# Proposed Racism Resolution



## Bill Lins (Mar 21, 2010)

Brethren,

Here, as promised, is a proposal for a resolution to be considered at the 2010 Grand Communication. I couldn't find the original thread to add this to so I started a new one. Please review and give me any thoughts & suggestions you may have regarding it.

TIA, Bill

_Whereas Freemasonry is universal in scope, and professes to be a Brotherhood of man under the Fatherhood of God, and;

Whereas our Ancient and Honorable Fraternity welcomes to its doors and admits to its privileges worthy men of all faiths, creeds and races who believe in a Supreme Being, as stated in our Degrees and lectures, and;

Whereas our Ritual and teachings SPECIFICALLY state that a decision on the admission of a petitioner to our Fraternity is NOT to be based upon his external qualifications; 

Therefore be it resolved that the following language be inserted in an appropriate location within Title V of the Laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas, A.F. & A.M.:

*"That no negative reference is to be made nor any negative action taken by any officer or member of any Lodge in regard to a petitioner’s or member’s faith, creed or race at any time.

Any failure to abide by this resolution shall constitute a Masonic disciplinary violation."*

William A. (Bill) Lins
PM- Wharton #621, El Campo #918_


----------



## Bigmel (Mar 22, 2010)

Very good Bro. Lins


----------



## JTM (Mar 22, 2010)

> _*Any failure to abide by this resolution shall constitute a Masonic disciplinary violation.*_


_*

*_that'll clear a few folks out...


----------



## owls84 (Mar 22, 2010)

JEbeling said:


> Think we have toooooo many laws now... ! what we need is less lawyers and more masons...!



Brother Ebeling we agree on something here. I agree this Law and a majority of laws we have would not be needed if every member that had a dues card were a Mason at heart. Problem is there are some that are not. 

Being able to witness this act first hand I think it is needed to show our stand on this issue and distance ourself from liablility. 

It shocks me that the "elders" of Grand Lodge are scared of hosting Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts or any other organization because of liability but the liability of not having something like this on our books is crazy to me. This would eliminate any liability from any Law suit much like the one happening in GA right now. Why is it we protect ourselves on one issue but not another? 

Bill, I support this and I know many votes here that do as well.


----------



## Jamesb (Mar 22, 2010)

You want to know what I find sad? The fact that this is necessary and having to be put to a vote.


----------



## Wingnut (Mar 22, 2010)

I agree with this 100%!  If we loose a few members so be it, Id rather have a few less members a lot more Masons!


----------



## Bill Lins (Mar 22, 2010)

Jamesb said:


> You want to know what I find sad? The fact that this is necessary and having to be put to a vote.


 
Agreed.

BTW, I forgot the disclaimer in my original post, so here it is: _"The above post is presented for constructive criticism ONLY *and is in no way to be construed as "circularizing"* as described in Art. 505 of the Laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas, A.F. & A.M."_


----------



## Blake Bowden (Mar 23, 2010)

Excellent work Bro. Lins. Thank you!


----------



## JEbeling (Mar 23, 2010)

Well Blake you made my point... ! if someone doesn't see the problem or the fix in the same light as others .. ! just remove them.. ! now everyones happy little campers.. ?


----------



## Blake Bowden (Mar 23, 2010)

JEbeling said:


> Well Blake you made my point... ! if someone doesn't see the problem or the fix in the same light as others .. ! just remove them.. ! now everyones happy little campers.. ?



Just because you choose to ignore the issue, doesn't mean others will. I'm thankful that Brothers such as Bill Lins are willing to tackle the issues instead of sitting on the sidelines complaining or pretending the issue doesn't exist.


----------



## owls84 (Mar 23, 2010)

JEbeling said:


> Well Blake you made my point... ! if someone doesn't see the problem or the fix in the same light as others .. ! just remove them.. ! now everyones happy little campers.. ?


 
How do you "Just remove them" when our GL Law protects them when this happens. So we are to accept this? This behavior does not belong in this fraternity and we need something to prevent it. Do you know how many men of great quality we are missing out on because of the fact we don't have something like this? This is probably the hardest issue I have to explain when a well educated man is being investigated. This would eliminate doubt instead of having to let a guy know "Oh it does happen but that's not what we teach," when they ask if we have racism.

I think with the internet age you are going to see people of all races, religions, and backgrounds look at Masonry. We need to be more proactive on issues like this not reactive. It troubles me that we have to have an issue to get a result. We will have to wait until a law suit in order for this to be recommended. Bad thing is there are already law suits happening and they are going after the tax-exemption statuses. But since it is not happening in Texas I say we put the blinders on and buy a bigger rug to sweep all of our problems under.


----------



## Blake Bowden (Mar 23, 2010)

> Whereas our Ancient and Honorable Fraternity welcomes to its doors and admits to its privileges worthy men of all faiths, creeds and races who believe in a Supreme Being



Not only does this cover race, but religious intolerance as well. Awesome! One thing I want to stress is that racism is *not* a widespread problem within Texas Masonic Lodges. As with any institution, there are a few bad apples. That being said, we need the tools necessary to combat this issue if/when it arises. I also believe that it's important to pass legislation such as this before extendingl masonic relations with our Prince Hall Brethren.

Kudos again to you Bro. Lins! It's Brothers like you who inspire us "younger" guys to bring about change for the betterment of the Craft. Keep up the good fight!


----------



## owls84 (Mar 23, 2010)

That is a great point Blake. I want to apologize if I made it seem like every Lodge has this issue. Fact is a most do not and this is an individual act not a Masonic act.


----------



## Casey (Apr 7, 2010)

I strongly feel that you will find men of questionable character among EVERY race.  I also strongly believe you will find good men, moral men, whom I would gladly take by the hand as a brother; among EVERY race.


----------



## Huw (Apr 8, 2010)

Hi Bill and all.

I'm in UGLE rather than GLoTX, and I've never read your rulebook, but I'd like to comment on this from the perspective of the universally-accepted Landmarks of regularity.

Of course I agree with your intentions, and I agree that you've made a good start on the wording, but I reckon it's not good enough yet. Your GL Jurisprudence Committee is likely to throw this resolution out as inadmissible. Let me try to explain why ... 

As it stands, this resolution could cause irregularity if any Brother ever lost his faith and became an atheist. To many atheists, their atheism is their "creed", and the law courts might conceivably sustain that interpretation. However, a regular GL must ask a Brother who becomes atheist to leave at once. So if he becomes an atheist, and you ask him to leave, he'd have a playable case to sue you for discrimination under this proposed rule. And if one atheist ever won reinstatement by court order, then the whole of GLoTX would instantly and automatically be an irregular jurisdiction, because no regular GL can contain atheists.

It is also not the case that the religious requirement as agreed between regular GLs is merely belief in a Supreme Being: it is belief in a Supreme Being and His revealed will. The latter part is necessary in order that there is some VSL which applies to the Candidate for him to take his Obligations - if his religion doesn't have any sort of VSL, then he's not eligible because he can't be Obligated in due form (even if his faith does have a Supreme Being). Thus any actual scriptural religion is acceptable, but (for example) some of the vague and woolly 'New Age' beliefs are not. A petitioner who says "Er, like, hey dude, I believe there's some kinda Universal Spirit, yeah man, but I don't believe in any of that Bible or any of them other Books, like, loosen up, man, I jes' feel it all around me" is not eligible for regular freemasonry. And you do need to be able to check on this and say no if it appears necessary.

Furthermore, and we once had a case of this in England (where we had to tell someone to go away): what are you going to do about Satanists? I'm religiously tolerant, but not so tolerant that I want a Satanist in my Lodge, and I expect you wouldn't want a Satanist in GLoTX either. Yet they believe in a Supreme Being (although they're against Him), and they even have their own Book! There's an additional unwritten condition (unwritten because the Brethren who agreed the principles probably didn't think of it!) that a petitioner must not only believe in a Supreme Being but also _be on His side_.

So for various reasons, probably including some scenarios of which I haven't thought, you mustn't restrict members from having a certain amount of discretion to ask and if necessary act negatively about religion, to allow for some of the non-standard situations which can occasionally arise. I don't think there's a way to legislate for this in enough detail to take care of every weird possibility, so I reckon you've just got to leave it to the Brethren and trust them to act sensibly.

Therefore I recommend that you shouldn't try to bolt on the much more complicated issue of religious discrimination. Instead, I suggest that you should delete all of the faith and creed references from this resolution, and just stick to the simpler issue of race discrimination (which I assume is actually the main point of what you're trying to achieve). That way it'll be much more difficult for anyone to think of a reason why it couldn't be admissible for debate, and it'll also cut down the number of excuses for voting against it.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Bill Lins (Apr 8, 2010)

All good points to consider (although I seriously doubt a Satanist would attempt to darken our doors). Thank you for your input. Please understand that I am under no misconception that a law will change whatever is in a Brother's heart- all it can do is to let the Brother know that a bigoted attitude is not condoned by the majority of the Brethren. It won't keep one from blackballing another, but it probably will keep him from bragging about it & recruiting others to follow suit. SMIB.


----------



## Huw (Apr 8, 2010)

Hi Bill.



Bill_Lins77488 said:


> I seriously doubt a Satanist would attempt to darken our doors.


