you, say to him - "You gotta ask nicely, it's only nice manners."


----------



## Huw

Hi drape.



drapetomaniac said:


> Our Grand Lodge rescinded recognition to another district (about 10) decades ago because it recognized Prince Hall ...


 
Yes, I know - GLoWA in 1897.  Great shame, but of course not so surprising in those days.



drapetomaniac said:


> At no time have I ever seen a racist GL action or tradition put it at risk for de-recognition - only recognizing all men as equal and meeting on the level has put a GL at risk.


 
That's a pretty blunt statement.  So I'm trying to think of a really good counter-example ... but indeed I haven't thought of one yet, so I guess you've got a good point there. 


drapetomaniac said:


> What is the worldwide masonic protocol on racism?


 
That's not exactly an issue of protocol as such.  But obviously racism is contrary to fundamental masonic principles. 
Perhaps this is why there's a lack of good examples of GLs elsewhere being ostracised for racism - outside of the US situation, most GLs have a consistently good record on this issue.  Even in South Africa in the days of apartheid, freemasonry managed to obtain an exemption from their segregation laws and operated on an integrated basis.



drapetomaniac said:


> What will be done with the GLs who in the past excluded men based on the external, still appear to and have never rectified their explicite, extreme and blatant violation of one of our first lessons?


 
Those GLs are already under a lot of diplomatic pressure from other GLs to put their houses in orer.  And obviously there are many good Brethren within those GLs seeking to achieve reconciliation by internal reform.  It's right to have given these methods some time to succeed.

However, there comes a point when other GLs would have to say that diplomatic pressure and internal reform have had enough time and still haven't cut the mustard.  Maybe we're getting close to that point. 


drapetomaniac said:


> Beat a good man down, slap him and while he's trying to stand level to you, say to him - "You gotta ask nicely, it's only nice manners."


 
'Fraid so, them's the rules.  However, as I think has already been done in a couple of other places, the older GL could openly solicit the newer GL to send the letter, effectively pre-committing themselves to a positive answer.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## drapetomaniac

Of course there are examples in the 40s and even in the 90s of GLs reacting poorly to "Negro lodges" and Prince Hall as well.

Prince Hall exists due to a violation of, as you say,  "fundamental masonic principles" which prospered unhindered for a century and still lingers.  You say it's good and right that time be granted to resolved this (which has always been an argument about human rights in this country and others) - but is a century enough or do we need another?

Any discussion of this in masonry heavily favors bureaucracy over morality and even masonry.


----------



## Huw

Hi Rich.



drapetomaniac said:


> You say it's good and right that time be granted to resolved this (which has always been an argument about human rights in this country and others) - but is a century enough or do we need another?



I'm not aware of there having been a serious effort to do much about it until the '90s.  Prior to that, most people were just letting it ride - which wasn't right, but doesn't really count as time spent waiting for reconciliation efforts to work.  So I'd say it's been 20 years rather than a century since the serious attempt at reconcilation began.  But yes, I might agree that 20 years ought to have been enough.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## drapetomaniac

It's arbitrary it ignore the first efforts (which actually would have gone back to Prince Hall's personal efforts) skip ahead decades and declare those the first serious efforts.  It's been going on for 200+ years, tolerated by all of masonry except those very, very few jurisdictions that stood up for brotherhood.

Regardless, don't forget Massachusetts in 1947 recognizing PHA which lies in the middle of that timeline.  After which the same thing occurred, GLs pulled recognition and had it reversed.  

There is a host of interactions and declarations, including alterations to GL constitutions excluding based on race and pulling recognition for not excluding based on race.  Again - FULLY tolerated.

Here is a healthy dose of quotes and links to other resources throughout the centuries:
http://tsmr.org/ph.html (follow all the links for history)

GLs around the world saw constitutions change, and more GLs following masonic principles pushing brotherhood chastised and excluded and "let it ride" for two hundred years.  

I posed this question when I first became a master mason, and most ignored it.

Reflecting on "our peculiar system of morality", how long do you think the following would be tolerated in masonry?
* Removing the VSL from the lodge
* Admitting women
* admitting atheists
* Fornication in lodge or at lodge events
* Excluding Black men from masonry

Based on the morality or rules of our system - how long should each of these ride? You've stated what the rules are, what are the morals in the dogma?


