Religion
Ben Gray
Gene Goldman
wrote:
>Does Freemasonry require the member to belong to a certain Religion, i f yes, which?
No. There is a requirement that an applicant have a belief in a
Supreme Being, but what Name he uses to refer to that Supreme Being,
and how he exemplifies that belief is his own business.
--
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.
Brother Gene .*.
http://www.blackmountainlodge.net
http://www.freemason.org
http://mastermason.com/BrotherGene
http://www.mastermason.com/BrotherGene/frequently_asked_questions.htm
MBBFMN #387
ICQ #503060
************************************
"Are you guys ready? Let's Roll!!"
Todd Beamer, Flight 93
************************************
Dave Vick
<army_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Does Freemasonry require the member to belong to a certain Religion, i f yes,
> which?
Not at all. All one need do is profess a belief in a Supreme Being.
How you worship Him/Her/It is up to you. I am a Jew, and I sit in
Lodge with Christians, Muslims, Bhuddists, and a Wiccan.
The only "religion" barred from Freemasonry (as I know it) is Atheism.
--
Fraternally,
Dave Vick, SD-elect
Lansing Lodge #33, F&AM
Lansing, Michigan USA
<rig...@tds.net>
Michael Higgins
religious beliefs are the individual's own business.
Freemasons are very big on minding our own business.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TELL NO TALES...an SF/Thriller
sample chapters available at
http://www.huigin.com/tnt.html
"Ben Gray" <army_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mt2.0-65125...@chiok.hn.org...
Zoab
"Dave Vick" <NotMyRea...@tds.net> wrote in message
news:pu33tusm75iju4tfn...@4ax.com...
Hi Dave, is Atheism a religion, I have always understood that Atheists are
non believers, could be I'm wrong, at my age I very often am.
S&F
Bryan 76-5072-8166 UGLE
Dave Hicks
and as long as he says yes it's on with the rest of the questions.
When I stop and think, I only know the religion of one member ( only because
he is a vicar ) I would not have the foggiest about the rest.
But now I will show a little ignorance .....
Dave Vick --- What's a Wiccan ????
Dave Hicks
Dave
"Michael Higgins" <mhig...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uu33tu0u0ajvd15bn...@4ax.com...
Dave Clark
news:mt2.0-65125...@chiok.hn.org:
> Does Freemasonry require the member to belong to a certain Religion, i
> f yes, which?
No. In fact, candidates are not even asked what their religion is.
--
Sincerely and Fraternally
Dave Clark, MM (JW)
Eureka Lodge A.F. & A.M., No 283, G.R.C.
Belleville, Ontario. Canada.
http://www.mastermason.com/eureka283/
-- remove XX if you need to email me --
erik
: But now I will show a little ignorance .....
: Dave Vick --- What's a Wiccan ????
Good Evening Dave,
A Wiccan is a follower of Wicca. Depending on who you ask you may
get different answers on defining it. My understanding is that it is a
re-constructed pre-Christian belief system involving reverance of
nature and the worship of a dual god-head. That is to say G-d and
G-ddess, each having their specific attributes. Gerald Gardner and
Aleister Crowley are often noted in being insturmental in the starting of
the revival of this religion. Others will likely be able to tell you
more. Hope this helps. Have a nice night.
--
ttfn
------------
Erik J. Meyer
Constellation Lodge AF&AM (no, we don't have numbers)
Hermann-Dexter Lodge IOOF #133 Dedham, MA
www.mychip.org are you a turtle?
Dave Clark
news:3gq5tug8g1tqcs5i6...@4ax.com:
> There you have it Ben, All that is asked of a candidate is does he
> believe and as long as he says yes it's on with the rest of the
> questions.
>
> When I stop and think, I only know the religion of one member ( only
> because he is a vicar ) I would not have the foggiest about the rest.
>
> But now I will show a little ignorance .....
>
> Dave Vick --- What's a Wiccan ????
>
> Dave Hicks
>
>
>
> Dave
> "Michael Higgins" <mhig...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:uu33tu0u0ajvd15bn...@4ax.com...
>> Nope. We do require members to acknowledge a Supreme Being, though
> personal
>> religious beliefs are the individual's own business.
>>
>> Freemasons are very big on minding our own business.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> TELL NO TALES...an SF/Thriller
>> sample chapters available at
>> http://www.huigin.com/tnt.html
>> "Ben Gray" <army_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:mt2.0-65125...@chiok.hn.org...
>> > Does Freemasonry require the member to belong to a certain
>> > Religion, i f
>> yes, which?
>> >
>>
My girlfriend is currently studying Wicca and I asked her for some info to
share with the NG in response to this question. She sent me this exerpt
from a book by Scott Cunningham.
Before time was, there was The One; The One was all & all was The One. And
the vast expanse known as the Universe was The One, all-wise, all-
pervading, all-powerful, eternally changing. And Space moved. The One
molded energy into twin forms equal but opposite, fashioning the Goddess
and God from the One and of The One. The Goddess & God stretched and gave
thanks to The One, but darkness surrounded them. They were alone, solitary
save for The One. So they formed energy into gases and gases into suns and
planets and moons; They sprinkled the Universe with whirling globes and so
all was given shape by the hands of the Goddess and God. Light arose and
the sky was illuminated by a billion suns. And the Goddess and Gods,
satisfied by their works, rejoiced and loved, and were one. From their
union sprang seeds of life, and of the human race, so that we might achieve
incarnation upon the Earth. The Goddess chose the Moon as her symbol, and
the God the Sun as his symbol to remind the inhabitants of Earth of their
fashioners. All are born, live, die and are reborn beneath The Sun and
Moon; all things come to pass there under, and all occurs with the
blessings of The One, as has been the way of existence before time was.
(* Wicca - Scott Cunningham)
Also, my GF showed me the Wiccan Rede which is kind of like their version
of our 10 commandments. At any rate...it is the rules with which they
follow.
The rede cannot be taken literally and has to be studied to be understood.
For example, the line below "Mind the Threefold Law you should, Three time
bad and three times good" means that if you do or wish anything bad on
someone than it comes back on you three times bad.
The Wiccan Rede
Bide the Wiccan Laws we must In perfect love and perfect trust.
Live and let live, Fairly take and fairly give, Cast the Circle thrice
about To keep the evil spirits out.
To bind the spell every time, Let the spell be spake in rhyme.
Soft of eye and light of touch, Speak little, listen much.
Deosil go by the waxing moon, Chanting out the Witches' Rune.
Widdershins go by the waning moon, Chanting out the baneful rune.
When the Lady's moon is new, Kiss the hand to her, times two.
When the moon rides at her peak, Then your heart's desire seek.
Heed the North wind's mighty gale, Lock the door and drop the sail.
When the wind comes from the South, Love will kiss thee on the mouth.
When the wind blows from the West, Departed souls will have no rest.
When the wind blows from the East, Expect the new and set the feast.
Nine woods in the cauldron go, Burn them fast and burn them slow.
Elder be the Lady's tree, Burn it not or cursed you'll be.
When the wheel begins to turn, Let the Beltane fires burn.
When the wheel has turned to Yule, Light the log and the Horned One rules.
Heed ye Flower, Bush and Tree, By the Lady Blessed be.
Where the rippling waters go, Cast a stone and truth you'll know.
When ye have a true need, Hearken not to others' greed.
With a fool no season spend, Lest ye be counted as his friend.
Merry meet and merry part, Bright the cheeks and warm the heart.
Mind the Threefold Law you should, Three time bad and three times good.
When misfortune is enow, Wear the blue star on thy brow.
True in Love ever be, Lest thy lover's false to thee.
Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill: An ye harm none, do what ye will.
I hope you find this helpful in understanding what Wicca is about and what
wiccans believe in. As a side note...Wicca should not be confused with
satanism as you cannot be evil, in nature or deed, and be considered
Wiccan. And to think these people were burned at the stake for these
beliefs. Pretty sad if you ask me.
Dave Vick
<gra...@1353virgin.net> wrote:
>> The only "religion" barred from Freemasonry (as I know it) is
>> Atheism.
>
> Hi Dave, is Atheism a religion, I have always understood that Atheists are
> non believers, could be I'm wrong, at my age I very often am.
That's why I put it in quotation marks. Some over on this side of the
pond will colloquially refer to Atheism as their "religion."
--
Fraternally,
Dave Vick, SD-Elect
Jim Stewart
> Dave Hicks <dah...@aylesburyoffice.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> : But now I will show a little ignorance .....
> : Dave Vick --- What's a Wiccan ????
>
> Good Evening Dave,
> A Wiccan is a follower of Wicca. Depending on who you ask you may
> get different answers on defining it. My understanding is that it is a
> re-constructed pre-Christian belief system involving reverance of
> nature and the worship of a dual god-head. That is to say G-d and
> G-ddess, each having their specific attributes. Gerald Gardner and
> Aleister Crowley are often noted in being insturmental in the starting of
> the revival of this religion. Others will likely be able to tell you
> more. Hope this helps. Have a nice night.
>
> --
> ttfn
>
> ------------
>
> Erik J. Meyer
>
> Constellation Lodge AF&AM (no, we don't have numbers)
> Hermann-Dexter Lodge IOOF #133 Dedham, MA
> www.mychip.org are you a turtle?
Good answer Erik
However, the god and godess is one godhead just as the Trinity. It would be
hard to believe in a creator if there would be more than one equal. Much in
Wicca is taken from Masonry. There is no direct line to anything before the
last century. Noone knows what (or if) the witches of the burnings did.
Jim Stewart
DeKalb 144
GL Illinois
Jim
information about Wicca at http://www.cog.org.
--
Bro. Jim Scardelis, 32°
Junior Warden-elect, Kirkland #150, F&AM of Washington
JS, Renaiassance #312, F&AM of Washington
Charter Member, Tranquility #2000, AF&AM of Texas
Expert, Seattle Chapter Rose Croix, AASR-SJ
Venerable Master-elect, Seattle Chapter, Knights of Saint Andrew
Nile Shrine Calliope Unit
"erik" <er...@shelltown.net> wrote in message
news:3t46tu8imu87emq94...@4ax.com...
spam...@btopenworld.com
"Dave Clark" <master...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3dd398f...@nntp.bestweb.net...
Dave
That's a pretty good description of one form of Wicca.
The Rede as your gf defines it is taken from the Gardnerian tradition,
although there are many. There is no single Wiccan religion although a
common thread is veneration for a dual pair of God/ Goddess, a recognition
of mans partnership with nature rather than dominion over nature, an
avoidance of dogma and 'one true way'. Wicca is very accepting of different
interpretations, recognising that different people approach the God and the
Goddess from different viewpoints and with different experiences.
Wicca ranges from organised covens in the Gardnerian tradition (Gerald
Gardner was a Mason) to solitaries who carry out their rituals in isolation.
The Gardnerian tradition has three degrees and is very ritualistic. Gardner
claimed initiation into an existing tradition although there is no evidence
to confirm this. Some circumstantial evidence indicates a likely tradition
in England prior to Gardner.
The Wiccan Rede itself is generally accepted to be 'Save it harm none, do as
thou wilt' or some variant of the wording. The sentiment is, judge the
impact of ones actions on others before carrying out those actions. Harm
none includes ones self. On the surface a fairly innocuous phrase but when
considered fully it has far reaching consequences.
Alistair
WM No407 UGLE
Tom Accuosti
Dave Clark <master...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
<snip>
| Before time was, there was The One; The One was all & all was The
| One. And the vast expanse known as the Universe was The One,
| all-wise, all- pervading, all-powerful, eternally changing. And Space
| moved. The One molded energy into twin forms equal but opposite,
| fashioning the Goddess and God from the One and of The One. The
| Goddess & God stretched and gave thanks to The One, but darkness
| surrounded them. They were alone, solitary save for The One. So they
| formed energy into gases and gases into suns and planets and moons;
| They sprinkled the Universe with whirling globes and so all was given
| shape by the hands of the Goddess and God. Light arose and the sky
| was illuminated by a billion suns. And the Goddess and Gods,
| satisfied by their works, rejoiced and loved, and were one. From
| their union sprang seeds of life, and of the human race, so that we
| might achieve incarnation upon the Earth. The Goddess chose the Moon
| as her symbol, and the God the Sun as his symbol to remind the
| inhabitants of Earth of their fashioners. All are born, live, die and
| are reborn beneath The Sun and Moon; all things come to pass there
| under, and all occurs with the blessings of The One, as has been the
| way of existence before time was.
Hey, that's not a bad description of Taoism!
--
Tom Accuosti
Friendship #33 AF&AM
Southington, CT
Dave Hicks
You know sometimes one wishes one had not asked !!!
BUT one question, I quote
"Before time was, there was The One; The One was all & all was The One"
( Is this a variation on the Three Muskateers I ask ? )
So when exactly ? Althouh Time may be considered a man made thing, it is
not. man has only created instruments to measure it, and has given the
units of time names. Time never began , it has always existed and it will
never end.
Does this make Time a God ?
I've got a headache now, must lie down for a bit. But still I can see this
thread extending a bit . ( he he he )
Dave
:-)
Lodge of the Confused 0000 (United Grand Lodge Of Nutters )
Consecrated 30 minutes before time began
Perplexed Seal
While I appreciate your point. the autrhor quoted is but one of many in the
area of Wicca in particular and Paganism in general (anyone recoginse that?)