We doubted it too ... until it actually happened!  Obviously we told the guy to go away.  But since it happened to us a few years ago, it might one day happen to you, too.

The point is that when you're writing rules, you've got to allow for what to do when something unexpected happens.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## dhouseholder (Apr 9, 2010)

Huw said:


> Hi Bill.
> 
> 
> We doubted it too ... until it actually happened!  Obviously we told the guy to go away.  But since it happened to us a few years ago, it might one day happen to you, too.
> ...



Philosophically speaking, they do not believe that in a Supreme Being, thus they cannot be made a Mason. Our requirements are thorough enough to keep out the more obvious rabble, we (the Craft) do the rest. 



But not to hijack a good thread, academically I disagree with an anti-racism resolution because we are Masons, we have many better requirements than the color of the skin. Practically, i agree with a resolution because it further codifies what we practice, thus reinforcing our righteous culture.


----------



## jwhoff (Apr 11, 2010)

Does this mean that we won't have to let other "well intended" brethren steer folks to Prince Hall lodges.  You know, the folks with recognition from the Grand Lodge of England much older than ours.

Just asking ... and maybe a little praying as well.


----------



## Bill Lins (Apr 11, 2010)

That's the plan.


----------



## jwhoff (Apr 14, 2010)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> That's the plan.


 
so mote it be.


----------



## Bryan (Apr 21, 2010)

"That no negative reference is to be made nor any negative action taken by any officer or member of any Lodge in regard to a petitionerâ€™s or memberâ€™s faith, creed or race at any time.

My only question is.. if you are going to go this far why not go ahead and include "sexual orientation".    

Personally I don't think you can legislate morality, especially in this day in time, because everyones views are so widely varied.   I seriously doubt that you could find 3 people in any one lodge that would come up with the exact same definition of what is moral and what is not.   I do agree that racism should have no place in masonry.  
Obviously racism is not specifically included as a masonic violation in current Texas Masonic Law or this resolution would not be proposed.  I do believe that racism certainly fits under the broad canopy of "un-masonic conduct"   I don't see why someone could not be charged with and prosecuted for un-masonic conduct for racism under current Texas Law.   

I certainly don't have all the answers and I really don't know much about Texas Masonic Law.  My knowledge is limited to Louisiana Masonic Law only so I certainly reserve the right to be wrong.   I'm just sharing my thoughts on the matter for what ever thats worth.


----------



## Huw (Apr 22, 2010)

Hi Bryan et al.

I'm no expert on GLoTX rules either, but I agree with your point that it is difficult and not always desirable to try to incorporate detailed definitions and prescriptions into a rule-book.

An alternative approach which might be easier, based on your argument above, might be for GL to consider a resolution about interpretation of existing rules rather than a change of rules. For example, a resolution "_That this Grand Lodge deems any racist remark or racist behaviour by any Brother whilst acting in his capacity as a freemason to be unmasonic conduct within the meaning of its Constitutions, and mandates its Officers and any other members responsible for the conduct and determination of its disciplinary proceedings to take due notice hereof and govern themselves accordingly_". Obviously that might not be quite the right wording for the TX rules, but I would imagine that something of this sort ought to have the effect of making it clear that racism is a masonic offence without changing the existing rules.

It might be easier to get it through by this sort of approach.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Bryan (Apr 22, 2010)

Huw said:


> Hi Bryan et al.
> 
> I'm no expert on GLoTX rules either, but I agree with your point that it is difficult and not always desirable to try to incorporate detailed definitions and prescriptions into a rule-book.
> 
> ...




I agree 100%.  Very well said!


----------



## Bill Lins (Apr 23, 2010)

Bryan said:


> My only question is.. if you are going to go this far why not go ahead and include "sexual orientation".


 
Precisely because of what you stated in re: morality. We've all heard the arguments regarding homosexuality, i.e. "they're born that way", "it's in their wiring", and so on. I do not pretend to know the truth of the matter & will leave it to those far wiser than me to resolve.

I DO know that there is NO question regarding morality when it comes to the color of a man's skin.


----------



## Bill Lins (Apr 23, 2010)

Huw said:


> Hi Bryan et al.
> 
> I'm no expert on GLoTX rules either, but I agree with your point that it is difficult and not always desirable to try to incorporate detailed definitions and prescriptions into a rule-book.
> 
> ...


 
All good points- thanks!


----------



## Bill Lins (May 7, 2010)

Ok, y'all- here's the final version to be submitted to Grand Lodge. My thanks to all of you for your input & help.

"Whereas Freemasonry is universal in scope, and professes to be a Brotherhood of man under the Fatherhood of God, and;

Whereas our Ancient and Honorable Fraternity welcomes to its doors and admits to its privileges worthy men of all faiths, creeds and races who believe in a Supreme Being, as stated in our Degrees and lectures, and;

Whereas our Ritual and teachings SPECIFICALLY state that a decision on the admission of a petitioner to our Fraternity is NOT to be based upon his external qualifications; 

Therefore be it resolved that Title V, Article 505 of the Laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas, A.F. & A.M. be amended by the addition of the following language: 

37. Make any negative reference or take any negative action in regard to a petitionerâ€™s or memberâ€™s faith, creed or race at any time."


Respectfully submitted,


William A. (Bill) Lins
PM- Wharton #621
PM- El Campo #918


----------



## C_Cabra (May 8, 2010)

Good Stuff Brother Bill! Sad that it is needed but it is.


----------



## jwhoff (May 8, 2010)

so mote it be.


----------



## Blake Bowden (May 9, 2010)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Ok, y'all- here's the final version to be submitted to Grand Lodge. My thanks to all of you for your input & help.
> 
> "Whereas Freemasonry is universal in scope, and professes to be a Brotherhood of man under the Fatherhood of God, and;
> 
> ...


 
Awesome work Bro. Bill! Thank you!


----------



## Huw (May 9, 2010)

Sorry Bill, I'd have to vote NO to this if I were a GLoTX member, and in fact would actively campaign against it rather than passively opposing.

If it just said "race", then I'd vote yes.  But you've still ignored the difficulties, which I pointed out earlier, about needing to check that a Brother is religiously eligible for membership:  race is not a legitimate consideration for membership, but religion is a legitimate (and indeed essential) consideration.  If a petitioner professed atheism, or satanism, or membership of some polytheistic religion with no Supreme Being, or some other incompatible religious position, then of course I'd vote NO to his petition ... yet that would be a "negative action" in regard to his faith or creed and therefore contrary to this proposed rule.

Furthermore, as I also said before, I'd expect your Commission on Jurisprudence (or whatever the equivalent committee is called in GLoTX) to rule it out of even being discussed on the floor of GL at all, on the ground that it would be a resolution to abandon your status as a regular GL by preventing essential religious checks which are a Landmark of the Craft.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## jonesvilletexas (May 10, 2010)

You cannot legislate morality.


----------



## drapetomaniac (May 10, 2010)

jonesvilletexas said:


> You cannot legislate morality.



No - but you can make bigots wildly uncomfortable.

One of my biggest problems with what happened in Georgia (filing moral charges for admitting a Black man) wasn't the opposition to the Black man itself - it's that several people felt comfortable enough to file formal charges which would be heard by other masons.  Which meant they expected their backward, un-masonic charges to be taken seriously if not to win.

If racism was directly addressed, either in a sterile one liner in the bylaws, to whenever it reared it's head - these men would have known their views were out of the mainstream and not a part of masonry.  If they are comfortable, that means it's prospering and possibly proliferating.

Yes, it means making it politically incorrect for them to be open bigots.


----------



## Huw (May 10, 2010)

Hi Rich.



drapetomaniac said:


> No - but you can make bigots wildly uncomfortable.


 
Yes.  Good!



drapetomaniac said:


> One of my biggest problems with what happened in Georgia (filing moral charges for admitting a Black man) wasn't the opposition to the Black man itself - it's that several people felt comfortable enough to file formal charges which would be heard by other masons. Which meant they expected their backward, un-masonic charges to be taken seriously if not to win.


 
Very well put!  Spot on.



drapetomaniac said:


> If racism was directly addressed, either in a sterile one liner in the bylaws, to whenever it reared it's head - these men would have known their views were out of the mainstream and not a part of masonry. If they are comfortable, that means it's prospering and possibly proliferating.
> 
> Yes, it means making it politically incorrect for them to be open bigots.



I'm right with you on this one, Rich.

Nevertheless, I wish Bill would take out the faith and creed references from his draft resolution, because I think it'll fail on the faith and creed issues and thereby the condemnation of racism will get thrown out as well because it's all in the same resolution.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## jonesvilletexas (May 12, 2010)

When you think you are in control of a manâ€™s words, at what point do you try to control his thoughts and actions?


----------



## Huw (May 12, 2010)

Of course no-one can be in control of someone else's thoughts, and thank goodness for that.

Actions, though, yes.  It is an achievable aim to make it clear that displaying bigotry in either word or action is shameful.  That might have little effect on what people think, but at least it can help improve what people do.  This reduces the harm that our sins cause to others even though it doesn't cleanse sin from our own hearts.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## owls84 (May 12, 2010)

I think this would have helped me in a Lodge I sat in when several members found out there was to be a ballot for a black candidate. When members showed up just to "vote on the n-word" as they put it. That is a black eye for Masonry and it is not needed. When we pursued avenues with GL we were told there was nothing they could do because there were no Laws against that behavior. I cannot control a man's thoughts but as Bro. Huw points out we can control their actions. 

