# "Unjustly Accused," The Derek Gordon Story



## Squire Bentley (Apr 26, 2010)

http://www.freemasoninformation.com/2010/04/unjustly-accused/


----------



## Huw (Apr 26, 2010)

Hmmm ... I've been following Bro. Gordon's developing story for weeks, and it's pretty sad.

I think his heart is in the right place, but it looks to me that he's gone about things the wrong way and broken the GLoAR rules.  I've no idea in what way he has (allegedly) broken the rule he was originally accused of breaking, but since he went public with his defence (after receiving the GL edict forbidding electronic communications about disciplinary cases) it looks likely that they can convict him for that regardless of whether they can convict him for the original charge.  And I've seen one of his own statements on the Web, in which he appeared to be contradicting himself about whether certain Brethren he had met in Lodge (outside his own State) were or were not recognised by his GL, and if they weren't then obviously he might be in trouble for that too.  And his disclaimer on his website about how his own Lodge disagreed with GLoAR's policy on licence plates was not very diplomatically worded, so he could potentially be convicted of publicly disrespecting the decision of his own GL.

Thus I reckon Bro. Gordon has now condemned himself out of his own mouth, even if he's innocent of the original accusation of a cipher violation.

However, the reaction of GLoAR to all this seems surprising to me.  I think most GLs would have tackled the original issue by some quiet advice, not by throwing the book at him.  So I can see why some Brethren are asking if there's some sub-text to all this, some hidden agenda.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## jbolt (Apr 27, 2010)

I am saddened anytime a brother Mason, a lodge, an officer or a GL is defamed. The behavior is just unmasonic. I hope an honorable and fair conclusion will come of this  that will make all Masons proud.


----------



## TexasCop (Apr 27, 2010)

jbolt, I'm afraid I don't see that happening in this case.  One of the two is in the wrong.  Horribly wrong.


----------



## JEbeling (Apr 27, 2010)

Something here just doesn't pass the smell test... ? where is the Grand Master in all of this...?


----------



## Squire Bentley (Apr 28, 2010)

Gosh Brethren, why would you think it proper for a Grand Lodge to ban you from  Masonic electronic communication.  If the GL of Texas did that then you could be expelled for being on this forum!

Why is it not proper for Masons to have discourse with Masons of other Obediences.  I talk with a Co-Mason all the time about Masonry.  I don't reveal the inner workings or secrets of my Lodge/Grand Lodge and vice versa.  But gee, I can even talk to a stranger in the grocery store about Masonry as long as I leave out the modes of recognition and the Obligations.

Are we all going to sign on to a Masonry that it is so controlling that it can tell you what to think and say? Should Grand Lodges be allowed to write rules and regulations to take away your first amendment rights and any other rights guaranteed to you under the Constitution of the United States.? Are we obligated to blindly follow whatever a Grand Lodge and a Grand Master asks of us?

So the Grand Master gives me a gun and demands that I make a hit against another Brother.  And you say....................................................................


----------



## JEbeling (Apr 28, 2010)

maybe I miss something Squire Bentley... ? what does that have to do with anything... ? from what I can put together he was told by Grand Lodge to stop doing something and rather than sit down and discuss it with them...? he just went crazy... ! he has no business in Masonary... ! If you in lodge and the master said to sit down and shut up... ! doesn't make any differance if you agree... ! he runs the lodge the same way the Grand Master runs the Grand Lodge... ! if he told him to shut up and sit down.. ! I think he had a good reason...? 

Like I said... ! don't think we know all the story.. ! just doesn't past the smell test... !


----------



## Ronald D. Martin (Apr 28, 2010)

With all due respect, the right of freedom of speech and freedom of expression are rights that can be limited, they are not absolutes. They can be limited by government in cases such as hate speech. In addition, they can be limited by our own choice through such other rights we might exercise such as our right to freedom of association. Freedom of association guarantees us the right to associate with those groups we might choose, but it is also limited and one cannot force a group to accept us â€“ even in some cases which include protected statuses under antidiscrimination efforts (e.g. race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) if our membership/presence would affect that group's ability to advocate a particular point of view. In addition, if we so choose to associate with a group such as Freemasonry and that private association has rules that govern our actions such as limiting our speech we are subject to those rules; however, we are guaranteed a right to be able to leave that group and find another one that better resembles our point of view, and in turn they have a right to expel us if we are not following their private rules.