----------



## Huw

Hi Rich.



drapetomaniac said:


> It's arbitrary it ignore the first efforts (which actually would have gone back to Prince Hall's personal efforts) skip ahead decades and declare those the first serious efforts.


 
Perhaps it was a poor choice of words for me to imply that the earlier efforts at reconciliation weren't "serious", of course they were intended seriously by those who were involved.

What I mean, however, is that those were fairly isolated efforts, there wasn't a general perception among State GL members that something needed to be done, unlike the last 20 years when there has (at long last!) been a widespread acknowledgement that the previous situation was unacceptable.



drapetomaniac said:


> It's been going on for 200+ years, tolerated by all of masonry except those very, very few jurisdictions that stood up for brotherhood.


 
That's a rather US-centric viewpoint. Everywhere outside the US, GLs have always been consistent that racism is unacceptable. Here in England, for example, we've been racially integrated from the beginning, and of course we were the ones who gave Prince Hall his warrant and never saw any reason not to do so.

Non-US GLs have always disapproved of segregationism in US masonry and have always said so, but of course it's not our jurisdiction, and not surprisingly the US jurisdictions objected to outsiders telling them how to run their affairs. There wasn't much that could be done about it until some of the US GLs were willing to take a lead, and (as history showed) one GL at a time wasn't enough, it required several US GLs simultaneously standing up and insisting that something had to be done.



drapetomaniac said:


> There is a host of interactions and declarations, including alterations to GL constitutions excluding based on race and pulling recognition for not excluding based on race. Again - FULLY tolerated.


 
Only in the US. Non-US GLs never approved of it, but reluctantly tolerated it because there was nothing we could do about it from the outside.



drapetomaniac said:


> Here is a healthy dose of quotes and links to other resources throughout the centuries: http://tsmr.org/ph.html (follow all the links for history)


 
Good resource, thanks for that.



drapetomaniac said:


> GLs around the world saw constitutions change, and more GLs following masonic principles pushing brotherhood chastised and excluded and "let it ride" for two hundred years.


 
GLs around the world had never had segregationist rules. But what did you expect us in the non-US GLs to do about US segregationism? Our disapproval was always clear, but obviously your GLs are each sovereign over their own Lodges. For so long as US GLs stood united (or very nearly united) in favour of segregationism, the opinion of outsiders carried little weight. This was and is a specifically American issue, not an issue around the world.



drapetomaniac said:


> Reflecting on "our peculiar system of morality", how long do you think the following would be tolerated in masonry?


 
Each GL would make its own decisions, but I'll try to guess what I think UGLE would do in each case. Obviously these are my guesses, not a statement of policy by my GL!

"* Removing the VSL from the lodge"

Instant withdrawal of recognition, but could be re-instated if they later agreed to put the VSL back. (And there have been cases of this.)

"* Admitting women"

Instant withdrawal of recognition. No possibility of reinstatement whilst any women remained members. (But I don't think there has been any case of this within a body which had not already been de-recognised for other irregularities.)

"* admitting atheists"

Instant withdrawal of recognition. No possibility of reinstatement whilst any atheists remained members. (And there have been cases of this.)

"* Fornication in lodge or at lodge events"

It rather depends what you mean by fornication and under what circumstances.

At one end of the scale, what an unmarried Brother and his girlfriend might choose to do in the privacy of their hotel-room at a Lodge social event is none of our business.

At the other end of the scale, outraging public decency would bring masonry into disrepute, and we'd assume that the local jurisdiction would take appropriate disciplinary action. Even so, the mis-conduct of individual members is not likely to affect recognition because it's (presumably!) not an issue of GL policy. (The only example I know is the recent criminal conviction of some US members of the "Royal Order of Jesters" for trafficking in prostitutes - I assume that they've been expelled, or are in the process of being expelled.)

"* Excluding Black men from masonry"

Withdrawal of recognition if it were anywhere except the US, but could be re-instated if they later reversed the policy. Even in the case of the US, it would nowadays attract withdrawal of recognition if the exclusion were explicitly on racial grounds. But none of the US GLs still officially maintain an explicit racial bar, although obviously some still adhere to various technicalities which have the same effect.