Cunningham is good, but concentrates on solitary Wicca. There are a number
of forms of collective Wicca which involve philosophies which may find your
aopproach a little condescending.
yourts Aye
Alistair
WM No407 UGLE
Dave Clark
news:81qdtuohmfmqmm7c9...@4ax.com:
I can imagine. Truth be told I don't know much about Wicca. When I saw
the question I asked my girlfriend if she could give me information on it
as it is an area that SHE is studying. The question didn't specify whether
it was solitary wicca or wicca practiced in a coven.
I thought I made it clear that I'm not Wiccan and was just passing on info
the way I received it.
Much like anything else, anyone wanting full info on a subject should
research and come to their own conclusions.
Thomas Herbell
chaplain of New York a few years ago was a Wiccin.
Tom Herbell Parma #721
--
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Dave Hicks
Condesending ??? I think not. Flippant perhaps, but that's me. I can
see the funny side of everything. and quite frankly, if a religion can
stand upto a little questioning, I would have seriuos doubts about it.
Lighten up Brother, enjoy life, it's not a rehersal ! If you read my post
you will note the notation of humour. This is not questioning the religion;
far from it my intention, but it was done to enlighten my own knowledge, and
provoke responses. I do not wish to discuss religion, I simply wanted to
understand what Wiccan is.
If we want a serious discussion then let's anylise the comments we were
given, but lets keep it within the realms of Brotherly love :-
"it is a re-constructed pre-Christian belief system involving reverance of
nature and the worship of a dual god-head "
Does this mean a God with Two heads or two Gods ?. If two Gods, which is
implied by your own posting (14/11/02 23.02 ) that this is two gods /
goddesses. Then I would question if this allowed by UGLE ? We ask if one
believes in A ( singular ) Supreme Being, not dual ?
We then have Tom adding "Hey, that's not a bad description of Taoism!"
So now I would like to know the difference between these, or are they the
same ?
We then have the comment about Atheists. Now my understanding is that an
Atheist is a non believer in a Supreme Being. ( putting my flippant hat on
again, I find it perculiar that one has to admit that a God may exist to
find it necessary to state that one does not beilieve ;-) )
So having accepted that they do not beilvee they can ( should) not become
Masons.
Jim Stewart then suggests that the twin God head can be viewed as one,
similar to the Christian belief in the Trinity.
But then states that much in Wicca is taken from Masonary. This confuses
me. where in masonary do we suggest a twin God head ? Then brings into
question witchcraft !!!!
Indeed, we are refered top a webside www.cog.org, where the home page states
"Welcome to the CoGWeb, the WWW home page of the Covenant of the Goddess, an
international organization of cooperating, autonomous Wiccan congregations
and solitary practitioners."
and we read
"The Covenant of the Goddess was founded in 1975 to increase cooperation
among Witches and to secure for Witches and covens the legal protection
enjoyed by members of other religions."
No wonder the new archbishop is having difficulty.
Now do not get me wrong, I am not knocking or encouraging and religion or
movement, but I would like an explaination of what this all means.
Dave
Jim Stewart
Wicca is a new religion, dating to Alistair Crawley and Gerald Gardner. Both
of
whom
studied Fremasonry in its broadest sense. It does not specify whether the
individual worshiper
believe in a dual system of gods. (Which I personally would interpret as
incompatible with
Masonry.) or one god. (Which, if he/she is the creator of the universe I
would
personally find
compatible.) There are many witches and pagans today who do not believe in
the
dogma of
Wiccan. There are many beliefs in this area of religion, including
polytheism.
Wiccan, in particular, has three degrees, espouses universal brotherhood,
has
secret signs and
symbols, requires aid for members and--in some cases--uses robes and lodge
layout of the Order
of The Golden Dawn. Further similarities would involve listing things in
each
ritual. At this point, also
we are drifting toward ceremonial magic, another of Crawley's interests.
Wiccan and most witches believe in some variant of a goddess and her escort.
Often the goddess is eternal
and the god is a representation of the year....Or the year is a
representation
of the god.....
What it means is that there are a significant number of people who do not
worship Yawah. Perhaps
there always have been.
You have asked a question asking for a unified answer to an ununified
activity.
Jim Stewart
Don Wagner
>Now do not get me wrong, I am not knocking or encouraging and religion or
>movement, but I would like an explaination of what this all means.
>
>Dave
Hey Dave,
A lot of the problems associated with any religious "branding" is that
rarely will you get more then a few people together at once who say
they believe in the same thing.
;-)
"Dual God-Head" is commonly associated with the male/female aspect of
the creator. "God-Head" being the essential nature of god. Depending
on what sect of Wiccan/Pagan/New Age belief system you are looking at,
this could mean a seperate Father/Mother god-head, an aspect that
changes according to the whim of the creator, a "precieved" aspect
change based on the observer or a Christian-like differentialtion of
aspects such as the Trinity.
In Masonry we have the belief that there is a Supreme Creator. If the
belief of the candidate is such that they understand this
qualification and they agree to it, then they have fulfilled it in my
mind.
Atheist and Agnostics as such cannot truthfully state that they have
this belief system.
Remember, Masonry doesn't say that you have to know the nature of the
Creator, just that you believe there is one.
--Don--
Let me show you how the guards used to do it...
Don Wagner
>BUT one question, I quote
>"Before time was, there was The One; The One was all & all was The One"
>( Is this a variation on the Three Muskateers I ask ? )
>
>So when exactly ? Althouh Time may be considered a man made thing, it is
>not. man has only created instruments to measure it, and has given the
>units of time names. Time never began , it has always existed and it will
>never end.
That is the assumption that you are making, but it is not necessarily
the truth or a fact.
The Creator is outside of time and time is a creation.
Another way to look at it is that since all "is" and "of" (important
distinctions to make, btw) the Creator, time is not a governing factor
or limiting aspect on the Creators actions.
>Does this make Time a God ?
One might say so (Chronos) but no more so Death is.
;-)
Dave Hicks
many thanks, I appreciate that an full answer (especially over the Ng) may
be difficult, mainly due to time and web space.
However, you will appreciate for one that has never heard of this group
before the answers previously given were a little disturbing and unclear
Many thanks
Dave
spam...@btopenworld.com
"Dave Hicks" <dah...@aylesburyoffice.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gicgtugthh0pq0ibj...@4ax.com...
> Hi Alistair
>
but it was done to enlighten my own knowledge, and
> provoke responses. I do not wish to discuss religion, I simply wanted to
> understand what Wiccan is.
>
> If we want a serious discussion then let's anylise the comments we were
> given, but lets keep it within the realms of Brotherly love :-
>
Dave
First, would you make similar comments regarding Judaism or Islam?
Second, to the point of the discussion:
The best source I have found for any investigation of Neo Paganism in
general and Wicca in particular is a Library, there is no single source,
because, as with the other major religions there are many paths each with
slightly differing perspectives. I note that others ascribe Gardnerian
Wicca as 'The ONE TRUE WAY' of Wicca, regrettably it's not that simple. I'm
a member of SRIA and my area of study is Neo-Paganism and Celtic
Christianity.
The issue of a Dual aspect of a Supreme Being is one interpretation of the
God/dess pair which some subscribe to, not all. Similarly to the Trinity of
God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit which are representative
of various aspects of the Christian God, some view the Wiccan concept of
'the One' as the feminine and masculine aspects, since we see in nature that
life requires both feminine and masculine influences this ascribes balance
to 'the One'. My view is that this interpretation could be considered as
belief in a Supreme Being, others consider the God/dess as a complementary
pair rather than a single being.
Gardnerian Wicca is balanced in this way, Dianic Wicca tends to concentrate
on the Goddess almost to the exclusion of the God, which many find as
distasteful as a wholly masculine belief system.
A general trend would also be to describe Wicca as a belief system rather
than a faith. In a faith one must believe 'just because' your told to by an
intermediary. Wicca in general does away with intermediaries and encourages
a personal contact and commitment with the God/dess, similarly to
Gnosticism. While Covens will have a High Priest or High Priestess, or
both, these are elected each year, similarly to our own WM as first amongst
equals (now there's another debate) to act as a facilitator for the coven,
and guide for the less experienced. In Gardnerian tradition it would take 4
years to reach the 3rd Degree.
Wicca is one branch of Neo-Paganism which is itself split into many threads,
good sources are Raymond Buckland 'The Complete Book of Witchcraft' which
takes the reader through Wicca in general although as a Gardnerian initiate
Buckland does tend to that direction, he is credited with taking Wicca to
the USA following his initiation by Gardner.
Scott Cunningham, as mentioned previously is good and has a number of books
on the subject, the main source is 'Wicca, A Guide for the Solitary
Practicioner' which concentrates on, unsurprisingly, solitary work.
There are numerous other books on various aspects of ranging from family
traditions which claim a long history, Coven oriented practice as in
Gardnerian, Seax, Celtic etc.
Roland Hutton, 'Triumph of the Moon' is a very good read, although a little
academic. Hutton is an historian and considers the emergence of the modern
British Witchcraft using primary sources. He does not find conclusive
evidence of the existence of an organised Wiccan religion prior to Gardner,
however he does indicate considerable circumstantial evidence for a number
of similar trains of philosophical thought, the traditions of the village
Wise Woman or Cunning Man and similar. Gardner claimed initiation by an
existing Coven, but was unable to substantiate that, perhaps a little like
von Hund and the Strict Observance. The reason for being allowed to go
public was that the time had come when the Coven were less afraid of
persecution than they had been in the past.
A lot of Wiccans tend to be very eclectic in their studies, many more
knowledgeable about their beliefs than the majority of declared Christians.
Many study other systems such as Druidry, Quabalah and Enochian or Eastern
philosophies, some are herbalists. There is also what is sometimes called
the 'Kitchen Witch', someone adept at natural healing.
Take a look at www.witchvox.com and some of the related links, its an
American site and includes a number of comparative essays on various
branches of Neo-Paganism including some of the many Wiccan traditions,
Asatru, CAW, Druidry etc.
www.davensjournal.com includes a number of book reviews, and links to other
sites and sources.
You ask for a clear answer, there isn't really one, without a considerable
amount of research.
Alistair
WM No 407 UGLE
Theoricus Elias Ashmole College SRIA
spam...@horus.isnic.is
Dave
> I can imagine. Truth be told I don't know much about Wicca. When I saw
> the question I asked my girlfriend if she could give me information on it
> as it is an area that SHE is studying. The question didn't specify
whether
> it was solitary wicca or wicca practiced in a coven.
>
> I thought I made it clear that I'm not Wiccan and was just passing on info
> the way I received it.
>
> Much like anything else, anyone wanting full info on a subject should
> research and come to their own conclusions.
>
My immediate preceding response was not to you.
But Cunningham is a good author on the subject, just not the only one.
Alistair
WM No407
Dave Clark
news:7utitu8381svaeniu...@4ax.com:
Fair enough, I guess that's the problem with having a common name like
Dave. I have to admit though, your posts have made me curious enough to
look a little deeper into Wicca. I have been reading some information,
including your posts, that I find very interesting.
Dave Hicks
>
> First, would you make similar comments regarding Judaism or Islam?
If I did not know what they were, or had never heard of them, yes.
From the responses I received both in this NG and privately, I was lead to
believe that Wicca was witchcraft based.
The "excuse" that no single explaination can be given , whilst I accept that
to some degree, it does not answer my hunger for understanding.
Some could say that Christrianity does not have a single explaination, but
the basics of all religion remain the same -- a set of beliefs; albeit that
individuals may have variations on their own Church's view point.
Trust this clears my view point
Dave
Vale 6632 UGLE
Aracos
The best source on the net really is Witchvox, which someone mentioned
earlier.
You might also want to check out the Masonic-Pagans email list
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Masonic_Pagans/ . It has quite a few
very knowldgable Brothers on it from varied parts of Paganism in
general.
Another great place to check out is the Google directory
http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Pagan/
It has some where around 3200 websites on Pagan religions from Asatru
to Wicca.
Lonnie
Chamblee/Sardis Lodge #444
phorbin
says...
> That is the assumption that you are making, but it is not necessarily
> the truth or a fact.
>
> The Creator is outside of time and time is a creation.
An assumption... and patently false :-)
The assumption that the universe is created is humanocentric and based in
our obsession with building stuff; just as the attributing of gender to
the great mystery is gender-centric and equally untrue.
> Another way to look at it is that since all "is" and "of" (important
> distinctions to make, btw) the Creator, time is not a governing factor
> or limiting aspect on the Creators actions.
>
> >Does this make Time a God ?
>
> One might say so (Chronos) but no more so Death is.
> ;-)
> --Don--
> Let me show you how the guards used to do it...
>
--
phorbin
Perplexed Seal
> From the responses I received both in this NG and privately, I was lead to
> believe that Wicca was witchcraft based.
>
I hope the discussion above has clarified the point, yes Wicca is one of a
number of traditions derived from witchcraft, but bear in mind that
witchraft in reality, and that version promulgated by the more 'established'
religions are slightly (very???) different.
> The "excuse" that no single explaination can be given , whilst I accept
that
> to some degree, it does not answer my hunger for understanding.