We sit here all day long and talk about how "they" are allowed in our Fraternity and how "they" are members of some Lodges but the point is until we take a stand against discrimination and just out right hateful behavior that is out dated we as a fraternity is not practicing what we preach. It is time our Past Masters move us forward by voting for a proposition such as this that will open doors to so many open minded people that don't join us because of the past stances our Fraternity has taken with these issues. I for one can say we have taken huge steps and knocked down several walls in the past 2 years almost to the point to where this is no longer an issue but there are still Lodges that need this. 

SIDE NOTE:
I would like to make a predition that this fails miserably. Just seeing what I have seen in my short of time I don't believe we (our PMs) are ready to take such a big step in this direction. Like I said we all want to act like nothing is wrong and just keep sweeping items like this under the carpet and by passing this every issue will be documented. The liability on GL is too great and I just don't think it will pass even though it is the right thing to do.


----------



## Jamesb (May 12, 2010)

What about at the individual lodge level?  IE...adding a one liner in the by-laws to subvert this kind of behavior.  You might never be able to do something at the GL level, but you are a member of a lodge that could.


----------



## Huw (May 12, 2010)

Hi Owls.

Until you put forward a motion which can't be opposed on non-racist grounds, you'll never know how much support you might have.

I've already said that if I were in GLoTX, then I'd have to vote no to the current draft because of other parts of the wording, and therefore I'd be voting the same way as racists even though I've no time for racism.  The same must surely apply to many who actually are in GLoTX.  This draft seems to me to have failure built in, and to that extent it's actually a hindrance to efforts to leave bigotry behind.

Since it's probably inevitable that various amendments will be moved, why not get in first with an amendment to fix the flaws in the draft by deleting the second "whereas" clause _in toto_ and deleting the words "faith, creed or" from the final resolution clause.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## JEbeling (May 12, 2010)

Well I have heard these stories about being black balled because you were black... ! and in most cases when GL chased them down to find out who was black balled and who was voting... ! you find it realy didn't happen that way...? lot of this is urban stories about somebody who heard it from somebody..? I know when at Grand Lodge last year there were a lot of blacks walking around with aprons on...? and also brothern have the right to drop the black ball for any reason they feal is good for masonary.. !


----------



## masonicknight (May 12, 2010)

I think you have a better approach to it and it covers a larger area while still addressing the main issue at hand.  It also put everyone on notice without it appearing to be a direct threat, though it actually is.


----------



## jonesvilletexas (May 12, 2010)

I say again you cannot legislate or control his actions, because of the ballet box and that is the final outcome is it not?
Are we talking Prince Hall here or the black man? There is a difference we have and can permit him in, and that is fine with me, I also stand against  bigotry, but if you are trying to force Prince Hall in you might ask if that is what they wonâ€™t!  You might be surprised to the answer.


----------



## Bill Lins (May 12, 2010)

Jamesb said:


> What about at the individual lodge level?  IE...adding a one liner in the by-laws to subvert this kind of behavior.  You might never be able to do something at the GL level, but you are a member of a lodge that could.


 
The Lodges which NEED to do it never would.


----------



## Bill Lins (May 12, 2010)

jonesvilletexas said:


> Are we talking Prince Hall here or the black man? /SIZE]




Strictly the individual- this has nothing whatsoever to do with Prince Hall.


----------



## Huw (May 13, 2010)

No doubt there are some in PHA who would not want to see an anti-racism resolution:  so long as State GLs are perceived to be racist (regardless of whether or not they actually are), PHA has less competition among its main recruitment base.  I don't suggest that that's a majority view in PHA, indeed I'd be pretty surprised if it were, but I'm sure there must be some PHA members who'd see it that way.

Regarding the finality of the ballot-box ... perhaps not necessarily.  I don't know the rules in GLoTX, but here in UGLE it is not unknown for disciplinary action to be taken against a member who blackballs, if he lets it be known that he did it and if he announces an improper reason for using the black ball.  Is that not possible under GLoTX rules?  If he keeps it secret then nothing could be done, but if there were a case here such as reported by Owls, of infrequent attenders turning up and openly declaring that they're there to "vote on the n-word", then UGLE would have had those guys up on charges of unmasonic conduct, and would quite likely have suspended the warrant of the Lodge as well.  (Incidentally, we don't even have any specific provision over here defining racism as unmasonic conduct, it's simply taken for granted that bigotry is obviously unmasonic ... but of course I realise that we have a different historical context.)

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Bill Lins (May 13, 2010)

As to the finality of the ballot box, under GLoT law the result of the ballot would not be affected by actions occurring afterward, i.e. a Brother announcing how he voted.

_Art. 420. (457). Ballot Is a Finality When Announced.
 A ballot on any kind of a petition or application named in Art. 419
may be retaken as many times as may be necessary to satisfy the
Worshipful Master that no mistake has been made, before the
result of any ballot is announced by the Worshipful Master, but not
thereafter.

No result of a ballot shall be announced until called for
by the Worshipful Master, but the result must be announced before
the meeting at which the ballot is taken is closed. If the Junior and
Senior Wardens and the Worshipful Master find that the ballot is
favorable, each shall declare the ballot favorable at their respective
stations. If the ballot is reported favorable by both Wardens, and
the Worshipful Master has received one or more protests, which,
when combined with the number of blackballs cast equals three
or more, he shall announce the number of blackballs cast and
the number of protests received by him, and declare the ballot as
unfavorable. If the ballot is unfavorable when the final ballot is
taken, they shall declare the ballot “unfavorable” and the Worshipful
Master, only if the combined vote and protests is unfavorable,
shall announce the number of blackballs cast and the number of
protests received by him, and the same shall be recorded in the
minutes of the Lodge. (Revised 1992)_

The only instance in which the result of a ballot could be changed, 
AFAIK, would be where a petition was approved and the election protested
afterward.


----------



## Bill Lins (May 13, 2010)

From Art. 505, Laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas:

_16. Disclose to any person how he voted on any applicant for
affiliation or for the degrees, or on any question decided
by a secret ballot._

As you can see, it is a violation for a Brother to disclose how he voted, but there is nothing specific that I could find regarding "an improper reason for using the black ball." It may possibly be construed as "unMasonic conduct", but I've found nothing specifically stating such.


----------



## rhitland (May 19, 2010)

I have heard a 50 year Mason who is very prominent and respected in the community say he would never sit in lodge with any other book than the Holy Bible, implying that he would black ball anybody not christian.  He also told a GL representative at teh dinner table he would not sit in lodge with a black man and when the GL rep. asked why not, the mason replied "because I am a bigot".  Food fell out of my mouth and the GL representative just kinda scoffed and that was it but what could he do besides give him a piece of his mind.  Brother Bill as sad as it may be the full wording to your resolution is needed.  If the scenario comes up where a Masons converts to Atheism why would he want to stay in Masonry?  Would it be considered negative campaigning against someone if they become incompatible with Masonry and you told them such?  I mean if a Mason went to GL b/c he felt he had a case of discrimination b/c he is an atheist would they even entertain his request?  Would that not render him a non-mason on the spot?


----------



## masonicknight (May 19, 2010)

I have met a few men who have felt the same way regarding who they would be willing to sit with in Lodge with similar reasons.  I actually met one person who had demitted from Masonry when the GL of California acknowledged PHA as being regular many years ago.  I also see where a GL would not do any action that would have an effect on the bottom line regarding the number of members on the list should you have someone say they no longer had a belief in the Supreme Being.  They would want the per capita tax and as long as no one made an objection to his presence or pushed it to a Masonic Trial they would let sleeping dogs rest.   

A few years back GL of California had a proposal presented at the annual communication that would have required each proposed member to be certified that he was male.  This came about because someone had heard about a transgendered male petitioning to become a Mason.  Whether or not this actually occurred I don't remember as I thought it hilarious that it was even discussed.  The proposal failed on the voting floor.  But it did bring to the table a discussion and understanding of what is appropriate and what is not to place into Masonic Law.  

The question of PHA regarding this situation in Texas is a descent one.  How would it be perceived if it is worded in such a way that its implications could be misconstrued. If GL Texas is negotiating words of understanding between both groups this may become a concern.  Or it may not as the sincerity factor may be in play.  The waters are deep regarding this subject and sometimes we make the right decision at the appropriate time.  Each GL has to have the ability to function within its own area based on the combined will of the individual Masons that they preside over.  On the other hand, a GL that will not consider friendly advice from a brother speaking quietly to them is in violation of its own obligations also.  

Only time will tell and the willingness to adopt and change as time moves on and the last of the other states recognize PHA may be the only way to truly calm the waters down.  Threats of Unmasonic Conduct may only entrench those that already feel battered and their walls are now up defending what they are as sure of as his opposing side is.  Causing an alienation/shunning is not any better in order to get change to occur willingly.