Note, however, that this is a different question from the more particular issue of PHA recognition. A GL which has no racial barriers might have other reasons for not recognising PHA. For example, consider Ontario - in no way a racist GL (and with plenty of black members in its own ranks, probably more than in the whole of its local PHGL), but hesitant about recognising PHA on the basis that the existence of PHA perpetuated segregationism. Now you might disagree with them about that, but it's a legitimate masonic opinion to oppose PHA on this basis.

Unfortunately, of course, it's very difficult to prove racism when GLs rely on other technicalities to maintain racial exclusion without actually admitting that their purpose is racist. Maybe some of them secretly wear pointy hoods and sheets on other occasions, but they don't turn up in Lodge dressed as Klansmen. What do you expect other GLs to do about it?

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Traveling Man

On this very subject; has anyone here read  Out of the Shadows: The Emergence of Prince Hall Freemasonry in America ?


----------



## drapetomaniac

Huw said:


> That's a rather US-centric viewpoint. Everywhere outside the US, GLs have always been consistent that racism is unacceptable.



When did you pull recognition from jurisdiction that put racism into their constitutions?



Huw said:


> Here in England, for example, we've been racially integrated from the beginning, and of course we were the ones who gave Prince Hall his warrant and never saw any reason not to do so.
> 
> Non-US GLs have always disapproved of segregationism in US masonry and have always said so, but of course it's not our jurisdiction, and not surprisingly the US jurisdictions objected to outsiders telling them how to run their affairs. There wasn't much that could be done about it until some of the US GLs were willing to take a lead, and (as history showed) one GL at a time wasn't enough, it required several US GLs simultaneously standing up and insisting that something had to be done.


 
You disapprove of removing VSL.  You disapprove of admitting women or atheists.  You disapprove of "public indecency" that will bring ill repute on the fraternity.  Segregation and racism is not something that was consider publicly indecent or putting bad reputation on the fraternity.

GLs haven't disapproved of segregation.  Those who did disapprove took action.  Those who supported segregation took action.  Those who thought segregation was just another local bylaw, took no action or stood behind those supporting segregation.

As you can see form your own responses, when something is *actually* viewed as immoral or injurious to the fraternity (or is bureaucratic) action is easy and swift.



Huw said:


> Note, however, that this is a different question from the more particular issue of PHA recognition. A GL which has no racial barriers might have other reasons for not recognising PHA. For example, consider Ontario - in no way a racist GL (and with plenty of black members in its own ranks, probably more than in the whole of its local PHGL), but hesitant about recognising PHA on the basis that the existence of PHA perpetuated segregationism.



Sure, they could make a host of legalistic arguments.  More than likely they would have to ignore the actions, records and statements of the white GLs which actively supported or demanded segregation- or accept that it was just a bylaw and not an issue of morality, violation of masonic principles. It wouldn't be an unusual approach.  Even slaves were considered to have "special privileges" because they were sometimes allowed to take someone's property (themselves).

Racism has been codified in several GL constitutions and in many statements in the past two hundred years.  Some GLs stood up only to have the others fail to support them when soem GLs pulled recognition.

I certainly agree it's not easy to "prove racism" even while many masons have direct experience in several areas with it and common sense is never enough. But staying in denial about the long history of tolerating it and constantly pushing rules of order over morality, and clouding morality in rules of order - it's just continuing to provide shelter.

I received the a quote in my email today about those who are "more devoted to order than to justice".  Justice or morality isn't even a blip

"who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." MLK from a Birmingham Jail

I probably haven't seen this since high school, but it reminds me of every conversation I've ever seen on racism in the fraternity.

I certainly agree other jurisdictions were not segregated.  I've done quite a bit of study on Black Latinos and many of the biggest names and influencers have been masons.

Don't get me wrong on any of this, I know there are GLs and individual masons who stood on the right side of brotherhood and human rights and I love to hear their stories and I hope more come out.  It' more likely to come out if we see racism and segregation as something other than a bad bylaw.


----------



## drapetomaniac

Traveling Man said:


> On this very subject; has anyone here read  Out of the Shadows: The Emergence of Prince Hall Freemasonry in America ?


 
It's on my to read list with a few others on the history.  I will likely order it soon.


----------



## Bryan

I have no problem sitting with masons of any color.  

I will, however, never vote to recognize PH based strictly on the principal that I do not believe PH to be regular.     

There are actually quite a few jurisdictions throughout Europe and other places in the world that we do not recognize based on irregularity.  Its not as if PH is the only masonic organization that we do not choose to recognize.   