I only bring this up to make sure that it is clear what we are and are not guaranteed relative to the Constitution and subsequent legislation.


----------



## JEbeling (Apr 28, 2010)

Let me put it another way... ! from the time Masonary was developed we have always given the power to the Master of the lodge... ! this is why we should always be careful who we elect as Master or as Grand Master... ! His dicisions are not up for debate in lodge..? but all masons have a right.. ! if charged with something to have a hearing ..? 

This dicision was in the hands of the Grand Master... ! He had a right to talk to him... ! but not take everything public and whinnnnn to everybody who would listen... ! If he didn't like it wait a year and take it up with the next Grand Master... !


----------



## Ronald D. Martin (Apr 28, 2010)

Well...I was not addressing anyone here in particular, and in turn I am not sure if you are addressing my comments However, I will say that in many Regular Jurisdictions one does not necessarily have to be charged, nor have a hearing, to be expelled (e.g. moral turpitude, breaking any one of the ancient landmarks - even if the GL has not defined which landmarks they do or do not acknowledge). It simply depends on the Jurisdiction. But, I do agree with your point if something was completely out of line with how one knows the majority of Masons think in their own jurisdiction maybe the GM the next year might find differently. Even in the United States we are not a one size fits all organization â€“ each GL has great latitude with their Masonic Constitution.


----------



## JEbeling (Apr 28, 2010)

Your right... ! but one thing rings true thru every Grand Jurisdication that I have ever been in.. ! the Master runs the Lodge.. ! The Grand Master runs the Grand Lodge.. ! He had no business going public with his disagreement with the Grand Master, for whatever reason.. ! and trying to whinnnn to everone at how political correct he was... ? and I think reading between the line that he figured he could make the Grand Master look bad because he was doing some noble deed by going around him... ? and like Squire said.. there are a lot of masons who talk back and forth daily... !


----------



## Ronald D. Martin (Apr 28, 2010)

Well...as I said, my point wasn't directed at anyone or this situation in particular I haven't followed this situation and have not read what has been posted here relative to opinions. For the most part, I didn't need to read the situation because I have heard the same rhetoric for a number of years over these few situations that seem to occur and those that don't know better seem to get all worked up over them. Freemasonry is comprised of individual Masons that belong to a lodge. They belong to their lodge not someone else’s lodge. Their Master rules the lodge, period. The lodges within a jurisdiction comprise Grand Lodge; Grand Lodge is nothing more than the agreed to administrative arm of the jurisdiction which is comprised of lodges. The Grand Master who is elected by the lodges (according to the individual jurisdictional rules) most often, in most jurisdictions, acts as Grand Lodge in between Grand Lodge communications. He is GL when the lodges are not in session acting together as the Grand body. Anyone that questions the power of the GM should read their Masonic Constitution.

Too many brothers have joined Masonry believing it is something that it isn’t, or they joined not knowing what it really is and have subsequently listened to too many brothers on the internet that either don’t know themselves or they have personal agendas and don’t mind misleading the masses to get what they say others received too easily. Freemasonry is pretty simple, it suggests that one work on their self and in turn they will be able to make the world a better place. If someone hasn't studied the seven liberal arts and sciences as charged to do so, it shows in these internet arguments due to a lack of skill relative to the use of logic, rhetoric, reason, and law. We should be more concerned about teaching our brothers these things than getting worked up over someone breaking the rules of their own jurisdiction, and in turn acting as those that sit at home all day watching the soap operas or frantically changing stations between Fox and CNN.


----------



## Squire Bentley (Apr 28, 2010)

_"from what I can put together he was told by Grand Lodge to stop doing something and rather than sit down and discuss it with them...? he just went crazy... ! he has no business in Masonary... !"_

Sounds like you are judge and jury all rolled up into one.

The fact is that Derek did ask to sit down and talk about it.  The GLAR said that all talk would be at the Masonic Trial , while at the same time they refused to explain specifically what he had done.

Now y'all can sit there and say he didn't obey his instructions - he used electronic media to talk about Masonry.

OH MY GOD!  What an offense.  String him up right away!


----------



## Blake Bowden (Apr 29, 2010)

"Any form of electronic communication pertaining to matters of Masonic business is prohibited when used as a *forum to debate Masonic Law or issues* and will subject the member (s) to a charge of unmasonic conduct"

Wow..haha! All joking aside, nothing surprises me anymore. I'm so sick of politics, infighting, Grand Poohbahs with their elite attitudes and broderline-racist Grand Lodges that it makes me sick. And we wonder why our numbers continue to tank....