This is leadership in action or inaction based on how a problem is resolved and should the problem persist.  Hopefully our leaders in all branches of Masonry can take up the challenge and not fall back on the verse "but this is how we always have done it".


----------



## rhitland (Jul 2, 2010)

any status report?  I hear it is gonna be a busy fun year at GL but when is it not.?.?


----------



## Bill Lins (Jul 2, 2010)

Just that the resolution has been accepted and referred to the Jurisprudence Committee for review.


----------



## ppimaro (Jul 3, 2010)

Personally I don't really care about the color of the skin and neither should Masonry. If we go back to the oath that we all took it should be the Internal and not the External qualities that qualify a man to be a mason. I understand that there will be some elder masons that might disagree with that and might even leave the lodge cause of a black or African American is voted in but I would rather lose some elder members of the lodge for a good cause. Racism still exists but it should not in our fraternity. This is a step that needs to be taken and a move forward. Its the 21st century people not the 12th.:11:


----------



## rhitland (Jul 3, 2010)

ppimaro said:


> Personally I don't really care about the color of the skin and neither should Masonry. If we go back to the oath that we all took it should be the Internal and not the External qualities that qualify a man to be a mason. I understand that there will be some elder masons that might disagree with that and might even leave the lodge cause of a black or African American is voted in but I would rather lose some elder members of the lodge for a good cause. Racism still exists but it should not in our fraternity. This is a step that needs to be taken and a move forward. Its the 21st century people not the 12th.:11:



Problem with the internal thing is that it is part of the ritual and not the obligation therefore not a Masonic offense otherwise I personally would have filed charges.  I as many from my lodge asked this very question but it is much easier to change the law than to change the obligation so it would be hard for me not want a law that would help fight bigotry  
On the point as well about some leaving lodge, this I can attest to this truth as well.  It was just my last SM at elections (wink wink) when I was reminded by 2 of my PM that they would not sit in lodge with a black man (wished they used nice words like me though) and at dinner and before lodge.  Feel sorry for our WM, wait that is me.  You might find me in the alter! :confused1:  
 I wondered if I should have told them I appointed a black man as JD? hmy:  a very good man I might add.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jul 4, 2010)

AHA! You're gonna be WMPB! Congratulations! :wink:


----------



## rhitland (Jul 4, 2010)

took me a sec on the meaning of PB but I got it, thanks I think.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jul 4, 2010)

Insert <evil laugh> here.  ;-)


----------



## ppimaro (Jul 4, 2010)

I just hope that the Jurisprudence Committee does the right thing. I would love to see all of this come to an end


----------



## Bill Lins (Jul 4, 2010)

OK, y'all- if you want this to pass, you MUST attend the Grand Communication in Waco this December & vote for it- I guarantee you those who oppose it will be there.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jul 4, 2010)

rhitland said:


> took me a sec on the meaning of PB but I got it, thanks I think.


 
Mebbe we should abbreviate your title to W:.P:. !  :lol:


----------



## Huw (Jul 5, 2010)

Hmmm.   If it's gone in with the wording last published (as I assume it has), then I reckon that your Jurisprudence Committee will see the same flaws as I previously mentioned, and recommend a no vote.  In which case, sorry Bill, but I'll think hats off to Jurisprudence for standing up for the need to get it right in spite of the public pressure on here to "do something" regardless of whether it's correctly worded.  Well, we shall see.  When is their verdict due to be announced?

I note that there was an analogous situation in Florida just a few weeks ago.  Someone put in a resolution in favour of PHA recognition (which they still don't have in GLoFL), and there was some fuss in various internet forums when their Jurisprudence Committee recommended a no vote.  However, when I got hold of a copy of what the resolution actually said, it was obvious why their Jurisprudence Committee had had to say no, regardless of whether or not they agreed with the objective of the resolution:  the wording as proposed would have caused chaos.

By the way, I don't get the "WMPB" joke ... perhaps it's an American terminology?  Can someone explain?

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Bill Lins (Jul 5, 2010)

Jurisprudence will advise me directly if they find that the proposal is unConstitutional or not in proper & legal form and will work with me to get it into conformance if needed. That can happen any time between now & the Grand Communication in December. Otherwise, they will present their recommendation when the proposal is brought to the floor for discussion at the Communication.

As to WMPB, it's a private joke between rhit & me.


----------



## rhitland (Jul 6, 2010)

Quick question Brother Bill.  When a resolution is submitted to GL and referred to com. is it traditional you do not find out how the com. feels till GL when they announce it to everyone or do you get a heads up before hand?


----------



## TexMass (Jul 6, 2010)

It has my vote!


----------



## Bill Lins (Jul 6, 2010)

rhitland said:


> Quick question Brother Bill.  When a resolution is submitted to GL and referred to com. is it traditional you do not find out how the com. feels till GL when they announce it to everyone or do you get a heads up before hand?


 
They only contact you if there is a problem with the form and will assign a lawyer to help you whip it into shape, but they do not advise you how they feel about it otherwise.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jul 6, 2010)

TexMass said:


> It has my vote!


 
Well, Bro. Jack- scoot your booty to Waco in December!  :wink:


----------



## MedMan7 (Jul 7, 2010)

I will deffinitely look forward to hearing the results of this in December.  Proves to be interesting indeed.  The fact of the matter is that there is still a certain amount of racism that does occur and it does need to be addressed if in no other form than reinforcement of current laws through grand communication to the lodges.  This would deffinitely be a topic to read allowed in the reading of the law at a stated meeting in the lodges.  You will quickly see who is for and who is against it within your lodge after reading it.  It is sad because these people forget about the overall purpose the fraternity stands for.  I would even go so far as to say that it is quite possible that these who would get angry over antidiscrimination from the Grand Lodge most likely got into Masonry for the wrong reasons anyway.  I know that will step on some toes but we all have to remember that there is a bigger purpose for our organization that to squabble over something that has never technically been allowed anyway.  I have not been a Mason for near as long as many on here, but I have already seen how bull headedness has lead to the demise of some lodges because of unwillingness to progress even under the current laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas.


----------



## owls84 (Jul 7, 2010)

Amen Brother MedMan7. And congrats on your first post. Way to make it count. I look forward to plenty more of these blue text posts.


----------



## MedMan7 (Jul 7, 2010)

owls84 said:


> Amen Brother MedMan7. And congrats on your first post. Way to make it count. I look forward to plenty more of these blue text posts.


 

Thank you sir!  I hope to be around more often.  Even though I have not posted much, I have enjoyed reading the information posted on here for some time now!


----------



## rhitland (Jul 7, 2010)

Okay a hypothetical question, if'n this resolution does not pass could a lodge pick this language up you used Brother Bill and amend it into their by-laws.  This thought has crossed my mind a time or two to add by-laws on this issue so a lodge can have some recourse and ultimately the GL as well if someone breaks their by-laws knowingly.  I wonder if it would be consider proactive for a lodge to go ahead and amend something similar now?


----------



## Bill Lins (Jul 7, 2010)

Don't know why not- the only question would be whether or not the GL would approve the amendment to the bylaws.


----------



## rhitland (Jul 8, 2010)

Good point on the by-laws, what a rule or regulation of the lodge?  Those are not GL approved correct and just as binding?


----------



## owls84 (Jul 8, 2010)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Don't know why not- the only question would be whether or not the GL would approve the amendment to the bylaws.


 
Why not? If you want to make an addition to the law that is currently in place why would this be a contradiction to the Grand Lodge Law? I realize it is a stretch but I keep bringing this up, it is my understanding all they are to do is say it is not allowed because it contradicts existing laws. Is this not correct? If a Lodge is governing itself by creating a higher enforceable standard among its members it should be allowed to do so and not hindered.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jul 9, 2010)

owls84 said:


> If a Lodge is governing itself by creating a higher enforceable standard among its members it should be allowed to do so and not hindered.


 
I agree but GL don't always see it that way. :-(


----------



## Bill Lins (Jul 9, 2010)

rhitland said:


> Good point on the by-laws, what a rule or regulation of the lodge?  Those are not GL approved correct and just as binding?


 
The bylaws ARE the "rules & regulations" of a Lodge.


----------



## rhitland (Jul 10, 2010)

oh well then, that is weird we put those in the obligation.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jul 10, 2010)

You're not used to "weird" yet?  :wink:


----------



## Blake Bowden (Jul 11, 2010)

ppimaro said:


> I understand that there will be some elder masons that might disagree with that and might even leave the lodge cause of a black or African American is voted in but I would rather lose some elder members of the lodge for a good cause.


 
Word


----------



## jwardl (Jul 12, 2010)

Works for me!


----------



## owls84 (Jul 12, 2010)

This is really going to be a gut check report card. When this thing is debated and voted on the true feelings of our Fraternity will be put in the open. If it fails it will, in my opinion, show that this issue will not go away without action. We hold a tax exemption and we are one incident away from loosing that. Look at the issues in GA. We can be proactive and show that as a group we are not for this kind of behavior or we can have the actions of one Lodge jeopardize the Tax exemption for all the state. The IRS is already trying to get our money for the Lodges not reporting their earnings lets not give them a good reason to come after it.