>
Excuse, perhaps, but also an explanation for not having the time to
transcribe about a metre of wallspace on the shelves in my study.
Complemented by about another metre or so on Christianity, a half metre on
Islam and another metre or so on assorted other systems. Have a look at the
sources I cited and see for yourself the richness of the various traditions,
fascinating subject and opening the alternate viewpoints also adds a degree
of personal development in the relationship with ones own preferred
description of the Supreme Being. Even the pantheons in Asatru add
something to my own understanding, although I would have difficulty if an
Asatruer were to claim a belief in a single SB.
> Some could say that Christrianity does not have a single explaination, but
> the basics of all religion remain the same -- a set of beliefs; albeit
that
> individuals may have variations on their own Church's view point.
>
> Trust this clears my view point
>
Thanks, yes
> Dave
> Vale 6632 UGLE
Yours Aye
Alistair
WM No407 UGLE
Don Wagner
>In article <mt2.0-72551...@chiok.hn.org>, dawa...@ix.netcom.com
>says...
>> The Creator is outside of time and time is a creation.
>An assumption... and patently false :-)
Not at all. If the Creator is omnipotent and omnipresent, and has
created all that it is, then time is itself a creation. The Creator
is not held in check by his creations.
>The assumption that the universe is created is humanocentric and based in
>our obsession with building stuff; just as the attributing of gender to
>the great mystery is gender-centric and equally untrue.
Then the humanistic rules of this description are much too baised in
worldly matters (building stuff and assigning gender) then it the
necessary mindset of the spirit.
Time is nothing more then a law of nature. Those laws were laid down
upon creation by the Creator. Any humanistic limits placed on the
Creator are naive at best.
Dave Vick
<phor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The Creator is outside of time and time is a creation.
>
> An assumption... and patently false :-)
Ahhhh, but how do you know that, Phorbin?
Let's see some evidence.
Aracos
news:<mt2.0-73877...@chiok.hn.org>...
Even the pantheons in Asatru add
> something to my own understanding, although I would have difficulty if an
> Asatruer were to claim a belief in a single SB.
>
> WM No407 UGLE
Greetings Alistair,
I guess I would be that Asatruar<G>.
While the Edda's and Saga's, which Asatruars & Heathens base our
beliefs on, do not mention a SB, neither does they discount one. There
are quite a few Asatruars who are members of the Blue Lodge as well as
other Masonic bodies.
Lonnie
Chamblee/Sardis #444
Perplexed Seal
news:gssltuovlacq0g548...@4ax.com...
Morning Lonnie
Fair enough, live and learn I guess.
I have to admit to only a brief overview of the system, but as with any
individual the response to 'Do you believe in a SB' depends on how one views
the question and ones own relationship with the pantheon.
I suppose one could view the various members of the pantheon as
representations of different aspects of the characteristics of a SB, in a
similar way to the Trinitarian view of Yahweh and the Wiccan interpretation
(held by some but not all) of the masculine and feminine aspects of 'The
One'.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Alistair
WM No407 UGLE
FGuerraMed
Be good and faithfull.
May G.'.A.'.O.'.T.'.U.'., iluminate and protect you.
Mark "Stryder" Stilwell
religions such as Wicca and a slew of friends who are Practioners of
the Americanized version(s), I would make the following note about the
issue of Wicca and its meeting the qualification of "belief in deity"
requirement of the Masonic Fraternity.
There are those Wiccans who believe in the existence of the God and
Goddess, and see themselves as subserviant to them. There are others
who simply worship nature, who pay lip service to the existence of a
God and/or Goddess. There are also those who see Paganism and Wicca
as a non-spiritual, social or magical following. When dealing with
those who call themselves Wiccans, do not say Yes or No based on the
name of the practice only. You need to talk to them, get a feel for
their spiritual beliefs, as we can do that in our investigation of
them. If they believe in service to a deity and such service compells
them to be serviceable to their fellow human beings, then consider
them as you would any other God serving being. However, if they do
not appear to believe in a deity, or their beliefs place deity in a
category of which does not influence their lives, then you have to
judge them accordingly there as well.
And on another note, someone mentioned that there is a lot of
Freemasonry in Wicca. This is true. But remember that the founder of
Wicca, Gerald B. Gardner, was a Freemason under the UGLE. I
understand that he had been expelled allegedly for his dealings with
Aleister Crowley, who was considered Clandestine by the UGLE. Gerald
is seen by many to have incorporated the flavorings of the Masonic
Degree of Initiation into the Degree of Initiation of Wicca.
Mark "Stryder" Stilwell
WM Mount Hope Lodge #476 - Odessa Missouri
http://freemasonry.hrshadows.com
Mark "Stryder" Stilwell
is the statement that there are no Gods, that we are a biological
happening of which when its lifespan terminates, we vanish into the
great nothingness of death. We cease to exist. Everything that they
believe is in contradiction to the concept of religion.
As for the Agnostics. Last I understood, the Agnostics were those who
believed that while there was a Supreme Being or Eseence at work, no
one on this plane of reality was capable of truly understanding what
or who it is, or what this existence is all about. We are not alone,
but we are far from having a clue of what its all about.
Now, my understanding of the requirements for Freemasonry, as given me
by the Grand Lodge of Missouri (AF&AM), is that the prospective member
must believe in the existence of a Supreme Being, and that such
believe encourages them to be a better person with their fellow man.
The rest falls on the character of the prospective member.
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:59:52 GMT, dawa...@ix.netcom.com (Don Wagner)
>
>In Masonry we have the belief that there is a Supreme Creator. If the
>belief of the candidate is such that they understand this
>qualification and they agree to it, then they have fulfilled it in my
>mind.
>
>Atheist and Agnostics as such cannot truthfully state that they have
>this belief system.
>
>Remember, Masonry doesn't say that you have to know the nature of the
>Creator, just that you believe there is one.
Mark "Stryder" Stilwell
WM Mount Hope Lodge #476 - Odessa, Missouri
Freemasonry - From Darkness to Light
http://freemasonry.hrshadows.com
Staff Director - Operative Webmasons Guild
http://www.owmg.org wrote:
Åke Eldberg
>
>In Masonry we have the belief that there is a Supreme Creator. If the
>belief of the candidate is such that they understand this
>qualification and they agree to it, then they have fulfilled it in my
>mind.
In my humble opinion, this requirement should disqualify adherents
of pantheistic religions such as Hinduism and most of modern Wicca
and "neo-paganism". The idea that the creation and the creator are
one and the same defeats the point of believing in a Supreme Creator.
=C5ke
Balboos
incorporate belief in some sort of afterlife. This concept makes sense on
the basis that, except for the personal honor, a man who doesn't believe in
an afterlife of some sort may not feel any worries of accountability for his
actions - particularly regarding his obligations.
Hence, the particular disdain for atheists (at least in our ritual) - they
would live life, in the opinions of some - with no fear of accountability in
this life (so long as they don't get caught) or the next (since they don't
believe in one).
In a different group, I was in a (civil) slugging match over whether a Pagan
could become a Mason. In particular, my antagonist claimed that polytheists
were not eligible for membership, whilst I believed they were. Neither of
us could convince the other, though the discussion grew quite heated.
Resulted in friendship. Still, he would cast a black ball, and I a white
one.
Steve Miller
South Shore 1126
"Mark "Stryder" Stilwell" <msti...@hrshadows.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:mt2.0-26992...@tala.mede.uic.edu...
> First off, Atheism is not a religion. The entire premise of Atheism
> is the statement that there are no Gods, that we are a biological
> happening of which when its lifespan terminates, we vanish into the
> great nothingness of death. We cease to exist. Everything that they
> believe is in contradiction to the concept of religion.
>
> As for the Agnostics. Last I understood, the Agnostics were those who
> believed that while there was a Supreme Being or Eseence at work, no
> one on this plane of reality was capable of truly understanding what
> or who it is, or what this existence is all about. We are not alone,
> but we are far from having a clue of what its all about.
>
> Now, my understanding of the requirements for Freemasonry, as given me
> by the Grand Lodge of Missouri (AF&AM), is that the prospective member
> must believe in the existence of a Supreme Being, and that such
> believe encourages them to be a better person with their fellow man.
> The rest falls on the character of the prospective member.
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:59:52 GMT, dawa...@ix.netcom.com (Don Wagner)
> >
> >In Masonry we have the belief that there is a Supreme Creator. If the
> >belief of the candidate is such that they understand this
> >qualification and they agree to it, then they have fulfilled it in my
> >mind.
> >
Balboos
Craft), was one I used to try and prove polytheism is OK. The response
included some links relating to Hindu beliefs.
In a nutshell, the writings said that the plethora of hindu deities are all
manifestations of the same deity, and hence they are monotheistic. If you
disagree with this concept, then you are disagreeing with one of the more
popular western religion's claim to monotheism, as well.
But, from my personal point of view, isn't a belief in "cosmic
accountability" really what we're looking for in a candidate?
Steve
"Åke Eldberg" <eld....@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:mt2.0-3983...@chiok.hn.org...
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:59:52 GMT, dawa...@ix.netcom.com (Don Wagner)
> >
> >In Masonry we have the belief that there is a Supreme Creator. If the
> >belief of the candidate is such that they understand this
> >qualification and they agree to it, then they have fulfilled it in my
> >mind.
>
Brian Westley
>First off, Atheism is not a religion. The entire premise of Atheism
>is the statement that there are no Gods, that we are a biological
>happening of which when its lifespan terminates, we vanish into the
>great nothingness of death. We cease to exist.
While you're right that atheism isn't a religion, it only means
that an atheist isn't a theist, i.e. does not believe in gods.
This says nothing about their opinions on the origin of life
(atheists are free to believe that humans were created by e.g.
aliens), or what happens after death (you can find atheists
who believe in reincarnation, especially in India).
>Everything that they
>believe is in contradiction to the concept of religion.
Not at all; atheists can even belong to various religions,
since not all religions have theism as a requirement to
be considered a member of that religion.
>As for the Agnostics. Last I understood, the Agnostics were those who
>believed that while there was a Supreme Being or Eseence at work, no
>one on this plane of reality was capable of truly understanding what
>or who it is, or what this existence is all about.
Agnostics can be theists or atheists; agnosticism deals with what
kinds of knowledge about gods are possible, not whether you believe
gods exist or not.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Åke Eldberg
>In a nutshell, the writings said that the plethora of hindu deities
>are all manifestations of the same deity, and hence they are
>monotheistic.
I am not questioning the statement that all the Hindu deities
are manifestations of the same deity. My question is whether
_that_ deity qualifies as "Supreme Creator".
Textbooks on Hinduism quite clearly indicate that it does not
believe in a creation at all. The universe is eternal, without
beginning or end. It is identical with God, who is not "personal"
in nature but impersonal, a sort of divine "soul of the world"
from which everything flows, and which permeates everything.
IMHO it is a very short step from pantheism to atheism.
The point of the Masonic requirement for belief in a Supreme
Creator is the notion that only god-believers can be trusted.
Without a God who sees everything and judges evil, anything
is permissible as long as you get away with it. Breaking an
oath is, in that case, not a cause for fear of divine retri-
bution.
=C5ke
Dave Vick
<eld....@swipnet.se> wrote:
> Textbooks on Hinduism quite clearly indicate that it does not
> believe in a creation at all. The universe is eternal, without
> beginning or end. It is identical with God, who is not "personal"
> in nature but impersonal, a sort of divine "soul of the world"
> from which everything flows, and which permeates everything.
So by that criteria, a Hindu lives *within* G*d, as opposed to a theist
who regards G*d as a separate entity.
I have no problem with that... Nor does my Jurisdiction.
--
Fraternally,
Dave Vick, SD
Lansing Lodge #33, F&AM
Grand Ledge Chapter #85, RAM
Lansing, Michigan USA
<rig...@tds.net>
David Simpson
typed
>If I recall, correctly, GL of NY requires that the candidates beliefs
>incorporate belief in some sort of afterlife. This concept makes sense on
>the basis that, except for the personal honor, a man who doesn't believe in
>an afterlife of some sort may not feel any worries of accountability for his
>actions - particularly regarding his obligations.
>
>Hence, the particular disdain for atheists (at least in our ritual) - they
>would live life, in the opinions of some - with no fear of accountability in
>this life (so long as they don't get caught) or the next (since they don't
>believe in one).
>
>In a different group, I was in a (civil) slugging match over whether a Pagan
>could become a Mason. In particular, my antagonist claimed that polytheists
>were not eligible for membership, whilst I believed they were. Neither of
>us could convince the other, though the discussion grew quite heated.
>Resulted in friendship. Still, he would cast a black ball, and I a white
>one.
>
Steve, how do you know that the applicant is a Pagan? The petition
asks about the candidate's belief in *A* Supreme Being. It does not
ask them to specify which religion nor should anyone ask unless the
candidate has a query regarding his beliefs. Such query should, by
rights, be referred to their spiritual advisor and not answered by a
member of the lodge.
The report of the investigation committee should be either
"Favourable" or "Unfavourable". The question of their religion should
never arise during the time between the submitting of the petition and
the ballot. This means that neither of you should cast a black ball
since you should have no knowledge of details of his religious
beliefs, just that he has those beliefs.