----------



## tomasball (Apr 29, 2010)

I'm at a complete loss as to what the basis of the "cipher violation" here is, and it makes me suspicious.  There's a lot of back and forth about the Grand Master's edict being printed online, but nobody has explained what was ever online that could have amounted to a "cipher".  Does anyone know the story on that?


----------



## TexasCop (Apr 29, 2010)

It could be something as simple as the GL found his Ebay account using his email account and found that he'd purchased a cipher online.


----------



## Huw (May 5, 2010)

Hi Squire.



Squire Bentley said:


> Gosh Brethren, why would you think it proper for a Grand Lodge to ban you from Masonic electronic communication.


 
I personally wouldn't think it proper, no. But it's undoubtedly within their power if they insist on doing it - a GL is a private association, which has the power to set out rules of conduct which must be followed as a condition of membership, and members have a choice either to follow those rules or to get out. And it's clear that GLoAR has promulgated an edict saying that its members mustn't discuss these matters by any electronic means.



Squire Bentley said:


> If the GL of Texas did that then you could be expelled for being on this forum!


 
Yes. So let's hope that they don't do such a thing. But in the case of GLoAR, it's already the case that any of their members would be breaking their rules if they joined this discussion.



Squire Bentley said:


> Why is it not proper for Masons to have discourse with Masons of other Obediences. I talk with a Co-Mason all the time about Masonry. I don't reveal the inner workings or secrets of my Lodge/Grand Lodge and vice versa. But gee, I can even talk to a stranger in the grocery store about Masonry as long as I leave out the modes of recognition and the Obligations.


 
If you can do that under the rules of your GL, then fine. And I personally agree that, provided you're not revealing what is required to be kept secret, then this is unlikely to be harmful.

For reasons why any discourse at all ought to be forbidden, don't ask me, ask the GLoAR. I'm not trying to justify their rules. But they have the rules they have, regardless of whether or not you and I think it's daft.



Squire Bentley said:


> Are we all going to sign on to a Masonry that it is so controlling that it can tell you what to think and say?


 
Masonry has always imposed some such restrictions as standard: for example, if you lose your faith and become an atheist, then you must resign. We all know when we sign up that it's an organisation for men of faith.

If masonry subsequently wants to impose additional restrictions, then obviously we must each consider individually whether or not that's acceptable to us. If it's not, and if we can't get it changed, then it's time to resign.



Squire Bentley said:


> Are we obligated to blindly follow whatever a Grand Lodge and a Grand Master asks of us?


 
If it's something which is laid down as a condition of membership, then yes, we must either comply or resign. Just like any other private association, masonry makes its rules and occasionally changes them, and members have a choice to go if they don't like the rules. And surely we all support that principle, since we all want there to be a mechanism for kicking out bad guys.

If it's merely some arbitrary recommendation which isn't a condition of membership, then no, of course we can tell them to stick it if we don't agree.

The system relies on an assumption of rational behaviour by GLs and GMs. Of course it'll all fall apart if they insist on crazy rules.



Squire Bentley said:


> So the Grand Master gives me a gun and demands that I make a hit against another Brother. And you say....................................................................


 
I'd say "I'm calling the cops right now, and I hope you'll have signed your resignation before they arrive". But if it were somehow a GL rule that I had to do it, then I'd say "I want nothing to do with such an organisation, I resign" ... and then I'd call the cops.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Huw (May 5, 2010)

Hi TexasCop.



TexasCop said:


> It could be something as simple as the GL found his Ebay account using his email account and found that he'd purchased a cipher online.



Gee, don't you guys over there have any sort of privacy laws to prevent such snooping?

But anyway, if I've read it correctly, then the violation for which he is cited is about publication, not possession.  So presumably something to do with his website.  However, Bro. Gordon says he never published anything of that sort on his site.  So it's not clear exactly what he's alleged to have done, because he says the GL have refused pre-trial disclosure of particulars and he claims to be entirely mystified about it.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## TexasCop (May 7, 2010)

Huw, we're SUPPOSED to!


----------



## Huw (May 9, 2010)

Hi TexasCop.



TexasCop said:


> Huw, we're SUPPOSED to!


 
Er ... sorry, I don't understand.  "Supposed to" what?

T & F,

Huw


----------