----------



## rhitland (Jul 13, 2010)

ppimaro said:


> Personally I don't really care about the color of the skin and neither should Masonry. If we go back to the oath that we all took it should be the Internal and not the External qualities that qualify a man to be a mason. I understand that there will be some elder masons that might disagree with that and might even leave the lodge cause of a black or African American is voted in but I would rather lose some elder members of the lodge for a good cause. Racism still exists but it should not in our fraternity. This is a step that needs to be taken and a move forward. Its the 21st century people not the 12th.:11:



Tested to see if they would hold true to their word last night and the old guys will NOT sit in with a black man.  He left quite peacefully as soon as he saw the man and made no scene what so ever but left none the less.  Ii is no fun to see anyone go but I can not tolerate hatred and am glad to see it finally gone in my lodge.


----------



## Theoniel (Jul 13, 2010)

Very interesting. I'm a South African mason and we are only now starting to get petitions from races other than caucasion.


----------



## jwardl (Jul 13, 2010)

The old timers, I suppose, know no better -- as they grew up in a different time where racism was "normal." Younger brothers, now that irks me. How can one talk about regarding the internal, rather than the external -- except for THOSE (insert group name here) people. One cannot reliably forecast the contents of a man's heart by the color of his skin, nor any other external attribute other than HIS SPECIFIC behavior.


----------



## Wingnut (Jul 13, 2010)

owls84 said:


> This is really going to be a gut check report card. When this thing is debated and voted on the true feelings of our Fraternity will be put in the open. If it fails it will, in my opinion, show that this issue will not go away without action. We hold a tax exemption and we are one incident away from loosing that. Look at the issues in GA. We can be proactive and show that as a group we are not for this kind of behavior or we can have the actions of one Lodge jeopardize the Tax exemption for all the state. The IRS is already trying to get our money for the Lodges not reporting their earnings lets not give them a good reason to come after it.


 
Sadly Brother we both know its not just ONE lodge...  The big question is, will it make it to the floor!


----------



## JEbeling (Jul 13, 2010)

I am very sad about the treatment of older brethern by people like rhitland who taunt a older brother just to watch him leave lodge.. ! I am also very sad when one mason thinks it make him feel good to be progressive and puts himself up front...! kinda look at me I am better that them old dogs ... ! 

The fact is that masons will always have the power of the blackball.. ! and the reason can be race, religion, wrong side of the track or whatever.. ! and no bad mouthing older mason as raceist will ever change that power.. ! Like I said before... ! don't think this is a problem because when I was at Grand Lodge I would see young black masons walking around with aprons on and nobody pay and attention ... ! it wasn't like Whoa look at that.. ! they were look on as another brother.. ! have sat in lodge with black masons and as black Worshipful Master and it wasn't any great revalation.. !


----------



## jwardl (Jul 13, 2010)

Don't know if the part of your comment about badmouthing older masons as racist was referring to mine, but if so, allow me to clarify that my words weren't intended to brand all older masons as racist. For me to do so would be bigotry of a different flavor; likening all who look a certain way as having a certain attitude. I was simply pointing out that I can excuse it (a little) when it comes from an older brother.

It HAS been my particular experience both in and out of masonic circles that racism is more prevalent among the older population than the younger -- presumably for the reasons I stated -- but that in no way means it's COMMON.


----------



## rhitland (Jul 13, 2010)

You missed that one by a mile brother JEbling and I do not appreciate the innuendo you knew how I felt when the brother left. I was taunting no one and I am sorry you feel that bringing a black man to lodge is taunting but like you said you have that right.  If he would have stayed that would have been fine with me but that was not what HE chose.  If a qualified man is wanting to help am I supposed to tell him no because someone might take it as taunting?  They said they would leave if a black man came to lodge and one came so they where tested to hold their word and they did and I as I said before it is NEVER fun to watch someone go but hatred has no place in lodge.  I am not sure why you keep referring to black men at GL that has nothing to do with what I was talking about just because a black man is at GL lodge does not mean everything is okay and no more problems exist.  This is not about revelations this is about equality.  I should be able to practice Masonry equally with anyone who comes to my door to teach or learn.  If this change is that painful for you to watch turn your head while the rest of us pull the thorn out.


----------



## owls84 (Jul 14, 2010)

JEbeling said:


> I am very sad about the treatment of older brethern by people like rhitland who taunt a older brother just to watch him leave lodge.. ! I am also very sad when one mason thinks it make him feel good to be progressive and puts himself up front...! kinda look at me I am better that them old dogs ... !
> 
> The fact is that masons will always have the power of the blackball.. ! and the reason can be race, religion, wrong side of the track or whatever.. ! and no bad mouthing older mason as raceist will ever change that power.. ! Like I said before... ! don't think this is a problem because when I was at Grand Lodge I would see young black masons walking around with aprons on and nobody pay and attention ... ! it wasn't like Whoa look at that.. ! they were look on as another brother.. ! have sat in lodge with black masons and as black Worshipful Master and it wasn't any great revalation.. !


 
There are so many issues with this statement but the only thing I want to say is be very careful Bro. Ebeling so you don't pop the bubble you live in. The issue is resonating from all over the state. I can show you a post on a Lodge's Facebook page asking for help on how to handle this issue (of coarse I am not going to). There is a Lodge in North Texas that rejected a mans entry into a Fellowcraft Lodge because he was black. I personally have heard of it happening all over the state. It will have to be addressed internally or it will be addressed by the public when a man walks into a Lodge and overhears the comments that I personally have heard. Then again you probably won't have to handle that issue as well.


----------



## owls84 (Jul 14, 2010)

Wingnut said:


> The big question is, will it make it to the floor!


 
Probably right after the Holy Bible one from last year. You remember the one about the bible being the only book allowed on the alter. (Yep its back on the books for a vote after being withdrawn) In the words of T.O. "Betta getcha popcorn ready." :52:


----------



## JEbeling (Jul 14, 2010)

if this older mason was you Grandfather.. ! would you treat him different..? 

you always hear of someone being reject because he was black.. ! but you assume the reason.. ! you don't know why the brother used the blackball...? what are you going to do allow older masons to vote.. ! only the young progressive.. !


----------



## owls84 (Jul 14, 2010)

Nope. My Uncle is one of the problem people and you should have heard the conversation between me and him. Family has no place in Lodge. We are ALL family, hence the term BROTHER. There is no assumtion when the man says "I will not sit in Lodge with a (Insert racial word here)." This during a meal before a stated meeting. Thats what you don't understand. It is not assumption when a candidate who is black withdraws his petition and people from all over show up "to Blackball the (insert racial word here)". It is not assumption when we don't vote on the man because of the withdraw and a man makes a comment in a meeting "Are we going to vote on the (insert racial word here) so we can all go home?" See you are not getting it. These are not assumptions these are facts. When the man made a comment at dinner a DDGM and Grand Lodge officer was sitting there and asked why he would make such a comment "Because I am a Bigot." These are his words not ours. These people bold enough to do this in public are the ones saying they are the racists and they have no place in Lodge. Unlike Rhit I was happy to see them go. Just because you hold a dues card that doesn't make you a Mason but it is your heart. 

I didn't want to air dirty laundry but hey our laundry is clean now. It is what it is and I know FOR A FACT it is happening elsewhere about the state. If you don't want it aired in public then change to where I can file charges on a guy. If you don't like the idea of this being on a Lodge's Facebook page then make it to where it doesn't happen or when it does our Grand Lodge can do something because as it stand the respond from Grand Lodge is there is nothing saying they can't. Otherwise you sir are opening yourself up for someone to sue us just like in GA where they didn't go after our money but our Tax exemption. And you think a $25 annual returns is a lot just wait if we loose our tax exemption because we are afraid to address REAL issues or hurt someone's feelings.


----------



## jwardl (Jul 14, 2010)

EVERY Master Mason has the right to vote, and should vote his conscience.
We can all only hope that a brother who blackballs a candidate does so for virtuous reasons, not petty ones.


----------



## JEbeling (Jul 14, 2010)

Freedom to vote his conscience is a right as old as masonary.. ! was reading the Jefferson papers when this country was founded and the same debate was going on.. ! about giving people the right to vote and what to do when people vote the wrong way.. ! I think a lot of that idea came from masonary because at that time no other country voted for its leaders. When we have people who mis-use this freedom and mis-use the blackball there is not a heck of a lot that can be done.. ! its bad for the young man coming into masonary because he doesn't understand the why behind it.. ! I have heard the same reasoning about religion, race and in one case the comment was made that they would never vote for someone from that family..? these are just bad masons and trying to talk to them doesn't seem to change their point of view.. ? when this happens I think the young man should be told withdraw his patition and file it with another lodge.. !


----------



## owls84 (Jul 14, 2010)

JEbeling said:


> when this happens I think the young man should be told withdraw his patition and file it with another lodge.. !


 So in our instance how would you prefer us to handle the situation? Leave the Lodge and go to another? We saw an issue and handled the problem on our own. Don't think for a second we didn't think about going but after a discussion and cool down period we figured out the best way was not to avoid it but to attack it. You keep addressing the blackball but that is not what is being challenged. We are addressing an issue that is driving good men away from our Fraternity at a time where every single person matters. 