--
Regards
David Simpson (Remove "farook" to reply)
(Unattached MM)
Bad manners should not be a capital crime ...
for a first offence.
Robert Heinlein, "Time Enough For Love"
David Simpson
typed
>
>
>"=C5ke Eldberg" <eld....@swipnet.se> wrote in message
>news:mt2.0-3983...@chiok.hn.org...
>> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:59:52 GMT, dawa...@ix.netcom.com (Don Wagner)
>> >
>> >In Masonry we have the belief that there is a Supreme Creator. If th=
e
>> >belief of the candidate is such that they understand this
>> >qualification and they agree to it, then they have fulfilled it in my
>> >mind.
>>
>> In my humble opinion, this requirement should disqualify adherents
>> of pantheistic religions such as Hinduism and most of modern Wicca
>> and "neo-paganism". The idea that the creation and the creator are
>> one and the same defeats the point of believing in a Supreme Creator.
>>
>> =3DC5ke
>Your argument, using Hindu's as an example (Hindu's are welcomed into th=
e
>Craft), was one I used to try and prove polytheism is OK. The response
>included some links relating to Hindu beliefs.
>
>In a nutshell, the writings said that the plethora of hindu deities are =
all
>manifestations of the same deity, and hence they are monotheistic. If y=
ou
>disagree with this concept, then you are disagreeing with one of the mor=
e
>popular western religion's claim to monotheism, as well.
>
>But, from my personal point of view, isn't a belief in "cosmic
>accountability" really what we're looking for in a candidate?
>
>Steve
Probably. This also means that the morality of the candidate is based
on fear of reprisal. It could be argued that the morality of an
Atheist, who is not afraid of divine retribution, is unforced and thus
is more likely to be honest. Remember that a confession or promise
made under duress is not considered to be valid.
--=20
Regards
David Simpson (Remove "farook" to reply)
(Unattached MM)
Bad manners should not be a capital crime ...=20
for a first offence.=20
David Simpson
typed
>
>
>"=C5ke Eldberg" <eld....@swipnet.se> wrote in message
>news:mt2.0-3983...@chiok.hn.org...
>> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:59:52 GMT, dawa...@ix.netcom.com (Don Wagner)
>> >
>> >In Masonry we have the belief that there is a Supreme Creator. If th=
e
>> >belief of the candidate is such that they understand this
>> >qualification and they agree to it, then they have fulfilled it in my
>> >mind.
>>
>> In my humble opinion, this requirement should disqualify adherents
>> of pantheistic religions such as Hinduism and most of modern Wicca
>> and "neo-paganism". The idea that the creation and the creator are
>> one and the same defeats the point of believing in a Supreme Creator.
>>
>> =3DC5ke
>Your argument, using Hindu's as an example (Hindu's are welcomed into th=
e
>Craft), was one I used to try and prove polytheism is OK. The response
>included some links relating to Hindu beliefs.
>
>In a nutshell, the writings said that the plethora of hindu deities are =
all
>manifestations of the same deity, and hence they are monotheistic. If y=
ou
>disagree with this concept, then you are disagreeing with one of the mor=
e
>popular western religion's claim to monotheism, as well.
>
>But, from my personal point of view, isn't a belief in "cosmic
>accountability" really what we're looking for in a candidate?
>
>Steve
Probably. This also means that the morality of the candidate is based
Balboos
debate.
One point, in fact, that I brought out in the discussion, was that that the
movie industry seems to delight in portraying those with, crudely speaking,
"old religions" as involved in dark magic and human sacrifices. This
long-time negative representation has instilled an unwarranted fear (or
better, suspicion?) in a great segment of the population. This had, it
least in the minds of others in the debate, cast (unjust) doubt upon the
validity of these systems of beliefs.
That we shouldn't even be aware of his particular religious persuasion is a
valid point. In fact, if all the questions are correctly answered
(viz-a-viz being an acceptable candidate), then the thread of this
discussion becomes moot.
Steve Miller
"David Simpson" <faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
news:mt2.0-10427...@chiok.hn.org...
> Regards
> David Simpson (Remove "farook" to reply)
> (Unattached MM)
> Bad manners should not be a capital crime ...
> for a first offence.
Balboos
Rather, one behaved as a decent human being, and followed the laws of (our)
particular faith because G-d wanted you to. That was sufficient reason -
and no need for promise of reward, or threat of punishment, entered into the
concept. The concept of the immortality of the soul entered into my actual
equations of life at a much later date, though long before my entry into the
Craft. To that extent, I would agree with your argument, below:
"David Simpson" <faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message >
> Probably. This also means that the morality of the candidate is based
> on fear of reprisal. It could be argued that the morality of an
> Atheist, who is not afraid of divine retribution, is unforced and thus
> is more likely to be honest. Remember that a confession or promise
> made under duress is not considered to be valid.
Except -
A very important point of joining was that it be of ones on free will and
accord. Because of this caveat, your argument loses a good deal of its
impact. One could stretch this a bit further by considering that we would
never have the (symbolic) penalties were it not found necessary to enhance
the motivation for keeping the obligation of secrecy on certain points. If
this was found to be necessary, then one could argue that their is a strong
implication that an atheist is as viable candidate as a 'true believer', or
conversely, a belief in a Supreme Being (of whatever nature) was found quite
insufficient. Intellectually, at least, this opens up a wonderful can of
worms.
Steve Miller
MM
"Balboos" <balboos/**/@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mt2.0-21604...@tala.mede.uic.edu...
> The "pagan" candidate was a hypothetical scenario, for discussion and
> debate.
Interestingly enough, I actually know someone of a pagan belief that is
interested in petitioning for membership to a lodge. He holds a respectable
position in the local community and seem to be a genuine and good person.
He is attracted to freemasonry because he appreciates that the society
embraces "good old fashioned values" (his words), and also his interest was
peaked due to the large amount of pagan and esoteric symbolism that can be
found within Freemasonry. He has asked me to propose him for initiation,
and I personally have no problems with that, my only worry is that if it
comes out during the investigation teams interview with him that he does
hold pagan beliefs, that this may be enough to have him black balled simply
because of religious prejudices of certain members of the lodge? Just in
casually talking to some people from this lodge, sadly it quickly became
apparent that the word "Pagan", and the word "Wicca" equated to the word
"Satanic" in their eyes.
Another interesting dilemma for this particular potential candidate is
what V.S.L. he should use during his degrees? He is not comfortable with
the Jewdao-Christian old testament as he sees the teachings of this as being
cause for many of the injustices of the world. He personally sees many sage
writings as his guides, but no particular one book as a V.S.L. ?
I personally have no problems with this candidate, he seems a good man
who has the potential to be a better man, he has the personal integrity,
beliefs and convictions to maintain and uphold any oaths he should take. My
only concern in proposing him, is that due to his beliefs he may not be
given a "Fair go" and that in proposing a potentially controversial
candidate such as this (and with myself being fairly new to the craft) it
could also have some personal negative repercussions.
( I will withhold my name just on this post to protect the anonymity of the
candidate being discussed above)
Gene Goldman
wrote:
>I am not questioning the statement that all the Hindu deities
>are manifestations of the same deity. My question is whether
>_that_ deity qualifies as "Supreme Creator".
What business is it of anyone who is not Hindu?
The fraternity requires applicants to **have a belief in a Supreme
Being**. HAVE a belief - not "submit the belief to the scrutiny of
anyone who wants to pass judgement on it"!
The candidate is asked if he has a belief in a Supreme Being. If he
answers "Yes", he is qualified. NO MATTER WHAT THAT BELIEF MIGHT BE.
If he answers "No", he is not qualified.
NO applicant for membership should be required to justify, amplify,
explain or even disclose his personal beliefs. The only question he
should be asked about them should be answerable with a "Yes" or a
"No". Anything more subjects him, and each one of us, to the
bigotry-du-jure.
>Textbooks on Hinduism quite clearly indicate that it does not
>believe in a creation at all.=20
Textbooks on Christianity quite clearly indicate that it is a
polytheist belief.
>The universe is eternal, without beginning or end.=20
The Alpha and the Omega? Yes, I have heard that somewhere. "I AM" is
a phrase that comes to mind.
>It is identical with God, who is not "personal"
>in nature but impersonal, a sort of divine "soul of the world"
>from which everything flows, and which permeates everything.
>IMHO it is a very short step from pantheism to atheism.
Now now. We have many Trinitarian Christian Brothers who might take
offense at that!
>The point of the Masonic requirement for belief in a Supreme
>Creator is the notion that only god-believers can be trusted.
And a Hi9ndu that believes in G-d is a G-d-believer, right?
Unless you feel qualified to pass judgement on (or even make inquiry
into) that belief, I guess.
>Without a God who sees everything and judges evil, anything
>is permissible as long as you get away with it. Breaking an
>oath is, in that case, not a cause for fear of divine retri-
>bution.
Which does not apply to someone who believes in a Supreme Being,
right?
So, a Trinitarian, a Hindu, a Wiccan, or anyone else who believes in a
Supreme Being is qualified, right?
Nothing personal here, but I have a REAL problem with people -
PARTICULARLY Masons, who SHOULD be better than the common bigot -
passing judgement on the personal beliefs of other people. ESPECIALLY
when they really don't know what those beliefs are about. As a
non-Christian, I have had to deal with it time and time and time again
- within and without the fraternity.
When I was a young man, it quit surprising me out there in the world.
Bigots are around. Nothing I can do about it, especially change their
mind about their bigotry.
But I detest hearing it from Masons.
Please, Brethren, ask the applicant if he believes in a Supreme Being.
If he answers in the affirmative, get on with whatever you are doing
and mind your own business about his personal opinions.
--=20
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.
Brother Gene .*.=20
Reprobate
Swine
And all round swell guy
H.M.S.H.=20
Q.P.H.D.
http://www.calodges.org/no442
http://www.blackmountainlodge.net
http://www.freemason.org
MBBFMN #387
ICQ #503060
Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved.
Any Mason may use the contents for any valid Masonic purpose, permission =
may be granted to others upon request.
Balboos
(original text, below)
At the time of this discussion, I inquired of others who were following the
online argument, though not participating. Indeed, you are absolutely
correct. The black balls would have been cast had they known the brother to
not be a member of what I will refer to as the 'officially accepted" modes
of worship.
How would these brothers react if one of their fellows changed from an
officially accepted religion to, for example Wicca ? Or even, for whatever
circumstances, found himself to have become an atheist? Yet, he still loved
the Craft, and its principles of duty towards ones fellows. Would either of
these be cause for Masonic charges? Do we discard brethren, tried with the
test of time, and found good and true men, worthy of the exalted title of
Brother, because they've changed their view of the universe?
It is an eye opening concept to the world view, sold to us via Hollywood,
that a certain subset of beliefs are valid targets for vilification! So
valid and acceptable that, for the most part, not only in the outside world,
but even amongst us, their "evil" nature is a given! To my eyes, the Nazi
propaganda films of the mid 20th century, show how effective this can be.
We are supposed to study such themes as grammar, rhetoric, and logic, to
better ourselves. We attempt to learn our ritual, which perhaps can fall
under the heading of grammar. However, we fall rather short of embracing
the study and application of the remaining two of the set As a result, many
a brother falls victim to rhetoric for lack of understanding its wiles, and
are swayed by emotion and dogma, which is rather easier than applying logic.
Steve Miller
South Shore 1126
GLoNY
"MM" <cosmic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mt2.0-31961...@tala.mede.uic.edu...
Dave Vick
<br_...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Nothing personal here, but I have a REAL problem with people -
> PARTICULARLY Masons, who SHOULD be better than the common bigot -
> passing judgement on the personal beliefs of other people....
>
> <snip happens>
>
> Please, Brethren, ask the applicant if he believes in a Supreme Being.
> If he answers in the affirmative, get on with whatever you are doing
> and mind your own business about his personal opinions.
[/me rises to give Bro. Gene a standing ovation.]
David Simpson
typed
>Interestingly, my religious upbringing did not emphasize an afterlife.
>Rather, one behaved as a decent human being, and followed the laws of (our)
>particular faith because G-d wanted you to. That was sufficient reason -
>and no need for promise of reward, or threat of punishment, entered into the
>concept. The concept of the immortality of the soul entered into my actual
>equations of life at a much later date, though long before my entry into the
>Craft. To that extent, I would agree with your argument, below:
>
>"David Simpson" <faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message >
>> Probably. This also means that the morality of the candidate is based
>> on fear of reprisal. It could be argued that the morality of an
>> Atheist, who is not afraid of divine retribution, is unforced and thus
>> is more likely to be honest. Remember that a confession or promise
>> made under duress is not considered to be valid.
>
>Except -
>
>A very important point of joining was that it be of ones on free will and
>accord. Because of this caveat, your argument loses a good deal of its
>impact.
I don't entirely agree obviously. You could say that the motivation to
join was of his own free will but that the keeping of his obligation
is coerced. The correct answer to the Trust question for an atheist
should obviously be "Myself."
>One could stretch this a bit further by considering that we would
>never have the (symbolic) penalties were it not found necessary to enhance
>the motivation for keeping the obligation of secrecy on certain points. If
>this was found to be necessary, then one could argue that their is a strong
>implication that an atheist is as viable candidate as a 'true believer', or
>conversely, a belief in a Supreme Being (of whatever nature) was found quite
>insufficient. Intellectually, at least, this opens up a wonderful can of
>worms.