Racist can be found in every lodge in every grand jurisdiction around the world and I suspect that even in some of the jurisdictions that do recognize PH masons have a few racist that remain.. and I also suspect that there are probably quite a few racist in the PH organizations as well.   Racism comes in all sizes, shapes and colors just like people do.    

I would also say that some of the comments in this thread verge on the border of being disrespectful towards the GL of Louisiana.    I trust that the brethren who participate in this thread will continue to choose their words carefully.    

The Grand Lodge of Louisiana has full fraternal relations with all 50 Grand Jurisdictions in the United States and also with our ultimate mother lodge the UGLE.  The GL of Louisiana will, in 2012, celebrate 200 years of masonry and I think whether or not you agree or disagree with the way we do things in the Grand Lodge of Louisiana it deserves your utmost respect.


----------



## Huw

Hi Rich.



drapetomaniac said:


> When did you pull recognition from jurisdiction that put racism into their constitutions?


 
I can't recall any GL outside the US putting racism into their constitutions. So the situation has never arisen, so far as I know, except in the case of US GLs.



drapetomaniac said:


> You disapprove of removing VSL. You disapprove of admitting women or atheists. You disapprove of removing VSL. You disapprove of admitting women or atheists. You disapprove of "public indecency" that will bring ill repute on the fraternity. Segregation and racism is not something that was consider publicly indecent or putting bad reputation on the fraternity.


 
Well, obviously I'll agree with you that racism is abhorrent to masonic principles. However, it is obviously possible for a group of men who happen to be of the same race (let's suppose for a moment that that's just a coincidence, or that they live in a place where pretty much everyone is the same race) to practice regular masonry together. But it is not possible for a group to practice regular masonry at all without a VSL, nor if the group includes women or atheists. In that sense, therefore, these other issues are more fundamental to masonry than race.



drapetomaniac said:


> GLs haven't disapproved of segregation. Those who did disapprove took action. Those who supported segregation took action. Those who thought segregation was just another local bylaw, took no action or stood behind those supporting segregation.


 
Nonsense. There are other ways of expressing disapproval than pulling recognition. In UGLE our disapproval of racism has always been unmistakeable, both by our racially-integrated example and by what we have said. Most other non-US GLs have done the same as we have.

If we outside the US had behaved the way you seem to want us to have behaved, we would probably never have recognised any US GL at all until the last few decades. And bear in mind that, in that case, the US would have counted as "vacant territory" for regular masonry, so UGLE and the other non-US GLs would all have been free to go around setting up their own Lodges in the US for a couple of centuries ... and we would have done so. But heck, no, we thought Americans wanted independence after that fuss you kicked up in 1776, so we withdrew and agreed to accept the US GLs as independent jurisdictions. But by accepting the US GLs as ever being legitimate at all, we automatically put up with them being racist jurisdictions, because they were racist from the moment they were erected - remember that PHA was created precisely because the brand new GLoMA were racists who wouldn't admit African Lodge in Boston - and of course the racists who set up GLoMA were the same Lodges who kicked off your War of Independence by organising that Tea Party in Boston. So in terms of its effect on masonry, the American War of Independence might just as well have been called the "War for the Right to Practice Racism in Masonry". Obviously in the real world there were a lot of other issues involved, but those other issues weren't relevant to masonry.

So I don't see why you persist in trying to shift the blame for racism in American masonry to us outside the US. You did it yourselves, and you've got to fix it yourselves, it's not our fault. You wanted independence, you got independence, and independence meant racism. So what are you saying here, Rich? Are you saying that we should never have recognised GLoTX in the past, until you abolished overt racism from your rules not so very long ago? Or since GLoTX is still very largely white, are you still asking us to withdraw recognition from GLoTX even now, until you have a more demonstrably non-racist mix of members? I'd rather we didn't do that, I'd rather remain in amity with the many good Brethren in Texas and the other States, regardless of the fact that there are also racists in the same jurisdictions ... and therefore I'm glad that my GL chose to express disapproval through all these decades by diplomatic means rather than by pulling recognition.



drapetomaniac said:


> As you can see form your own responses, when something is *actually* viewed as immoral or injurious to the fraternity (or is bureaucratic) action is easy and swift.