I am curious how you would have handled the issue in YOUR Lodge. What if tomorrow a few guys come in and a comment is made about the color of their skin? How would you, a Past Master, handle this issue? I am not speaking of an assumption but an outright self proclaimed "bigot". Lets just say for scenario purpose he too is a Past Master and happens to serve on the Grand Lodge Civil Law Committee and Grand Lodge says their hands are tied.


----------



## JEbeling (Jul 14, 2010)

Don't have a good answer.. ! I know that the year I was DDGM there was a lodge in Corpus that his son was blackballed.. ! after that every person they voted on had one blackball.. ! The Grand Master, along with a few DDGM went to the next meeting and sat this brother down and had a heart to heart talk with him.. ! the Grand Master instructed to revote on all the ones that had been blackballed and they passed.. ! 

Somehow the DDGM and the Grand Master must have a talk with them and find out whats going on and if there can be some way to find middle ground..? Don't think this can be handled by local Worshipful Master.. ! somebody with big hammer needs to have a quiet talk with them to resolve what ever issue they have..? 
I think these guys think its cool in their circle of friends to act stupid.. ! and they get their feeling hurt when they think they can't run things.. ! don't think they see the damage they do to masonary.. !


----------



## owls84 (Jul 14, 2010)

Bro. Ebeling you and I for once on this issue have the exact same answer. Thank you for posting it. The issue we had is a very factual issue. We took it to Grand Lodge to have the Grand Master review it. After review it was decided that Grand Lodge could not act because there was nothing in the law book that allowed them to act. The Grand Secretary himself said that without legislation the Grand Master's powers are limited. That is all this does. We are not looking to run members off but we are looking to give people a fair chance. We are not looking to take away people right to vote how they want but do so on your own. Don't bring your beliefs into Lodge because a Bro. Rhit said "Hatred does not belong in the Lodge room." 

Thanks again for the response and I hope that by filling you in my particular issue with this topic we could open our minds to just how bad it is in some Lodges. The fact is no one wants to file a form 1 on someone but when it comes down to it at the end of the day we are all members of the same orginazation and we should be using our trowels to spead Brotherly Love and if someone prevents us from using our tools we should be able to prevent them from being apart of this great orginazation. I would hate for a few bad apples to ruin our organizations rich history.

On a side note what allows the Grand Master the ability to revote once a ballot has been declared and closed? I realize it is one thing to question the Grand Master but I did not think he had "ultimate" power and the outcome of the voting is not something he has the power to question.


----------



## JEbeling (Jul 14, 2010)

Well kinda the power of Grand Masters office... ! He said this is what we are going to do.. ! We all sat in lodge while the voted .. ! kinda one of those thing when nobody said he couldn't do it..? it turn out very well... ! 

That was also the year he told one lodge to handle something one way.. ! they told he they did not want to do that and wasn't going to do it... ! we made another trip to Corpus Christi and pick up the Charter off the wall and came home.. ! it took 4-5 years before they got it back after a lot of book keeping to clear up where some money from the lodge went.. ! 

I think the Grand Master has the power of his office to sit the brothern down and have a heart to heart with them.. ! don't think it would take much to stop this.. ? 
if there isn't a law he can make it up as he goes... ! maybe pick up a few due's cards.. ! etc.. ! might be a while before they get them back...? 

Still don't think this is wide spread.. ! I have just never seen it in my travels.. !


----------



## rhitland (Jul 14, 2010)

JEbeling said:


> if this older mason was you Grandfather.. ! would you treat him different..?
> 
> you always hear of someone being reject because he was black.. ! but you assume the reason.. ! you don't know why the brother used the blackball...? what are you going to do allow older masons to vote.. ! only the young progressive.. !



funny you should mention my Grandfather because both of them when I was young was as racist as they come and I heard all kinds of crazy comments.  But as I got older and had influence on them, you know what they did?  They changed!  Both accepted what they beleived was wrong, let the hate go and moved on to what matters most loving one another.  I know this change is hard but I also know it is possible.  My grandfathers also accepted the wrongness on many other issues and I cannot express how lucky I am to have and had men like that in my lofe it has made all the difference.  To answer your question though I would have asked my Grandfather to stay home if that would have been a problem for him and he could go some other time, maybe.


----------



## rhitland (Jul 14, 2010)

just fyi I was not the only inflience on my Grandfathers I had lots of help with brotehrs, cousins, aunts and uncles.


----------



## david918 (Jul 15, 2010)

Since I am now a member of a lodge in Minnesota also I was wondering if their or I guess one of my  Grand Masters MW John L Cook,Jr would be welcome in some Texas lodges.

http://www.mn-masons.org/node/9401


----------



## owls84 (Jul 15, 2010)

JEbeling said:


> Still don't think this is wide spread.. ! I have just never seen it in my travels.. !


 
I have put a little thought in this and I do think it is unfair to think this is common. I think this is not the norm but the fact is it is happening at various Lodges around the state. I think this would help give the Lodges help that need it and it would serve as protection for the Grand Lodge if a suit ever arises because it would show a stance against such behavior.


----------



## jwardl (Jul 15, 2010)

david918 said:


> Since I am now a member of a lodge in Minnesota also I was wondering if their or I guess one of my  Grand Masters MW John L Cook,Jr would be welcome in some Texas lodges.
> 
> http://www.mn-masons.org/node/9401


 
Don't have a list of Texas recognized lodges handy, but  know for a fact that the blue GL of Minnesota is recognized as legitimate by the GLoT. Given the current limited recognition of the PHGLoT, however, would guess that the PHGLoM is not. 

Is it a blue GL or PHA GL? If blue, Bro. Cook will (or at least SHOULD) be fully welcomed and treated as any other brother. If PHA, he will (or again, SHOULD) be treated as a respected visitor and personally as a brother, however, would not be allowed to attend closed functions or engaged in "masonic" conversation. Your membership in either lodge would be irrelevant with respect to the issue. Minnesota rules apply to you ONLY if you're within the state.

At least, that's my interpretation based on the current state of things.


----------



## rhitland (Jul 16, 2010)

owls84 said:


> I have put a little thought in this and I do think it is unfair to think this is common. I think this is not the norm but the fact is it is happening at various Lodges around the state. I think this would help give the Lodges help that need it and it would serve as protection for the Grand Lodge if a suit ever arises because it would show a stance against such behavior.



agreed


----------



## david918 (Jul 16, 2010)

jwardl said:


> Don't have a list of Texas recognized lodges handy, but  know for a fact that the blue GL of Minnesota is recognized as legitimate by the GLoT. Given the current limited recognition of the PHGLoT, however, would guess that the PHGLoM is not.
> 
> Is it a blue GL or PHA GL? If blue, Bro. Cook will (or at least SHOULD) be fully welcomed and treated as any other brother. If PHA, he will (or again, SHOULD) be treated as a respected visitor and personally as a brother, however, would not be allowed to attend closed functions or engaged in "masonic" conversation. Your membership in either lodge would be irrelevant with respect to the issue. Minnesota rules apply to you ONLY if you're within the state.
> 
> At least, that's my interpretation based on the current state of things.


 
MW Cook is the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota not the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Minnesota


----------



## Blake Bowden (Jul 17, 2010)

owls84 said:


> I have put a little thought in this and I do think it is unfair to think this is common. I think this is not the norm but the fact is it is happening at various Lodges around the state. I think this would help give the Lodges help that need it and it would serve as protection for the Grand Lodge if a suit ever arises because it would show a stance against such behavior.


 
Well said.

Back to Bro. Lin's resolution.... IF it makes it to a vote, and is shot down, what does that say about us?


----------



## rhitland (Jul 18, 2010)

blake said:


> Well said.
> 
> Back to Bro. Lin's resolution.... IF it makes it to a vote, and is shot down, what does that say about us?



We will have to wait and here all debate before we form hard opinions but if it did not pass it would show we are just not ready yet for change.  Which is not always a bad thing.  Lessons are needed to be learned by the both sides of this coin and nothing gets the gears turning like adversity.  I believe now and will then everything happens for a reason and a good reason at that.


----------



## owls84 (Jul 18, 2010)

The thing that I am really liking is the fact that several thousand Masons can get in a room and debate a topic that is so monumental and come out alive. Regardless of the outcome the fact that resolutions like this are being brought up is showing that this should be looked at. I like just the fact of bringing it up for debate win or lose.


----------



## Frater Cliff Porter (Jul 21, 2010)

In my blue lodge we have the Bible and the Tao on the altar because one of our members was obligated on the Tao.  We have hispanic, black, and white members.  

That being said how does barring a particular kind of speech, bar the belief?  I do think it is step in the right direction, but believe the battle for hearts and minds is one more difficult to win than the battle over a man's tongue.

In truth, barring speech might just force the ideas and teaching underground where you have no idea who believes what because they do not feel free speaking their mind.  This can be more dangerous.


----------



## JEbeling (Jul 21, 2010)

Yeah... ! not sure how this would work..? how do you pass laws that regulate ideas.. ?


----------



## Bill Lins (Jul 21, 2010)

JEbeling said:


> Yeah... ! not sure how this would work..? how do you pass laws that regulate ideas.. ?


 
This resolution regulates behavior, not ideas.