>
>Steve Miller
You are correct. The can of worms has undoubtedly been discussed by
others but I have never visited this area before. As an atheist I will
admit I could have an ulterior motive for encouraging a change however
I doubt that the change will come any time soon. Certainly it won't
come soon enough to be of benefit to me.
I shall have to give the area more thought.
Jim Stewart
"Dave Vick" <rig...@tds.net> wrote in message
news:060520030733336002%rig...@tds.net...
There is a considerable difference between wicca and athiesm. I do not
personally see how an athiest could sit through one of our meetings without
feeling hypocritical. I would expect the brother, sadly, to leave.
To be without faith means that there is no future for those mortals who trod
the path toward the 'house". To be without faith is to be without hope. When
the bels ring and the women are wailing, there can be no peace in returning
the body to sand and eliminate the spirit. And charity, in the masonic
sense, requires faith and hope in order to be more than a casting off of
unneeded trifles of this life....
But wicca is another issue. The eternal spring sustains the witch. In the
darkest hours of yule, the witch revitalizes and rejuvinates the earth for
another cycle. The Lady is forever young, the consort is forever changing.
Good and evil are real things to the witch. Very real. and the choice to
kiss the bible has a far different significance to him than even to the
Christian or Jew. For the witch believes in magic. The magic that only the
hand of the creator can set into motion.
My lodge would not ask anything beyond belief in a supreme being. There are
several pagans in the lodge and several more who know a lot about paganism.
There are no athiests. There will be no athiests. There are no women. There
will be no women. There are no minors, although I wonder about some of the
DeMolay. As to old men in their dottage. Some of us are suspect....
Jim Stewart
Junior Deacon
DeKalb 144
GL Illinois
Don Wagner
> Do we discard brethren, tried with the
>test of time, and found good and true men, worthy of the exalted title of
>Brother, because they've changed their view of the universe?
We as brothers would not discard them, but they themselves might very
well take themselves out of the Craft. ...especially if they have an
understanding and a respect for what they have learned and experienced
within Masonry.
Think about it for a moment. As a progreesive philosophical science,
Masonry has a few basic qualifications that are internal to the
candidate or brother. The more internal the qualification, the more
important to building a solid foundation for our Temple.
If the foundation were removed, would the structure remain standing?
>We are supposed to study such themes as grammar, rhetoric, and logic, to
>better ourselves. We attempt to learn our ritual, which perhaps can fall
>under the heading of grammar.
More to the tune of rhetoric I feel, but I see your point.
> However, we fall rather short of embracing he study and application of the remaining two of the set As a result, many
>a brother falls victim to rhetoric for lack of understanding its wiles, and
>are swayed by emotion and dogma, which is rather easier than applying logic.
I believe you are taking a secondary definition to rhetoric as meaning
"dogma and bombast" rather then the study and presentation of
language.
We shoudl attempt to integrate the liberal arts and sciences into our
study. This can be as simple as applying common sense to our lives.
Brian Westley
..
>There is a considerable difference between wicca and athiesm. I do not
>personally see how an athiest could sit through one of our meetings without
>feeling hypocritical. I would expect the brother, sadly, to leave.
>To be without faith means that there is no future for those mortals who trod
>the path toward the 'house".
No, an atheist is only someone who doesn't believe in gods.
Atheists can believe in an afterlife or reincarnation,
though it isn't common. For that matter, there are theists
who believe that death is the end of person's existence, so
this isn't a distinguishing feature of atheism in any case.
>To be without faith is to be without hope.
Only if you define it that way, and you seem to be claiming that
all atheists are without hope. They're just without gods, and
seeing as most people disbelieve 9,999 out of 10,000 gods,
disbelieving that last one doesn't have the radical effect you
seem to think it has.
..
>My lodge would not ask anything beyond belief in a supreme being. There are
>several pagans in the lodge and several more who know a lot about paganism.
>There are no athiests. There will be no athiests. There are no women. There
>will be no women. There are no minors, although I wonder about some of the
>DeMolay. As to old men in their dottage. Some of us are suspect....
I always suspect people who define themselves by who they exclude
(people who miss the point can now bring up e.g. criminals).
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Balboos
Revisiting the definition was in order, which I did.
http://www.m-w.com/home.htm
In particular, your last point interests me:
> We should attempt to integrate the liberal arts and sciences into our
> study. This can be as simple as applying common sense to our lives.
For not only is it not actively emphasized in the Craft, but more
importantly in the great scheme of things, it is not well represented in the
general educational system.
Clarifying: yes - the kids learn to read, study some literature, and even
learn some math and science. And, in most case, the retention follows the
same scenario. The sciences are, for the most part, shunned in common
society (at least in the US)*. What I refer to as X-Files science is
readily accepted without question, and simile is used to 'prove' the most
absurd facts. So, if learned at all, they are first (and almost willingly)
forgotten. Nearly as quickly, mathematics disappears; the hand held
calculator encouraging this disaster. Illiteracy is oft brought into the
public eye by the media, by the far more extensive problem of innumeracy is
neglected (and worse, it claimed as a some sort of badge of belonging).
What's left? The stuff that "Jeopardy" is made of. Lists of facts. More
precisely, ball scores and celebrity marriages. Not the sort of stuff that
ooze forth inspiration and creativity.
After venting above, I actually do have a point. Not only should we,
ourselves, try to advance in such knowledge, but it would be an admirable
cause for us to foster within the public domain. More important, in my
opinion, than the anti-drug programs embraced by many Grand Jurisdictions!
Indeed, knowledgeable people will make more intelligent decision.
And all of this 'circling' about does come back to the 'point' of religion
(thought I forgot, didn't ya?). We would not now need discuss prejudices
induced by fictional tales (etc) as possibly causing problems in candidate
selection or balloting, if the liberal arts were pursued in all of their
aspects.
Steve Miller
South Shore 1126
*I've heard that, in India, and engineering student is held in higher esteem
then a medical student. Perhaps we've something to learn from them!
"Don Wagner" <dawa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3eb7cf02....@news.qwest.net...
JB
> The fraternity requires applicants to **have a belief in a Supreme
> Being**. HAVE a belief - not "submit the belief to the scrutiny of
> anyone who wants to pass judgement on it"!
>
> The candidate is asked if he has a belief in a Supreme Being. If he
> answers "Yes", he is qualified. NO MATTER WHAT THAT BELIEF MIGHT BE.
> If he answers "No", he is not qualified.
>
> NO applicant for membership should be required to justify, amplify,
> explain or even disclose his personal beliefs. The only question he
> should be asked about them should be answerable with a "Yes" or a
> "No". Anything more subjects him, and each one of us, to the
> bigotry-du-jure.
I can see both sides of this argument. On a strictly religious front any
Supreme Being is a Supreme Being but some others might not consider certain
religions to be morally compatible with Freemasonry.
Taking these things to their extreme, what would be your opinion of someone
who said "yes, I believe in a Supreme Being of the universe. That'd be me!
Any other questions you mere mortal?"?
Don Wagner
>In particular, your last point interests me:
Don Wrote...
>> We should attempt to integrate the liberal arts and sciences into our
>> study. This can be as simple as applying common sense to our lives.
>For not only is it not actively emphasized in the Craft, but more
>importantly in the great scheme of things, it is not well represented in the
>general educational system.
Nor does it have to be. ;-)
Here's my person take on the a subset of the issue. My opinion is
based on a number of historical situations and on how certain arts are
passed on from teacher/mentor to student/initiate.
As a progressive philosophical science, we are required to find our
own way at our own pace. We have certain guidelines to work within,
the best being our ritual followed closely by our by-laws, our
history, our in-house authors and then our elder brothers.
Emphasis on any one aspect of the Craft is not necessary in order for
the individual brother to progress. It is a solitary journey.
The officers, PMs and elder brothers can assist and guide a new
brother in regards to what has helped them. They can point him toward
modes and methods of study, practice and history. They can teach by
example (which is often one of the best means).
What they cannot do is produce a Mason. They can only help the man
build himself.
As such it is the responsibility of each of us to actively work on
study of the liberal arts and sciences as they relate to Masonic
teachings.
In ancient Athen a student would sit and listen to his teachers
lecture, observe the older sutdents ask questions and hear the senior
students debate their mentors. In this way a lesson was taught on the
particular subject (an art or science), proper grammar was encouraged
in order to accurately convey a thought, rhetoric was enforced in
order to produce empathy from the speaker to the intended audience.
The process produced learned students through a holistic approach, but
the path was dependant upon the students willingness to learn.
In later times we have a clear picture of the education of men such
the authors of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and other
architechs of the early USA. They had classical backgrounds in the
arts and sciences, at the end of their year of study many universities
would demand notebooks filled with what the student had learned. It
was expected that a student was reading and studying many sources of
knwledge outside of the lectures and lessons given to them by their
teachers. The responsibility of education was in the students hands,
not the institution of higher learning.
On a very personal note, I have been involved with and taught martial
arts for over 20 years. The process is the same with the physical
development in building a good fighter. I pass my experience and
skills to my students in the form of lessons, but the student is
responsible for the most important part...conditioning themselves and
applying the skills they have gained.
It is never, and shouldn't be, a rigid cirriculm.
> More important, in my
>opinion, than the anti-drug programs embraced by many Grand Jurisdictions!
>Indeed, knowledgeable people will make more intelligent decision.
Usually thats the case. We've all met educated and intelligent people
who I wouldn't trust to tie their own shoes.
;-)
>*I've heard that, in India, and engineering student is held in higher esteem
>then a medical student. Perhaps we've something to learn from them!
Having many friends from India, I can honestly say the the medical
profession is held in remarkably high regard.
Åke Eldberg
>>I am not questioning the statement that all the Hindu deities
>>are manifestations of the same deity. My question is whether
>>_that_ deity qualifies as "Supreme Creator".
Gene wrote:
>What business is it of anyone who is not Hindu?
If we mean anything with the requirement that candidates must
believe in a Supreme Creator, it is certainly important for us
to know what we mean by that.
>From a Masonic point of view, the requirement is part of our
heritage. Hence it is also relevant what the 18th century or
earlier Masons meant by it, those who invented the requirement.
If we are using it in a completely different sense than they
did, we have in fact abandoned that part of our tradition.
>The fraternity requires applicants to **have a belief in a Supreme
>Being**. HAVE a belief - not "submit the belief to the scrutiny of
>anyone who wants to pass judgement on it"!
Establishing what we mean by an expression does not constitute
passing judgements on anybody or anything. Or has "Supreme Being"
no meaning?
What if someone would say he believes in a Supreme Being and then
declare that this being is actually his dog. On further examination
we find that he does not ascribe to the dog any of the characteris-
tics normally associated with deities, except that it is a Being
which he considers as Supreme. He would then fill the requirement
literally, but not factually. If we approve, we are saying that
"Supreme Being" is a nonsense expression with no reference.
I'm not saying that the Supreme Being should be defined according
to the creed of any specific religion. But I do feel that it needs
some sort of definition.
Åke
Jim Bennie
<eld....@swipnet.se> wrote:
> What if someone would say he believes in a Supreme Being and then
> declare that this being is actually his dog.
And what if he says he believes he's his own mother, reincarnated
from a 1928 Porter? Can we find any more remote, hypothetical situation
to pontificate about?
In the real world, people sponsor their friends into a lodge. Surely
they should know, before even handing the guy an application, that he
fits the qualifications or "conforms to our rules" as the First Degree
Charge in my ritual puts it. Surely they explain to the prospective member
what it is that's espoused in the ritual to see if he accepts it and
understands it, something that can be done without asking questions
about specific denominations and sects, as I've done with two recent
petitioners to my lodge.
Jim Bennie
PM/DC, No. 44, Vancouver
Tom Accuosti
Balboos <balboos/**/@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
| *I've heard that, in India, and engineering student is held in higher
| esteem then a medical student. Perhaps we've something to learn from
| them!
Interestingly, I just switched doctors (GP) to a nice young man who
recently set up a practice in my town. In talking to him I discovered
that in India he was trained as an engineer (his father and grandfather
were engineers). When he came to the US, he met his wife, who was a
premed student. After hanging out with her and her friends for a while,
he switched careers. We had a nice chat about running big manufacturing
equipment (he worked on stuff much bigger than what we have in our
place). He seemed to feel that having the enginering background gave him
a different, but ultimately useful perspective on medicine.
"I'm waiting to see the doctor," said Tom patiently.
--
Tom Accuosti
Friendship #33 AF&AM
Southington, CT
http://www.megahits.com/friendship33
(Sign our Guestbook!)
Balboos
----- snippets from Original Message -----
From: "Åke Eldberg" <eld....@swipnet.se>
>
> What if someone would say he believes in a Supreme Being and then
> declare that this being is actually his dog. On further examination
> we find that he does not ascribe to the dog any of the characteris-
> tics normally associated with deities, except that it is a Being
> which he considers as Supreme. He would then fill the requirement
> literally, but not factually. If we approve, we are saying that
> "Supreme Being" is a nonsense expression with no reference.
>
> I'm not saying that the Supreme Being should be defined according
> to the creed of any specific religion. But I do feel that it needs
> some sort of definition.