 
It can be done, yes, of course in theory we could have pulled recognition of GLoTX and all of the other (many!) US jurisdictions which used to have racist rules. Have you thought through the consequences if we'd done that? It's often an unfortunate necessity in the real world to make uncomfortable compromises, and masonry is not immune to such compromises or it'd be nearly impossible to recognise any other GL anywhere, there's always some disagreement about something. I agree that we made a larger moral compromise in the case of the US than any other in masonic history, in order to have anyone at all in the US to recognise. We haven't done the same elsewhere, and it wasn't a comfortable compromise to make and to stick to for two centuries, but racism used to be so deeply ingrained in American culture that non-racist masonry simply wasn't going to happen until recently. What would you have done in our position?



drapetomaniac said:


> Sure, they could make a host of legalistic arguments. More than likely they would have to ignore the actions, records and statements of the white GLs which actively supported or demanded segregation


 
Of course we were aware of what they were doing, and of course we knew it was a violation of masonic principles. They always knew we didn't like it, but they didn't care, and obviously some US GLs still don't care what "outsiders" think. But remember that we're not just talking about a couple of aberrant GLs in the South, we're talking about what used to be the agreed and determined position of almost every US GL. If we hadn't put up with things we didn't like, we'd pretty nearly have had to take the position "there is no masonry at all in the US". Is that really what you'd have wanted us to do? Surely that would have been absurd.



drapetomaniac said:


> Racism has been codified in several GL constitutions and in many statements in the past two hundred years. Some GLs stood up only to have the others fail to support them when soem GLs pulled recognition.


 
Yes. And that's always been a problem caused by US GLs and US Brethren, and has always been a problem which can only be fixed by US GLs and US Brethren dealing with it. So long as all the US GLs stood together in defence of blatant racism, no progress was possible. Quit blaming those of us who don't even live there!



drapetomaniac said:


> I certainly agree it's not easy to "prove racism" even while many masons have direct experience in several areas with it and common sense is never enough. But staying in denial about the long history of tolerating it and constantly pushing rules of order over morality, and clouding morality in rules of order - it's just continuing to provide shelter.


 
So tell me, Rich: which GLs do you want de-recognised? There's a classic "elephant in the room" problem here: no-one is naming names. Which specific Grand Masters are you accusing of being covert racists, which specific GLs do you believe are racist? You're right there in the US, you're much closer to the situation than people like me over here.

From where I'm sitting, it's hard for me to be sure what the difference may be between your own GLoTX and some of your neighbouring GLs. You've abolished the explicitly racist rules, but so have they. You've "recognised" your local PHA, but only in a very limited sense which doesn't include visiting and the other privileges of normal recognition, and you haven't recognised the rest of PHA at all, so really your compact with PHAoTX doesn't make much difference. So if you want us to pull recognition from some of your neighbours, don't you think we should pull recognition from you as well? Are you telling me that you yourself are actually a member of an irregular organisation which is only masquerading as a regular GL? Should I stop calling you "Brother", then? Or if GLoTX is fundamentally different from some other GLs which remain racist, then I'm glad to hear it, but please explain how outsiders are supposed to be able to tell which is which.

You quote MLK as saying ...


drapetomaniac said:


> ... Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will ...


 
Perhaps it's sometimes so, especially when you're the one doing the jail time whilst your sympathisers in the chattering classes at the other end of the country are enjoying another fine dinner party with all their oh-so-well-meaning friends who've never seen the wrong end of the Man's baseball bat. But even so, note that Rev. King was talking about feelings of frustration, not suggesting that people of ill will were actually preferable to people of good will.

Does it occur to you that I might find it rather frustrating that you seem to be exhibiting a "shallow understanding" of the complexities of international masonic relations and the difficult position of overseas GLs? These things cut both ways.



drapetomaniac said:


> Don't get me wrong on any of this, I know there are GLs and individual masons who stood on the right side of brotherhood and human rights and I love to hear their stories and I hope more come out.


 
Really? I'm getting the impression that you don't know who your friends are, give no credit for centuries of diplomatic effort, blame everyone outside the US for not miraculously fixing your problems for you, and are only interested in the sort of support which would have involved permanently splitting the Craft instead of working towards healing and reconciliation.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Traveling Man

Bryan said:


> I have no problem sitting with masons of any color.
> 
> I will, however, never vote to recognize PH based strictly on the principal that I do not believe PH to be regular.
> 
> I would also say that some of the comments in this thread verge on the border of being disrespectful towards the GL of Louisiana.    I trust that the brethren who participate in this thread will continue to choose their words carefully.