----------



## masonicknight (Jul 21, 2010)

An interesting thought.  By creating a rule, ordinance, or regulation that would serve as a modifier of behavior, you would in effect be trying to initially stop a problem that is present while at the same time enforcing a moral and ethical code we have all subscribed to in our obligations that has apparently been ignored as being irrelevant by those that feel this is the exception to the obligation. 

While I believe you have a valid situation and that this will help towards alleviating the problem, I wonder if any backlash from it could be perceived like what initially happened when Affirmative Action was first put into effect in the workforce.  It had a tendency to alienate as much as it solved problems.  In one of the cities near me, the city charter requires that hiring is on an exact percentage based on most current census report.  While it provides a way to make it fair for all applicants there is sometimes an underlying tension.  It did modify behavior in the since that it opened doors for talk, but prejudice was and is still there and that is even harder to modify. And I do realize that your resolution is not aimed at anything similar, that being a quota of how many people we accept based on background,  as that being equivalent to this particular city's situation, but rather how it could be perceived by those that feel it has been aimed at them as they would feel it could or would be unjustly applied. 

I have a few acquaintances that fall into a realm we would call prejudiced.  There is no way that changing a rule would help change their personal attitude.  When one was publicly told off for what he said he was visibly shocked that anyone would disagree with his thoughts. Watched a customer at a friends cafe leave without eating his meal because he was not open to political discussion that was open for all to debate because it did not fit in with his ideals. And debate is what it is at this particular cafe with no hard feelings being felt.

While this is a valid issue that needs to be addressed it will also be a political nightmare for the GL should it not pass, no matter how well written, as we all know that the press will use it as a way to show how evil Masonry is. Read the term a while ago in relation to the press as being Nine-Fingered Shitehawks, as only nine fingers are used to type, this is the fodder that they love to write about.  They could have a field day should they so desire.

I sincerely hope that your initiative works positively without causing a similar tension to be created.


----------



## Frater Cliff Porter (Jul 22, 2010)

I do wish you much success Brother with bringing tolerance within the Craft that should be a storehouse for it.  My positive energy is yours.

I long for a day where the Constitutions can read:  "Act like a Mason, if there is bullsh*t then please knock it off."  That might be the ultra conservative libertarian in me.  

I commend, however, your working within the given system to bring positive change.  That is an important lesson we can all learn from.  Work within the system and work within your quarry to bring that change.  There is a system for doing so and with tenacity and planning many things are possible.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jul 22, 2010)

Thank you for the kind sentiments, Bro. Porter.


----------



## GaryPark (Jul 23, 2010)

I hole heartedly agree with the resolution. We have dealt with this issue in our lodge in the past. We have lost a few, however, if they can not control thier passions and play fairly and abide by the ideals of Masonry, then maybe it is time they leave. Granted it is hard for some to leave behind thier past, the way they were brought up (or the era) as you are asking a person to change a root part of themselves. However that is what masonry is all about isn't it, changing for the better. This item would also go a long way to rid ourselves of the tenuous association with Prince Hall. Even though technically  each recognize the other, you still may not sit in lodge with each other, sad isn't it ?


----------



## Wingnut (Jul 23, 2010)

I know there are racist and racism in the world.  I know there are masosn that feel that way.  Fine...  just leave that shit at the door when you put on your apron!  If you cant, dont put on the apron and come in the door!


----------



## Ashton Lawson (Jul 23, 2010)

I'm doing my part in trying to combat this garbage by signing the petition of a very good black man that I know, who I hope to get initiated by October. I then plan to do my part to help make him a better man. It absolutely infuriates me that skin color is still an issue in this way in 2010. It makes me outright angry that we teach our men that it is the internal qualifications, and not the external that recommend a man to be made a Mason, and then tolerate this race-based character assasination in our own house. We live in a state with incredible diversity, and there is simply no justification for this continued pig-headed bigotry. I don't care how people were raised, or what their backgrounds are that "make them that way," and I'm tired as hell of the excuse that they just don't know any better. 

Racism is wrong, PERIOD, ALWAYS, and there is no justification, whatsoever, for its existence in our lodges. It is OUR responsibility and charge as Mason's, to correct the knowledge of our less-informed brethren. It is OUR responsibility to drive this hate-based ignorance our of our temples. It is OUR responsibility to stand up and condemn it when it occurs for the good of all. We are Mason's, and there is no justification for us to participate in or promote racism. It is YOUR responsibility to address this as it occurs. Don't quietly sit in the corner in silence when the old PM starts talking about them colored's down the tracks. Stand up and be counted, and shine a flashlight on that behavior and expose it for what it is. Stand proudly before the G.A.O.T.U. as a Mason, and condemn this atrocious behavior when you see it. Are you more concerned about what your fellow Masons think, than you are what God Almighty does? Stand for what you believe in, shoulder the responsibility for confronting racism. 

We don't need a resolution, or a proposal, or a new violation to confront the disgusting behavior of racism when it rears its ugly head. Can we stop a racist from casting a black ball for his own bigotry? No. But we can DAMN sure confront this sewage when it shows its face in our house of light. I challenge everyone reading this thread to do exactly that. Confront racism when you see it. Remind your brethren that it is shameful behavior, an affront to the Creator of all races, and as completely Un-Masonic as a behavior could get. Stand before God and do what you know is right, and let your example and condemnation of racism shine as a light to those around you. 

Do this, because if you are truly a Mason...you know there is no justification for racism. You may be an outcast, you may be looked down on, and you may not get moved up a chair next year because the people in power don't like your pointing out their Un-Masonic bigotry. But I'll tell you what you can do, I'll tell you what matters in terms of contributing to the building of that house not made with hands. YWhat matters to the G.A.O.T.U. is that you can stand there before Him as a just and upright Mason, one who has done what his Creator is proud of, and know that your conscience is clean. Nobody said doing the right thing is easy, and noone ever told you that every justified action would have a reward on Earth, but what are you more concerned with as a Mason? That house here that will someday crumble and fall and return to the dust whence it came, or that spiritual building, that house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens?

It's your choice...


----------



## rhitland (Jul 31, 2010)

uhhhh what he ^ said!   I am guilty of not calling that behavior out on the spot and if the clock turned back I am not sure how I would have change it.(Hence Puss Boy   Not to give excuses but my lodge was infected by the worst kind and there was one or two friendlies always being ran off.  In my 4 short years I have seen a ridiculous amount of good men ran off.  These guys ran off who battled them and they where good at it.  This was the reason for their ideals filling the lodge, it was their way or no way.  Something I came to learn though was these Masons as I now truely call them where Drill Sergents for the Craft if you will.  What does a Drill Sergent do but break you down and make you hate what you did by joining but if you stick it out something happens.  For me it is when I trully felt initiated and why I love those Masons so dearly now.  There is one sure fire way to penetrate the shroud of darkness they cast and that is light.  A few of us at 148 took them head to head and we still have tanned hydes from the wit and wisdom of these Masons but when we quit fighting and gave them big ole hugs everytime we saw them they got bored and now chose to stay home.  We even visited a few at their homes and offices to coherse them back but they all had good excuses.  The point to all my rambling is that one should be careful not to ostercise oneself from the lodge because good men of all colors and creeds will come to that door but who will meet them?  The person who does meet them holds the future of Texas Masonry in their hands.


----------



## jwhoff (Aug 1, 2010)

rhitland said:


> uhhhh what he ^ said!   I am guilty of not calling that behavior out on the spot and if the clock turned back I am not sure how I would have change it.(Hence Puss Boy   Not to give excuses but my lodge was infected by the worst kind and there was one or two friendlies on their way out I am sure.  In my 4 short years I have seen a ridiculous amount of good men ran off but many more pour in the doors.  These guys ran off who battled them and they where good at it.  This was the reason for their ideals filling the lodge, it was there way or no way.  Something I came to learn though was these Masons as I now truely call them where Drill Sergents for the Craft if you will.  What does a Drill Sergent do but break you down and make you hate what you did by joining but if you stick it out something happens.  For me it is when I trully felt initiated and why I love those Masons so dearly now.  There is one sure fire way to penetrate the shroud of darkness they cast and that is light.  A few of us at 148 took them head to head and we still have tanned hydes from the wit and wisdom of these Masons but when we quit fighting and gave them big ole hugs everytime we saw them they got bored and now chose to stay home.  We even visited a few at their homes and offices to coherse them back but they all had good excuses.  The point to all my rambling is that one should be careful not to ostercise oneself from the lodge because good men of all colors and creeds will come to that door but who will meet them?  The person who does meet them holds the future of Texas Masonry in their hands.


 

I think you have struck a cord brother! SO MOTE IT BE!

There is an old but well tested axiom in the world of chemistry "like desolves like."   This can also be said that any particular attitude perpetrates itself if allowed to govern.  These folks have the power base in a percentage of lodges and they intend to keep it.  They often can be found explaining to those coming into the lodge that masons all think alike and "you will find like-minded brethren" in the lodge.  Their view, of course.

The truth is, no lodge has brothers who are "like minded."  We're all grown men who have developed our own world views and, being interested in masonry, are usually independent in mind to those around us.  Yes, we're looking for personal growth and something that makes this world a better place to live.  But, that doesn't mean we agree perfectly with each other.  We don't all vote alike (but they say we do) and we don't all see things the same way.  But we should be tolerant and understanding of each other.