Interesting how your example follows one I used when defending Paganism as
an acceptable religion for Masonry, except I used a Ferret, and created an
example of an afterlife dogma (wishing to be reincarnated as the supreme
one's mate). My point, then, was to create a scenario that fit all the
proscribed requirements, yet seem absolutely absurd to the reader, as did
you. My point here, however, is that your point about claiming a dog to be
the supreme deity can be argued both ways. Ultimately, the thread we had
was halted by the moderator. Why? I pointed out that a very well accepted
religious persuasion, at least in the Americas and Europe, could be
described quite easily in equally preposterous terms.
To a great extent, the various major religious camps classify and accuse one
another as idolaters, heathens, and guilty of deicide. Even within a given
subgroup, it would seem that "hate spawns eternal" - a most regrettable
phrase I may have just coined.
You must, somehow, clear your analysis of propaganda and dogma that have
been spoon fed to you (and all the rest of us, too), throughout our lives.
Ultimately, if you take to strict a view of just what beliefs qualify as the
suitable for entry into the Craft, you'll have no one left as suitable
candidates.
We do not, and should not, take the place of a church (etc) in deciding
who's beliefs are fit. We must set a better example; one of tolerance for
those who's faith and culture differ markedly from our own. The point,
after all, is to find men, good and true, who will respect the sanctity of
their obligations - is it not? Virtually any conscious and deliberate
'first cause' for all existence would seem to be quite an adequate
definition. And even, in this, I'm using notions preconceived by a lifetime
of exposure to standard acceptable beliefs.
Steve Miller
South Shore 1126
GLoNY
vstlmoox
"Gene Goldman" <br_...@pacbell.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:mt2.0-10031...@chiok.hn.org...
<brevity snip>
> The candidate is asked if he has a belief in a Supreme Being. If he
> answers "Yes", he is qualified. NO MATTER WHAT THAT BELIEF MIGHT BE.
> If he answers "No", he is not qualified.
Very simple actually. In my Jurisdiction, it is no different, than what Bro.
Gene has stated above.
>
> NO applicant for membership should be required to justify, amplify,
> explain or even disclose his personal beliefs. The only question he
> should be asked about them should be answerable with a "Yes" or a
> "No". Anything more subjects him, and each one of us, to the
> bigotry-du-jure.
Agreed!
<brevity snip>
> Please, Brethren, ask the applicant if he believes in a Supreme Being.
> If he answers in the affirmative, get on with whatever you are doing
> and mind your own business about his personal opinions.
.harmony, being the support of all institutions... [polishing my Trowel
..reaching for my green tea]
--
Fraternally,
Bro. Geoffrey Howard
Senior Warden
King Solomon Lodge #62 F&AM PHA
MW Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Washington and it's Jurisdiction - District 9
Hanau, Germany
http://www.mwphglwa.org/
http://ksl62_mwphglwa_d9.tripod.com/
Tom Accuosti
Jim Bennie <jgbe...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
| In <3EB813C9...@swipnet.se>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C5ke?= Eldberg
| <eld....@swipnet.se> wrote:
|| What if someone would say he believes in a Supreme Being and then
|| declare that this being is actually his dog.
|
| And what if he says he believes he's his own mother, reincarnated
| from a 1928 Porter? Can we find any more remote, hypothetical
| situation to pontificate about?
|
| In the real world, people sponsor their friends into a lodge. Surely
| they should know, before even handing the guy an application, that he
| fits the qualifications or "conforms to our rules" as the First Degree
| Charge in my ritual puts it.
Oh Jim, you're such a spoilsport!
Besides, wondering about the hypothetical situations gives us a chance
to test the limits of our beleif systems, and to (sometimes) give us a
better understanding of why we have the rules and regulations that we
do.
To borrow a line from Gene Goldman:
Can you imagine a world without hypothetical situations?
"We steal things together," Tom corroborated.
JB
"Jim Bennie" <jgbe...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:2003050709...@vcn.bc.ca...
In actual fact I agree with what you say. Without a doubt you should know
your own candidate enough to not have to worry. But...I for one do not mix
my religion with my friends (except obviously friends from church!). Could
you think of no situation where you could learn about someone's religion
that would disturb you?
As for hypothetical pontfications; isn't that what newsgroups are all about
;-)
Alex Lewalle
> from a 1928 Porter? Can we find any more remote, hypothetical situation
> to pontificate about?
Jim,
I think the issue is that different people may have sufficiently
different conceptions as to what is their "supreme being" to make one
wonder what the belief requirement really means. Einstein had a
conception of god. So does the pope. So does Bin Laden. Yet, what do
they have in common?
Regards,
-Alex.
Hiram, Grand Orient of France, London, UK.
Jim Bennie
Aint I, though!
> Besides, wondering about the hypothetical situations gives us a chance
> to test the limits of our beleif systems, and to (sometimes) give us a
> better understanding of why we have the rules and regulations that we
> do.
I don't mean to seem like I'm dumping on Bro. Eldberg, who always has
something of interest to say here, but it seems to me little of value
is accomplished in a discussion unless we're grounded in reality.
Questions dealing with unfamiliar religious beliefs viz a viz our limited
religious requirements are good fruit for discussion - because that's a
situation liable to happen in a lodge and people should have an idea what
to do before it comes up. But let's be real. Do we have so much spare
time as workmen that we can spend it discussing whether a cup of tea
can be God?
(note.. the above question does not represent newsgroup policy and is
not said in my capacity with this newsgroup)
In my personal talks with several prospective petitioners to the lodge
who I don't know, we've had very some lovely philosophical discussions
with respect to religion. Nothing that I would expect should ever come
up in a lodge meeting. But I explain *why* we have a particular
requirement and whether that's a problem. I explain what Freemasonry
*isn't* (a religion, or a group pushing a specific set of religious
beliefs). They'll say it's not a problem, and then *they* explain why.
Not that the "why" is my business or the lodge's business. In fact,
one told me he was relieved to hear we do not discuss religion in lodge.
The friends of mine who join the lodge have generally all come from
DeMolay, so any religious test is not a problem. They've all gone
through the same thing before.
> To borrow a line from Gene Goldman:
> Can you imagine a world without hypothetical situations?
That's in another newsgroup. It's a free-for-all there.
Åke Eldberg
> To a great extent, the various major religious camps classify and accuse one
> another as idolaters, heathens, and guilty of deicide. Even within a given
> subgroup, it would seem that "hate spawns eternal" - a most regrettable
> phrase I may have just coined.
Hate and intolerance certainly exist both between religions and other idea
systems. Freemasonry can hopefully help to reduce the level. Still, we have
the demand for belief in a Supreme Being. Is that not an act of intolerance
or condemnation against agnostics and atheists? If we exclude ANYONE because
of what he believes or does not believe, it means that we have taken up a
position where certain beliefs are not acceptable in the Fraternity.
> You must, somehow, clear your analysis of propaganda and dogma that have
> been spoon fed to you (and all the rest of us, too), throughout our lives.
> Ultimately, if you take to strict a view of just what beliefs qualify as the
> suitable for entry into the Craft, you'll have no one left as suitable
> candidates.
I don't think there is any dogma in what I've written here. For historical
reasons, I doubt whether pantheism is included in what the founders of
Freemasonry had in mind when they wrote "supreme being". Given the knowledge
we have about religious ideas in the West during the 17th and 18th centuries,
with classical Christianity and Enlightenment and Deist ideas, it seems
unlikely. I'm not condemning anything or asking for a stop to admitting
hindus or neo-pagans, I'm merely saying that the ancient Freemasons may
have had a different view of these matters than modern USAmerican lodges.
Åke
MM
Gene Goldman
wrote:
>I can see both sides of this argument. On a strictly religious front any
>Supreme Being is a Supreme Being but some others might not consider certain
>religions to be morally compatible with Freemasonry.
If someone believes that, they should not join. However, that does
NOT give them the right to dictate what *others* think.
Being a Mason does NOT give one the right to judge someone else's
morality, nor does it entitle one to pass judgement on the morality of
a religious belief. Anyone may, of course, decide - for himself - if
a particular belief is right for themselves, but their right ends
there.
>Taking these things to their extreme, what would be your opinion of someone
>who said "yes, I believe in a Supreme Being of the universe. That'd be me!
>Any other questions you mere mortal?"?
I woul;d say that he answered the question satisfactorily. The
question would be "Do you believe in a Supreme Being?" ANY
superfluous information he might have provided, unasked, is none of
anyone's business.
--
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.
Brother Gene .*.
Reprobate
Swine
And all round swell guy
H.M.S.H.
Q.P.H.D.
http://www.calodges.org/no442
http://www.blackmountainlodge.net
http://www.freemason.org
MBBFMN #387
ICQ #503060
Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved.
Any Mason may use the contents for any valid Masonic purpose, permission may be granted to others upon request.
Gene Goldman
>I wrote:
>
>>>I am not questioning the statement that all the Hindu deities
>>>are manifestations of the same deity. My question is whether
>>>_that_ deity qualifies as "Supreme Creator".
>
>Gene wrote:
>
>>What business is it of anyone who is not Hindu?
>
>If we mean anything with the requirement that candidates must
>believe in a Supreme Creator, it is certainly important for us
>to know what we mean by that.
And what we mean by that is that we ask the applicant if he believes
in a Supreme Being. If he answers in the affirmative, he qualifies.
If he answers in the negative, he does not qualify.
ANYTHING beyond that is NONE of our business, and any attempt to judge
anything beyond that is definitive bigotry.
>>From a Masonic point of view, the requirement is part of our
>heritage. Hence it is also relevant what the 18th century or
>earlier Masons meant by it, those who invented the requirement.
Agreed. Since the 1700's anyway, we have required an affirmative
answer to the question. But outside the Scandinavian jurisdictions,
we have no right to ask the applicant to specify, explain or justify
his beliefs.
We ask him a simple question, he answers in the affirmative or the
negative as HE believes to be the case, and anyone who is not willing
to take him at his word is (IMHBCO) unfit to wear an apron.
>If we are using it in a completely different sense than they
>did, we have in fact abandoned that part of our tradition.
We have no right to ask him what "sense" he is using anything. His
beliefs are his own, and none of our business, any more than his
political beliefs are.
>>The fraternity requires applicants to **have a belief in a Supreme
>>Being**. HAVE a belief - not "submit the belief to the scrutiny of
>>anyone who wants to pass judgement on it"!
>
>Establishing what we mean by an expression does not constitute
>passing judgements on anybody or anything. Or has "Supreme Being"
>no meaning?
"Supreme Being" certainly has a meaning. NO ONE has a right to
dictate to me what meaning I, or ANYONE ELSE choose to accept.
The fraternity, in particular, has no right to require, or even ask,
anyone to specify, explain or justify his beliefs.
>What if someone would say he believes in a Supreme Being and then
>declare that this being is actually his dog. On further examination
>we find that he does not ascribe to the dog any of the characteris-
>tics normally associated with deities, except that it is a Being
>which he considers as Supreme. He would then fill the requirement
>literally, but not factually.
If he answers the question in the affirmative, he fulfills the
requirement. Actually, literally, legally, factually and any other
way you want.
The requirement is that he affirms that he HAS a belief in a Supreme
Being. NOT that someone else approves of that belief!
In short, the details of his belief are NONE of your business!
>If we approve, we are saying that
>"Supreme Being" is a nonsense expression with no reference.
No, we are saying that he affirmed a belief in a Supreme Being.
You may infer whatever you like from that, but THAT is what we are
saying.
>I'm not saying that the Supreme Being should be defined according
>to the creed of any specific religion. But I do feel that it needs
>some sort of definition.
NO! The details of an applicant's beliefs are none of your business.
His beliefs are NOT subject to your approval, scrutiny or even your
curiosity.
Mind your own business. Attend to your own beliefs. Live according
to the teachings of your own religion.
And encourage others to do the same.
An applicant's beliefs are none of anyone else's business. That goes
for his religious beliefs, his food preferences (although an argument
could be made for fish tacos), his religious convictions, his economic
beliefs or any others. It is not our place to judge them.
JB
> If someone believes that, they should not join. However, that does
> NOT give them the right to dictate what *others* think.
>
> Being a Mason does NOT give one the right to judge someone else's
> morality, nor does it entitle one to pass judgement on the morality of
> a religious belief. Anyone may, of course, decide - for himself - if
> a particular belief is right for themselves, but their right ends
> there.
>
> >Taking these things to their extreme, what would be your opinion of
someone
> >who said "yes, I believe in a Supreme Being of the universe. That'd be
me!
> >Any other questions you mere mortal?"?
>
> I woul;d say that he answered the question satisfactorily. The
> question would be "Do you believe in a Supreme Being?" ANY
> superfluous information he might have provided, unasked, is none of
> anyone's business.
I think I'm getting to the "must agree to differ" feeling here.
As Jim Bennie said, in the real world candidates are sponsored by people we
know and trust and therefore no further questioning is needed and doesn't
really happen.
But I have to disagree about individual brothers right to object, either
publicly or through the ballot, to a person based on their religion.
There's been a lot of talk about Pagans and Wickens which frankly is beyond
me. I don't know anything about these things. But if I discovered that
somebody's religion meant that they were involved in human sacrifices or
ritual beating of their wives at altars or other completely OTT stuff then I
would say I did have a right to object to them on moral grounds based on
their religion. These are wild examples but there are less wild examples.