Hello Bryan,

Can you explain on what grounds that your Grand Lodge deems Prince Hall Masonry to be irregular? Is it by LA definitions that the statement is supported?

While this subject is quite a "hot button issue" I don't think your Grand Lodge is being attacked. The issue does however needs a rather gentle approach in this discussion. As I have traveled all over the world our recognition of PHA, or lack of it is viewed as a rather strange anomaly and a throw back in time that needs to be dealt with.

Sincerely & Fraternally

Traveling Man


----------



## Bryan

> Traveling Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Bryan,
> 
> Can you explain on what grounds that your Grand Lodge deems Prince Hall Masonry to be irregular? Is it by LA definitions that the statement is supported?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already explained earlier in this discussion that any lodge that operates within the confines of the State of Louisiana that is not a subordinate lodge of the GL of LA is "Clandestine".  We are supreme within our own jurisdiction.   The PH work in Louisiana is not does not conform to the ancient landmarks and tenets.   That is our opinion.  I can not speak for every mason in the state of Louisiana obviously..  however I believe i can speak for the majority of Louisiana masons that overwhelming voted not to receive this resolution.   Out of the 700 or so voting delegates at our Annual Grand Communication I would guess that maybe 40 to 50 delegates voted to receive this resolution.  Because this resolution was not filed in a timely manner as prescribed and set forth by Law it required a two thirds majority vote to be received.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While this subject is quite a "hot button issue" I don't think your Grand Lodge is being attacked. The issue does however needs a rather gentle approach in this discussion. As I have traveled all over the world our recognition of PHA, or lack of it is viewed as a rather strange anomaly and a throw back in time that needs to be dealt with.
> 
> Sincerely & Fraternally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say my grand lodge was being attacked..  if you read what I said..  I said that some of the comments in this thread verged on being disrespectful.   Please don't put words in my mouth.
> 
> And yes it definitely needs a gentle approach.
> 
> Whether I agree or disagree with any brother.. I try to do it respectfully.    All I ask is the same of all the other brethren that participate in this thread.   There are most certainly things I do not like that I've seem some grand jurisdictions do..  however I still respect their law and their decisions and I don't publicly bash other grand jurisdictions on this website or any other.  I'm not suggesting in anyway that you or anyone else have done that here  but it has been done by other "brethren" on many other websites and I think that deplorable.
Click to expand...


----------



## Huw

Hi Bryan.



Bryan said:


> I will, however, never vote to recognize PH based strictly on the principal that I do not believe PH to be regular.


 
As I've pointed out in my debate with Rich elsewhere in this thread, I agree that there can be respectable masonic reasons for not welcoming PHA recognition, as was the case in Ontario for a while.

However, in what sense do you not believe PH to be regular? The American doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction, as set out in the GLoLA rule-book, is not a legitimate argument because that doctrine has never been a fundamental principle of masonry and indeed is merely an innovation for the purpose of defining anyone you don't like within your territory as automatically irregular. Thus relying on that would amount to saying "I believe them to be irregular because we have arbitrarily declared them to be irregular", which is a circular argument, not a reason at all.

I do agree that it's legitimately possible to argue against the regularity of origin of PH (and indeed that was the problem UGLE had with PH for a long time) ... but the trouble with that argument is that by modern standards of regularity of origin, a lot of the State GLs are also pretty questionable. If you go for a strict origin argument, you might even find that you'll have to de-recognise _yourself_. Perhaps there was something especially irregular about the formation of PHAoLA in particular, which might make them a different case from most others, in which case I'd like to hear about it ... but so far as I'm aware, they were founded in a fairly ordinary way by Lodges chartered from PHAoOH.

If you're aware of anything irregular in the operation of PHAoLA, then that'd be a strong argument - but what irregularity might that be? Are they working without a VSL? Are they admitting atheists or women? Are they permitting partisan religion or politics within the Lodge? Are they deviating from the Landmarks in any other identifiable way? So far as we've been able to find out from over here, PHA practice is very similar to what State GL masons do, and indeed UGLE eventually concluded that current PH practice appears to be "of exemplary regularity".