A man not secure in his own mind that his beliefs are correct can be found soliciting the support of others.  Hence, you find this particular group spending more time trying to convince the younger generations of their racial and political viewpoints than, unfortunately, promoting the virtues of masonry.  Trust me, they sense that things are changing and they are trying to stem the tide.  Hopefully we are enduring their (both in the profane world and the masonic world) last great surge before this country rides itself of these shackles.  

There is much to be said about lodge harmony.  It is required and it is correct.  Time, and patience will prevail. This backlash will wane.  We have more to fear, I think, from the backlash in the profane world to the information revolution.  When's the last time you were able to get to the truth on the internet?  WOW!  They're really pushing hard there too.  As with racism, fear and prejudice are the driving factors.

When challenged, stand up for yourself.  A simple "I don't agree" or" I can't agree less" is sufficient.  There's no reason to cast perils before swine so to speak.  No one is going to change anyone else's mind.  Hardened mindsets are just that.  On all sides.  I have no doubt that you are handling yourself nicely.

And I'm not telling you to practice what they do.  No reason to try to pack the lodge with people who agree with you.  Use the laws of masonry to choose wisely those coming into the lodges.  If they are truly masonic material things will change for the better.  I'm dead set against turning this into a numbers game and the wise leadership of this fraternity cautions us from doing so. 

I firmly believe the future of masonry and this great experiment we call the United States of America are now in the hands of the last two generations.  Why, because the world has changed the past five or six years.  It's not the same world of the 1980s and 90s.  You folks have to face the future with your ethics and your wits.  You have the task of educating and informing yourself daily to meet the challenge.  There are truly no longer simple and easy answers.   

I believe in you and know you will choose the right path.  Keep your masonry close to your heart and practice its virtues.  Remember the Golden Rule and that you cannot have a true relationship with your maker if you have not a willing and true relationship with mankind.  ALL of mankind.

A byte later.


----------



## LDSpears (Nov 27, 2010)

This is one of the main reasons I was inactive with the lodge for many many years. After I got out of the military in 1989, I was sickened to find the prejudice in my hometown lodge and could not stomach it. After a very pointed question to our lodge secretary, I honestly thought it was against the rules/laws of the lodge to allow a black skinned person in the lodge in Texas. I do not choose, or unchoose, who I befriend based on their skin color. It is very refreshing to see that people have changed with the times.


----------



## ShadyGrove821 (Nov 28, 2010)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> 37. Make any negative reference or take any negative action in regard to a petitionerâ€™s or memberâ€™s faith, creed or race at any time."



I have given this a lot of thought, and while I agree with the spirit of the resolution, I don't think the constitution needs to be amended.

It seems to me that as overt racism declines in American society, it is becoming more rare in Texas Masonry. I haven't heard a Mason use the "n" word in about four years. Granted, racism is expressed in a more subtle manner these days, but I hope that such unmasonic behavior will eventually die a natural death.

I have, however, noticed an increase in religious intolerance in Masonry in the last couple of years. I hear Masons bad-mouthing Muslims, Wiccans and other non-mainstream faiths on a regular basis. While I consider this to be unmasonic, who decides when a statement goes too far and is considered a "negative reference?"

Brothers sitting around the dining table will sometimes make friendly jabs at each others' doctrinal differences. Will this resolution outlaw "A priest, a minister and a rabbi walk into a bar" jokes?

If this resolution fails to pass, it won't necessarily mean that Texas Masons are intolerant bigots; I think it is unenforceable.


----------



## jwhoff (Nov 28, 2010)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> "That no negative reference is to be made nor any negative action taken by any officer or member of any Lodge in regard to a petitionerâ€™s or memberâ€™s faith, creed or race at any time.
> 
> Any failure to abide by this resolution shall constitute a Masonic disciplinary violation."




They won't like this one BIG TIME brother.  I've already heard invoked freedom of speech, verse from the Bible, _et al_. It simply boils down to this brother:  "When in the course of human events" it becomes necessary for one bigot to push his agenda in lodge and totally disregard the tenants of freemasonry ...

Always amazed when one man invokes his God given rights to question those of another.  More especially a brother mason.


----------



## Bill Lins (Nov 28, 2010)

I am under no illusion that just because something is written in a book, it will change what's in a man's heart. My main purpose is to show the bigots that their behavior is not considered appropriate as Masons, and I don't much give a damn whether they like it or not. We need to set the standard, whether they choose to measure up or not. At least, if such behavior is stated as unMasonic, we can do something about it when it surfaces.

They also would do well to remember that their speech _can_ be restricted under the rules of a private organization which they voluntarily joined. The Bill of Rights applies only to the government.


----------



## jwhoff (Dec 1, 2010)

That last point is well taken.  And I agree with you completely.  

Still brother, I feel _if the shoe was on the other foot ... they would still choke on it._

Hope to see you tomorrow at Grand Lodge.  I love your spirit.  God Bless!


----------



## Timothy Fleischer (Dec 2, 2010)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> All good points to consider (although I seriously doubt a Satanist would attempt to darken our doors). Thank you for your input. Please understand that I am under no misconception that a law will change whatever is in a Brother's heart- all it can do is to let the Brother know that a bigoted attitude is not condoned by the majority of the Brethren. It won't keep one from blackballing another, but it probably will keep him from bragging about it & recruiting others to follow suit. SMIB.




Brother Lins:

It is a Masonic offense to "brag" about how we vote. The ballot is sacred and secret. To speak about how I may have voted "for" or "against" a candidate is a Masonic offense. 

Tim Fleischer, PM
Salado Lodge #296 AF&AM


----------



## TCShelton (Dec 4, 2010)

Congrats Bro. Bill.  Good to see a quality, well written and much needed resolution pass.


----------



## acjohnson53 (Mar 21, 2018)

357


----------



## Warrior1256 (Mar 22, 2018)

Bill Lins said:


> They also would do well to remember that their speech _can_ be restricted under the rules of a private organization which they voluntarily joined. The Bill of Rights applies only to the government.


The vast majority of people do not know or understand this.


----------



## hanzosbm (Mar 22, 2018)

Where to start...

I hate racism and I hate that it is present in our fraternity.  It shouldn't be, and any man who follows our tenants would immediately abandon such thoughts.  But, that's not how it is.

If you forced me to answer yes or no as to whether this amendment violates any of the tenants of Masonry, I'd have to say no.  As has been stated, we are not to judge based on the external, so this isn't really a change to our principles. 

However, I think this is a very slippery slope regarding forcing people to possibly vote against their beliefs.  We might disagree with their beliefs, but free will is, in my opinion, the single greatest gift given to us by our creator, and forcing someone, or bullying them into, voting in a way that is against their opinions, provided it isn't expressly prohibited by our rituals, is wrong.  So, in summary, while I don't disagree with THIS amendment, I think it sets the stage for other problems.

In addition, there is the issue of conflicting ideas.  We are not to base our votes on the external, and yet, we are also taught to retain the peace and harmony within the lodge.  While in a perfect world, these would not conflict, in reality, they sometimes do.  A black man coming into a lodge with a racist would create disharmony. 
I can already hear you all mashing your keyboards and screaming "THEN THE RACIST SHOULD LEAVE!".  Well, maybe so, but it's still disharmony.  So, you're saying that this racist brother, someone your lodge welcomed into rolls, and who may have given decades of service to his lodge, should leave to make room for someone that the majority of the lodge has never met?  Again, it's a slippery slope. 

I would argue that there's a far simpler way (albeit not as fast) to fix this problem; quit admitting racists!  Everyone is talking about how the black ball is so powerful for keeping black men out.  It is equally as powerful in keeping racists out.  This isn't rocket science.  A man petitions your lodge, you pull him aside and say to him "as a brother of this lodge, I don't feel that racism has any place here.  That being said, if you were to become a member, would the color of a man's skin influence your opinion of him?"  If he says yes, use that black ball.  It might take decades, and it might result in no new brothers being made if you have to drop a black ball and every candidate, and the lodge may die.  But so what?  Guard the west gate.  Keep the racists out.  After all, isn't it more important to rid the Craft of racism rather than to find a way to work around them?


----------



## Warrior1256 (Mar 22, 2018)

hanzosbm said:


> I would argue that there's a far simpler way (albeit not as fast) to fix this problem; quit admitting racists! Everyone is talking about how the black ball is so powerful for keeping black men out. It is equally as powerful in keeping racists out. This isn't rocket science. A man petitions your lodge, you pull him aside and say to him "as a brother of this lodge, I don't feel that racism has any place here. That being said, if you were to become a member, would the color of a man's skin influence your opinion of him?" If he says yes, use that black ball. It might take decades, and it might result in no new brothers being made if you have to drop a black ball and every candidate, and the lodge may die. But so what? Guard the west gate. Keep the racists out. After all, isn't it more important to rid the Craft of racism rather than to find a way to work around them?


Great idea and very well said!


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M. (Mar 22, 2018)

Seeing as this a topic of discussion from 8 years ago (2010). I am closing this thread in consideration that original contributors may not be available for rebuttal.

Should anyone choose to refresh this subject, please create a new version.


----------