Cultures and religions sometimes treat animals with extreme cruelty and I
would have no problem with vetoing a partaker in these practices into my
lodge. Would you not, under any circumstances?
Gene Goldman
>I don't think there is any dogma in what I've written here.
I don't think Elvis is dead.
> For historical
>reasons, I doubt whether pantheism is included in what the founders of
>Freemasonry had in mind when they wrote "supreme being".
Probably not. Certainly neither was Judaism!
>Given the knowledge
>we have about religious ideas in the West during the 17th and 18th centuries,
>with classical Christianity and Enlightenment and Deist ideas, it seems
>unlikely. I'm not condemning anything or asking for a stop to admitting
>hindus or neo-pagans, I'm merely saying that the ancient Freemasons may
>have had a different view of these matters than modern USAmerican lodges.
They most certainly did. Jews, Muslims and even many Christians were
not welcome in "polite society", only because others decided to take
it upon themselves to decide that we were "not what they had in mind"
for co-workers, customers, neighbors, or fellow members of most
organizations.
There is an organization called "Jewish War Veterans" that exists
because of the widespread reluctance of many VFW Posts to admit Jews
as members.
The ONLY question we should be asking an applicant about his beliefs
is if they include a Supreme Being. ANYTHING more than that is (as I
read our rules, regulations, procedures and concepts) just wrong!
Please, Brethren, do not allow bigotry into Masonry by passing
judgement on the beliefs of an applicant.
Gene Goldman
Lewalle) wrote:
>Jim Bennie <jgbe...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message news:<2003050709...@vcn.bc.ca>...
>> And what if he says he believes he's his own mother, reincarnated
>> from a 1928 Porter? Can we find any more remote, hypothetical situation
>> to pontificate about?
>
>Jim,
>I think the issue is that different people may have sufficiently
>different conceptions as to what is their "supreme being"
EXACTLY why the subject is unfit to be discussed in a Masonic setting!
"Masonic settings" would include interviewing an applicant, as well as
sitting in Lodge.
Do not put yourself in the position of passing judgement on someone
else's religious (or political) beliefs - ESPECIALLY as a Mason!
Dave Vick
<br_...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> An applicant's beliefs are none of anyone else's business. That goes
> for his religious beliefs, his food preferences (although an argument
> could be made for fish tacos)
...And haggis.
--
Fraternally,
Dave Vick, SD
Lansing [Michigan, USA] Lodge #33, F&AM
(...and a lot of other stuff)
Larry Bernard
> Please, Brethren, do not allow bigotry into Masonry by passing
> judgement on the beliefs of an applicant.
So long as the religon ( at least by florida's standards so i have been told
them) does not deny an existance of a supreme being, and doesn't belive in
Immortality of the soul... then there is little legitimate issue
As for Wicca, And other aspects of Neo-Paganism, their religon does
technically have a supreme being ( as the people who created their theology
were Master Masons i suppose thats not a surprise)
Gene Goldman
wrote:
>> I woul;d say that he answered the question satisfactorily. The
>> question would be "Do you believe in a Supreme Being?" ANY
>> superfluous information he might have provided, unasked, is none of
>> anyone's business.
>
>I think I'm getting to the "must agree to differ" feeling here.
>
>As Jim Bennie said, in the real world candidates are sponsored by people we
>know and trust and therefore no further questioning is needed and doesn't
>really happen.
>
>But I have to disagree about individual brothers right to object, either
>publicly or through the ballot, to a person based on their religion.
>There's been a lot of talk about Pagans and Wickens which frankly is beyond
>me. I don't know anything about these things. But if I discovered that
>somebody's religion meant that they were involved in human sacrifices or
>ritual beating of their wives at altars or other completely OTT stuff then I
>would say I did have a right to object to them on moral grounds based on
>their religion. These are wild examples but there are less wild examples.
>Cultures and religions sometimes treat animals with extreme cruelty and I
>would have no problem with vetoing a partaker in these practices into my
>lodge. Would you not, under any circumstances?
>
I could not in good conscience object to an applicant on account of my
opinion of his beliefs. His beliefs are none of my business, and I
have no right even to inquire into what they are, beyond asking him if
he *has* a belief in a Supreme Being.
Someone's **actions**, however, are another matter entirely.
Actions may be judged by society as moral or immoral. Beliefs may
not.
No, I would not - under any circumstances - reject an applicant on
account of my opinion of his beliefs.
Doing so would not be Masonic. In fact, it would violate every
concept of Masonry that we teach.
I have seen the horrors that result from exactly that sort of bigotry.
Jack Wise
> Someone's **actions**, however, are another matter entirely.
> Actions may be judged by society as moral or immoral. Beliefs may
> not.
>
> No, I would not - under any circumstances - reject an applicant on
> account of my opinion of his beliefs.
> Doing so would not be Masonic. In fact, it would violate every
> concept of Masonry that we teach.
> I have seen the horrors that result from exactly that sort of bigotry.
>
Brother Gene:
By what standards would you judge him?
By HIS standards, he may be acting in a perfectly normal/acceptable/required
manner.
For Example: In the history of some religious groups, their diety instructs
them to kill all of the inhabitants of a region. Other religious groups would
find such actions abhorant and call it a holocaust.
What standard applies here?
--
Jack Wise
PM, Jacques DeMolay Lodge No. 1390, AF & AM
Houston, TX
Åke Eldberg
>And what we mean by that is that we ask the applicant if he believes
>in a Supreme Being. If he answers in the affirmative, he qualifies.
>If he answers in the negative, he does not qualify.
>
>ANYTHING beyond that is NONE of our business, and any attempt to judge
>anything beyond that is definitive bigotry.
Are you saying that it is bigotry to establish what "supreme being"
means, even in the broadest possible terms? If so, I guess people
who write dictionaries must be terrible bigots. :-)
The meaning of words may seem to be a matter of common sense, but
in our post-modern culture it isn't always so. Words change, e.g.
"queer" used to mean "peculiar" but nowadays means "homosexual".
I've met people who consider it an act of oppression when someone
tries to correct their spelling or choice of words; "Who appointed
you language police?" Individualism and subjectivism combine to
make people forget that language is a system of communication
which requires that words have some sort of meaning that we all
agree on. When "bad" suddenly means "good", many get confused.
Words with a high "value" potential are especially susceptible to
individual definitions and even programmatic attempts to change
their meaning, or borrow positive connotations. In the 18th century
there were sex clubs, political conspiracies and drinking dens who
all called themselves "Masonic lodges".
Freemasonry established landmarks to distance itself from groups who
claimed to be Masons but were not. The fact that there are no land-
marks for the meaning of "supreme being" is probably because there
was, at that time, a general consensus of what was meant by it.
Today, that consensus is probably a lot weaker.
Åke
MM
Alex Lewalle
>
> EXACTLY why the subject is unfit to be discussed in a Masonic setting!
No. ... exactly why everybody's beliefs should be respected. I think
it is different to fully grasp the meaning of tolerance if subjects
such as this are *not* discussed.
> "Masonic settings" would include interviewing an applicant, as well as
> sitting in Lodge.
> Do not put yourself in the position of passing judgement on someone
> else's religious (or political) beliefs - ESPECIALLY as a Mason!
The Grand Orient of France, amongst many others, does interview
candidates, but the aim is NOT to assess their religious or political
beliefs, which would indeed be unmasonic. (The diversity of members of
my own lodge is sufficient evidence for this!) However, we cannot
accept a candidate who is intolerant of others who may differ. It's
not someone's beliefs we judge, it's his attitude.
Åke Eldberg
>>I don't think there is any dogma in what I've written here.
Gene banters:
>I don't think Elvis is dead.
Bro Gene: There were two parts in the posting you are
commenting on here. I find it interesting that you choose
to completely ignore the first part, since it was directly
relevant to what you have written previously. I repeat my
conclusion:
If we exclude ANYONE because of what he believes or does not
believe, it means that we have taken up a position where certain
beliefs are not acceptable in the Fraternity.
To clarify: It would seem to me that the logical conclusion
of your position (and Steve's) is that we should abolish the
requirement for belief in a deity -- because there is no
inherent difference between that and other forms of "passing
judgement" on people's beliefs.
Åke
MM
Balboos
> But I have to disagree about individual brothers right to object, either
> publicly or through the ballot, to a person based on their religion.
> There's been a lot of talk about Pagans and Wickens which frankly is
beyond
> me. I don't know anything about these things. But if I discovered that
> somebody's religion meant that they were involved in human sacrifices or
> ritual beating of their wives at altars or other completely OTT stuff then
I
> would say I did have a right to object to them on moral grounds based on
> their religion. These are wild examples but there are less wild examples.
> Cultures and religions sometimes treat animals with extreme cruelty and I
> would have no problem with vetoing a partaker in these practices into my
> lodge. Would you not, under any circumstances?
Two thing stand out in this segment that trouble me, and at least one of
them should be troubling to the majority of readers.
When you attribute to "Pagans and Wickens" the concept of human sacrifice,
you are moving exactly in the direction which I mentioned in a much earlier
post, the Hollywood view of these groups as the source of evil. But, the
very very troubling part is that similar belief could (and have) affected
the lives of millions of innocent people for perhaps a millennium or two.
Sounds to me EXACTLY like the idea that Jews use the blood of Christian (or
recently, Muslim) babies to bake Matzoh. This sort of vile filth has not
only kept people out of organization, but cost more than a few their very
lives! Your connecting this behavior as a suspicion for Pagans/Wickens
falls well into this type of theme. You should allow time for some
introspection as to why you'd attribute this to these groups, and not, more
than likely, to a member of some new Christian spin-off religion. Honestly,
would you have such suspicions of a group that identified itself as a branch
of Christianity? We're all fed a diet of various ideological poisons during
our lifetime. Beware. Please!
By the same token, on a personal level which will garner less agreement or
support, I don't see a difference between your suggested torturing animals
for religious purposes and slaughtering them, literally by the billions, to
make your meals. This is a personal feeling, but would you think it proper
for me to black-ball any non-vegetarian that attempts to join my lodge
(WM:.K - Don't sweat it!). [I don't even hold certain worshiper's of the
fish-taco to blame for their misguided views]
We've all been steeped in bigotry, in some form or another, throughout our
lives. To an extent, its part of our survival instinct: Us vs. Them. But
we, as MM's, should already be of a mind that these things are wrong, and
make an even greater effort to understand and rid ourselves of these foul
residues.
David Simpson
>Balboos <balboos/**/@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Do we discard brethren, tried with the
>>test of time, and found good and true men, worthy of the exalted title of
>>Brother, because they've changed their view of the universe?
>
>We as brothers would not discard them, but they themselves might very
>well take themselves out of the Craft. ...especially if they have an
>understanding and a respect for what they have learned and experienced
>within Masonry.
>
I was not discarded nor did I remove myself from the craft for that
reason. It is, however, why I am still an unattached MM.
>Think about it for a moment. As a progreesive philosophical science,
>Masonry has a few basic qualifications that are internal to the
>candidate or brother. The more internal the qualification, the more
>important to building a solid foundation for our Temple.
>
>If the foundation were removed, would the structure remain standing?
>
It would depend largely on the quality of the foundation. Religion is
not, or should not be, discussed in lodge. Therefore belief is not
particularly germane to the foundations built by the ceremonies.
Removal of that belief does not imply that the structure should come
crashing down. I would point, in part, to myself. I do not have the
belief, but I do have the conviction that Freemasonry is a force for
good in this world and I have not become an anti-mason as your point
would imply.
>>We are supposed to study such themes as grammar, rhetoric, and logic, to
>>better ourselves. We attempt to learn our ritual, which perhaps can fall
>>under the heading of grammar.
>
>More to the tune of rhetoric I feel, but I see your point.
>
>> However, we fall rather short of embracing he study and application of the remaining two of the set As a result, many
>>a brother falls victim to rhetoric for lack of understanding its wiles, and
>>are swayed by emotion and dogma, which is rather easier than applying logic.
>
>I believe you are taking a secondary definition to rhetoric as meaning
>"dogma and bombast" rather then the study and presentation of
>language.
>
>We shoudl attempt to integrate the liberal arts and sciences into our
>study. This can be as simple as applying common sense to our lives.
Which is certainly not common making the term an oxymoron in my
opinion.
Removal of Belief from my world has meant that logic and rhetoric take
on a much greater import. I have had to re-evaluate my stance on many
matters and have not always come up smelling of roses. This has led to
some changes in my ideologies and practices.
--
Regards
David Simpson (Remove "farook" to reply)
(Unattached MM)
Bad manners should not be a capital crime ...
for a first offence.
Robert Heinlein, "Time Enough For Love"
Jim Bennie
<flaxton_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> But I have to disagree about individual brothers right to object, either
> publicly or through the ballot, to a person based on their religion.
I've given a great deal of thought, JB, because of a real-life
situation which came up.
I won't discuss the actual situation, but suppose someone rejected
a candidate *solely* because he was Catholic. Or Jewish. In other
words, because of a bias against the petitioner's religion.
I frankly don't think such abuse of the ballot would be very Masonic
and would be hard-pressed to tolerate members who behaved in such a
bigoted way.