Perhaps, being there on the spot, you've found out something which the rest of us ought to know. But in that case, please tell us.



Bryan said:


> There are actually quite a few jurisdictions throughout Europe and other places in the world that we do not recognize based on irregularity. Its not as if PH is the only masonic organization that we do not choose to recognize.


 
Sure. There are hundreds of irregular jurisdictions all over the world. In fact, you have nine (!) other jurisdictions in Louisiana alone, in addition to yourselves and PHAoLA. But in most cases, it's clear what the objection is, and readily justifiable. The difference about PHA is that it's not nearly so obvious that there's a justification for withholding recognition.



Bryan said:


> Racist can be found in every lodge in every grand jurisdiction around the world and I suspect that even in some of the jurisdictions that do recognize PH masons have a few racist that remain.. and I also suspect that there are probably quite a few racist in the PH organizations as well. Racism comes in all sizes, shapes and colors just like people do.


 
Agreed. Of course that's bound to be true.

However, the presence of a few people with private prejudices is not at all the same thing as a whole GL behaving in a systematically racist manner. I can't show that any GL anywhere is doing that ... but there are some obvious cases where it's understandable to wonder about it.



Bryan said:


> I would also say that some of the comments in this thread verge on the border of being disrespectful towards the GL of Louisiana. I trust that the brethren who participate in this thread will continue to choose their words carefully.


 
Well, yes, I agree that people ought to behave decently and politely. But so should GLs. If someone has some reason for suspecting misbehaviour by a GL, it'd be unacceptable for the GL to hide behind protocols of respectfulness to prevent a complaint from being brought. I agree that this forum isn't the place for formal complaints procedures ... but is it your position that if someone knew that GLoLA had done something wrong, then he should conceal what he knew?

For the avoidance of doubt, I've no knowledge of anything improper by GLoLA, I'm merely discussing the principle.



Bryan said:


> The Grand Lodge of Louisiana has full fraternal relations with all 50 Grand Jurisdictions in the United States and also with our ultimate mother lodge the UGLE. The GL of Louisiana will, in 2012, celebrate 200 years of masonry and I think whether or not you agree or disagree with the way we do things in the Grand Lodge of Louisiana it deserves your utmost respect.


 
"Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matt. 7:16).

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Huw

Hi Bryan.

I was already writing my previous post when you posted your latest, so I didn't see it until afterwards.



Bryan said:


> I have already explained earlier in this discussion that any lodge that operates within the confines of the State of Louisiana that is not a subordinate lodge of the GL of LA is "Clandestine". We are supreme within our own jurisdiction.


 
I've already pointed out why that can't be a reason for considering them irregular (although of course it can be a reason for considering them unrecognisable).  However ...



Bryan said:


> The PH work in Louisiana is not does not conform to the ancient landmarks and tenets. That is our opinion.


 
Aha!  Now that's an objection I can understand a lot better, breach of Landmarks is the essence of irregularity.  Can you enlighten us about the way in which PHAoLA fails to conform?

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Bryan

Huw said:


> Hi Bryan.
> 
> I was already writing my previous post when you posted your latest, so I didn't see it until afterwards.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already pointed out why that can't be a reason for considering them irregular (although of course it can be a reason for considering them unrecognisable).  However ...
> 
> 
> 
> Aha!  Now that's an objection I can understand a lot better, breach of Landmarks is the essence of irregularity.  Can you enlighten us about the way in which PHAoLA fails to conform?
> 
> T & F,
> 
> Huw


 
I would invite you to direct this question to MW: Bro. Roy Tuck, PGM and Grand Secretary or to MW: Bro. Woody D. Bilyeu, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana as they are much more informed on this subject than I.  

To be fair I can only speak as to what I know.  

I wonder sometimes.. if the Grand Lodge of Louisiana extended recognition to PH of Louisiana if it would silence the critics when the PH of Louisiana rejects the extended recognition.    Recognition is a two way street and to this point neither GL of La nor PH GL of LA have to my knowledge made any attempts at seeking mutual recognition and fraternal relations.  

I would also ask..  why is it that the PH GL of Louisiana does not want to be recognized by the GL of LA?   Could it be that they are racist?   After all that seems to be the main factor that everyone agrees on as to the reason that we don't recognize them?     All I'm saying is..  why is it that the same questions being asked of the GL of LA aren't being asked of the PH GL of LA?     

I haven't seen any resolutions posted on here or anywhere else for that matter that were submitted at the PH Gl of LA to seek fraternal relations with the GL of LA.   It seems to me that even though the above resolution was a failed attempt.. it seems that the only attempt so far.. is on the GL of La's side.  

By the way..  I like the way you argue your points!   I would hate to know I had to debate you. :001_smile:    A lot of people just simply go on the attack with no sound reasoning.


----------



## Huw

Hi Bryan.



Bryan said:


> I would invite you to direct this question to MW: Bro. Roy Tuck, PGM and Grand Secretary or to MW: Bro. Woody D. Bilyeu, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana as they are much more informed on this subject than I.


 
If Bros. Roy or Woody come on here, I can talk to them. I can't contact them directly, because protocol would require communications via my own GSec.



Bryan said:


> I wonder sometimes.. if the Grand Lodge of Louisiana extended recognition to PH of Louisiana if it would silence the critics when the PH of Louisiana rejects the extended recognition. Recognition is a two way street and to this point neither GL of La nor PH GL of LA have to my knowledge made any attempts at seeking mutual recognition and fraternal relations.


 
But protocol would require the newer GL to apply to the older for recognition. However, you could get around that by publicly asking PHAoLA if they'd like to apply.

It'd be an interesting experiment, I agree.



Bryan said:


> I would also ask.. why is it that the PH GL of Louisiana does not want to be recognized by the GL of LA? Could it be that they are racist? After all that seems to be the main factor that everyone agrees on as to the reason that we don't recognize them? All I'm saying is.. why is it that the same questions being asked of the GL of LA aren't being asked of the PH GL of LA?


 
Certainly it works both ways. If PHAoLA members were here on this forum, then I'd hope that they'd join this thread and say their piece. However, I've not noticed anyone on this forum or any other forum who identifies himself as PHAoLA. No doubt the PHAoLA members do hang out online somewhere, but I don't know where. If I knew one, I'd ask one, since I'd like to hear what they'd say.



Bryan said:


> I haven't seen any resolutions posted on here or anywhere else for that matter that were submitted at the PH Gl of LA to seek fraternal relations with the GL of LA. It seems to me that even though the above resolution was a failed attempt.. it seems that the only attempt so far.. is on the GL of La's side.


 
Fair point. We don't hear so much news from the PHA, I'm often not sure what's happening there.

In general, the PHA seems rather quiet on the Web, a lot of their GLs don't even have websites and I've only met a small number of PHA members online. I wonder if maybe some of the PHGLs have a policy like the State GLoAR, banning members from using the web for any discussion of masonry at all? Or maybe there's just more of a habit of secretiveness in PHA.



Bryan said:


> By the way.. I like the way you argue your points! I would hate to know I had to debate you.


 
:2::laugh:

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Bryan

Huw said:


> Hi Bryan.
> 
> 
> 
> If Bros. Roy or Woody come on here, I can talk to them. I can't contact them directly, because protocol would require communications via my own GSec.
> 
> 
> 
> But protocol would require the newer GL to apply to the older for recognition. However, you could get around that by publicly asking PHAoLA if they'd like to apply.
> 
> It'd be an interesting experiment, I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly it works both ways. If PHAoLA members were here on this forum, then I'd hope that they'd join this thread and say their piece. However, I've not noticed anyone on this forum or any other forum who identifies himself as PHAoLA. No doubt the PHAoLA members do hang out online somewhere, but I don't know where. If I knew one, I'd ask one, since I'd like to hear what they'd say.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair point. We don't hear so much news from the PHA, I'm often not sure what's happening there.
> 
> In general, the PHA seems rather quiet on the Web, a lot of their GLs don't even have websites and I've only met a small number of PHA members online. I wonder if maybe some of the PHGLs have a policy like the State GLoAR, banning members from using the web for any discussion of masonry at all? Or maybe there's just more of a habit of secretiveness in PHA.
> 
> 
> 
> :2::laugh:
> 
> T & F,
> 
> Huw


 
This is good respectful debate and does not debase the dignity of any ones grand jurisdiction.  Very good points!


----------



## JTM

The horse is dead and the legs have fallen off the table.  If you feel that any particular part/any one of the numerous tangents needs to be illuminated further, feel free start a new thread.

Closed.


----------