> Cultures and religions sometimes treat animals with extreme cruelty
Indeed, part of the Western culture is to raise animals solely to kill
them. There are multi-billion dollar businesses which do nothing but.
But I wouldn't reject a person because he works at McWhatever's. I would
ballot solely on the individual's worth.
David Simpson
>I wrote:
>
>>>I am not questioning the statement that all the Hindu deities
>>>are manifestations of the same deity. My question is whether
>>>_that_ deity qualifies as "Supreme Creator".
>
>Gene wrote:
>
>>What business is it of anyone who is not Hindu?
>
>If we mean anything with the requirement that candidates must
>believe in a Supreme Creator, it is certainly important for us
>to know what we mean by that.
>
>>From a Masonic point of view, the requirement is part of our
>heritage. Hence it is also relevant what the 18th century or
>earlier Masons meant by it, those who invented the requirement.
>If we are using it in a completely different sense than they
>did, we have in fact abandoned that part of our tradition.
>
>
>>The fraternity requires applicants to **have a belief in a Supreme
>>Being**. HAVE a belief - not "submit the belief to the scrutiny of
>>anyone who wants to pass judgement on it"!
>
>Establishing what we mean by an expression does not constitute
>passing judgements on anybody or anything. Or has "Supreme Being"
>no meaning?
>
It has a meaning to the person who believes in it. That is all that is
required for admission to a lodge.
>What if someone would say he believes in a Supreme Being and then
>declare that this being is actually his dog. On further examination
>we find that he does not ascribe to the dog any of the characteris-
>tics normally associated with deities, except that it is a Being
>which he considers as Supreme. He would then fill the requirement
>literally, but not factually. If we approve, we are saying that
>"Supreme Being" is a nonsense expression with no reference.
>
Not at all. If that is his belief then who are we to question it? I
suppose under those criteria I could re-qualify myself for admission
to a lodge. The question is not a question for the other members of
the lodge however. It is for the candidate to decide whether his
belief is a belief in a Supreme Being or not. Who or what that Supreme
Being is, or how that Supreme Being is defined is up to the individual
making the declaration.
>I'm not saying that the Supreme Being should be defined according
>to the creed of any specific religion. But I do feel that it needs
>some sort of definition.
>
If you question his belief in any manner then you are making a value
judgement according to your ideas of who or what is a Supreme Being.
In my opinion this should be avoided just as much as someone who
exclaims, just before the vote, "Oh! By the way he is black." loudly
enough for everyone to hear.
Don Wagner
>By what standards would you judge him?
By Masonic standards, obviously.
>By HIS standards, he may be acting in a perfectly normal/acceptable/required
>manner.
And if those actions are not overtly against Masonic values its no
ones business but his. If he is deceiving others or himself, it will
come out in time.
>For Example: In the history of some religious groups, their diety instructs
>them to kill all of the inhabitants of a region. Other religious groups would
>find such actions abhorant and call it a holocaust.
Such as the "Thug" sect in India prior to 1830? Well, many a British
gentleman in the East India Company and in the British armed services
was a Mason and seemed to have no trouble differentiating moral dogma
and murder. They hanged over 400 Thugs in 1830 and effectively ended
the barbaric practice of "holy" stranglulation.
I'd add that quaint custom of Sati to the short list as well.
>What standard applies here?
The standard of common sense, for the most part.
We know what the qualifications are to become a Mason. We can read
our by-laws. What we need to do is to learn to apply them properly.
--Don--
Let me show you how the guards used to do it...
JB
> No, I would not - under any circumstances - reject an applicant on
> account of my opinion of his beliefs.
> Doing so would not be Masonic. In fact, it would violate every
> concept of Masonry that we teach.
> I have seen the horrors that result from exactly that sort of bigotry.
>
> --
> |O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.
>
> Brother Gene .*.
>
Fair enough, We will just have to disagree.
I don't think it is unmasonic to reject an applicant, or speak ill of any
other person in society, if their beliefs are harmful to people, cruel to
animals or destructive to society to name but a few reasons. Indeed I think
it would be unmasonic to remain quiet. "The only thing needed for evil to
prosper is for good men to do nothing." to quote someone (Edmund Burke?)
Jack Wise
>
> Jack Wise <jw...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
> >By what standards would you judge him?
>
> By Masonic standards, obviously.
>
> >By HIS standards, he may be acting in a perfectly normal/acceptable/required
> >manner.
>
> And if those actions are not overtly against Masonic values its no
> ones business but his. If he is deceiving others or himself, it will
> come out in time.
Ah, but how are "Masonic Standards" established in conjunction with the
acceptability of a candidates actions (especially when those actions are
dictated by the tenets of his religious beliefs)?
>
> >For Example: In the history of some religious groups, their diety instructs
> >them to kill all of the inhabitants of a region. Other religious groups would
> >find such actions abhorant and call it a holocaust.
>
> Such as the "Thug" sect in India prior to 1830? Well, many a British
> gentleman in the East India Company and in the British armed services
> was a Mason and seemed to have no trouble differentiating moral dogma
> and murder. They hanged over 400 Thugs in 1830 and effectively ended
> the barbaric practice of "holy" stranglulation.
>
> I'd add that quaint custom of Sati to the short list as well.
>
> >What standard applies here?
>
> The standard of common sense, for the most part.
We agree here. My questions are for the sake of discussion, and to clarify the
thinking process of the participants in this discussion. There are certain
"standards" which I personally believe are "absolute and unvarying", many
"standards" are in fact based on situational ethics. Just as no individual or
even Grand Lodge speaks for Freemasonry as a whole, establishing "Masonic
Values" or "Masonic Standards" is probably impossible to achieve as what you or
your Grand Lodge would consider abhorrant, I and my Grand Lodge might consider a
tolerable if not acceptable practice.
>
> We know what the qualifications are to become a Mason. We can read
> our by-laws. What we need to do is to learn to apply them properly.
> --Don--
> Let me show you how the guards used to do it...
Don Wagner
>On 6 May 2003 18:40:13 GMT, dawa...@ix.netcom.com (Don Wagner) typed
>>We as brothers would not discard them, but they themselves might very
>>well take themselves out of the Craft. ...especially if they have an
>>understanding and a respect for what they have learned and experienced
>>within Masonry.
>I was not discarded nor did I remove myself from the craft for that
>reason. It is, however, why I am still an unattached MM.
Excellent case in point, David. Your inherent understanding of the
situation has caused you to reflect on the morality of committing to
an ideal that you do not hold (for one reason or another).
>It would depend largely on the quality of the foundation. Religion is
>not, or should not be, discussed in lodge. Therefore belief is not
>particularly germane to the foundations built by the ceremonies.
I disagree. Personal belief is definitely built into every degree and
into the ritual. The entrance into the lodge is made "in fear of the
lord", the first blessing is made for the benefit of the candidate,
the significance of the letter G, each oath or obligation, etc.
The exact nature of the belief is personal but the existance of belief
is required.
>Removal of that belief does not imply that the structure should come
>crashing down. I would point, in part, to myself. I do not have the
>belief, but I do have the conviction that Freemasonry is a force for
>good in this world and I have not become an anti-mason as your point
>would imply.
You misunderstand my point. Lack of belief doesn't make one an
"anti-mason" (a term I have never used, btw). What it does do is go
against Masonic qualification for becoming a Mason.
A person can certainly respect and follow Masonic beliefs and morality
without ever becoming a brother. But, can a brother remain a brother
without one of the basic tenents of Masonry? If you begin to alter
the meaning to the qualification (in either extreme) you lose the
foundation of the belief.
>Removal of Belief from my world has meant that logic and rhetoric take
>on a much greater import. I have had to re-evaluate my stance on many
>matters and have not always come up smelling of roses. This has led to
>some changes in my ideologies and practices.
I come from a scientific background and education. I've spent many
long years in some of the best engineering universities in the country
and can honestly say that the difference between intense logic and
intense faith is negligible.
Apply logic to the present problem with these facts:
1. Masonic by-laws and morality require a candidate to have a belief
in a supreme being
2. The ritual and degrees of initiation reinforce and expand upon
this belief
3. The opening and closing of each meeting call upon the blessing of
the surpeme being
Question 1: Can a man become a Mason with a belief in a supreme
being? If so, how and why?
Question 2: Can a brother remain a Mason without a belief in a
supreme being? If so, how and why?
Don Wagner
>Ah, but how are "Masonic Standards" established in conjunction with the
>acceptability of a candidates actions (especially when those actions are
>dictated by the tenets of his religious beliefs)?
Masonic standards are already established in your by-laws. All you
have to do is understand them and apply them to the candidate. Since
an investigation committee is the second contact after the recommender
and since the committee is made up of more then one MM, applying the
by-laws to the candidate is not an arbitrary process.
> I and my Grand Lodge might consider a tolerable if not acceptable practice.
I'd need a realistic example of such a practice that has occurred in
recent history. It is my opinion that Masonry is becoming more
universal by eliminating intolerance, but a few criteria must be
maintained in order to remain "Masonic".
Gene Goldman
wrote:
>
>
>> No, I would not - under any circumstances - reject an applicant on
>> account of my opinion of his beliefs.
>> Doing so would not be Masonic. In fact, it would violate every
>> concept of Masonry that we teach.
>> I have seen the horrors that result from exactly that sort of bigotry.
>>
>> --
>> |O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.
>>
>> Brother Gene .*.
>>
>
>Fair enough, We will just have to disagree.
>
>I don't think it is unmasonic to reject an applicant, or speak ill of any
>other person in society, if their beliefs are harmful to people, cruel to
>animals or destructive to society to name but a few reasons.
How can *beliefs* be harmful? Unless you happen to believe in voodoo,
that is.
**Beliefs** cannot be harmful - to animals, people, society or anyone
else.
Rejecting someone, or speaking ill of them, on the basis of your
opinion of their *beliefs* is decidedly UNMasonic. Judge them on the
basis of their *actions* - fine and dandy. But not on their
*beliefs*. That is bigotry, by definition.
>Indeed I think
>it would be unmasonic to remain quiet. "The only thing needed for evil to
>prosper is for good men to do nothing." to quote someone (Edmund Burke?)
I agree with the quote. Evil *acts* must be addressed, if they cannot
be prevented. However, even the most hateful p[erson has a right to
be hateful. The most bigoted individual has a right to be bigoted.
--
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.
Brother Gene .*.
Reprobate
Gene Goldman
>Gene Goldman wrote:
>
>> Someone's **actions**, however, are another matter entirely.
>> Actions may be judged by society as moral or immoral. Beliefs may
>> not.
>>
>> No, I would not - under any circumstances - reject an applicant on
>> account of my opinion of his beliefs.
>> Doing so would not be Masonic. In fact, it would violate every
>> concept of Masonry that we teach.
>> I have seen the horrors that result from exactly that sort of bigotry.
>>
>
>Brother Gene:
>
>By what standards would you judge him?
IF I were to judge, it would be on the basis of his *actions* not on
his beliefs.
>By HIS standards, he may be acting in a perfectly normal/acceptable/required
>manner.
He may very well be. And if those *actions* are in accordance with
the laws that govern our *behavior*, then I have no negative
judgement.
No matter what he may *believe*.
>For Example: In the history of some religious groups, their diety instructs
>them to kill all of the inhabitants of a region. Other religious groups would
>find such actions abhorant and call it a holocaust.
Agreed. Even in such a case, they are entitled to their *beliefs*,
whatever those may be. Their *actions* are what they may justly be
called to account for.
>What standard applies here?
A standard of *actions*, not of *beliefs* or *opinions*.
Jack Wise
>
> Jack Wise <jw...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
> >Ah, but how are "Masonic Standards" established in conjunction with the
> >acceptability of a candidates actions (especially when those actions are
> >dictated by the tenets of his religious beliefs)?
>
> Masonic standards are already established in your by-laws.
For MY Jurisdiction, not necessarily Your Jurisdiction.
> All you
> have to do is understand them and apply them to the candidate.
What standards do I apply when doing a courtesy degree on your Lodge's/Grand
Lodge's Candidate where a given action is considered a Masonic offence by My
Grand Lodge but not by YOur Grand Lodge?
> Since
> an investigation committee is the second contact after the recommender
> and since the committee is made up of more then one MM, applying the
> by-laws to the candidate is not an arbitrary process.
My Lodge's by-laws are silent on the matter. My Grand Lodge Constitution &
By-Laws are not.
>
> > I and my Grand Lodge might consider a tolerable if not acceptable practice.
>
> I'd need a realistic example of such a practice that has occurred in
> recent history. It is my opinion that Masonry is becoming more
> universal by eliminating intolerance, but a few criteria must be
> maintained in order to remain "Masonic".
> --Don--
> Let me show you how the guards used to do it...
Granted there are differences between the theoretical and the practical. My
discussion is not about what is current practice but whether any "standard" can
be universally applied to all Masonic candidates.
Gene Goldman
wrote:
>>And what we mean by that is that we ask the applicant if he believes
>>in a Supreme Being. If he answers in the affirmative, he qualifies.
>>If he answers in the negative, he does not qualify.
>>
>>ANYTHING beyond that is NONE of our business, and any attempt to judge
>>anything beyond that is definitive bigotry.
>
>Are you saying that it is bigotry to establish what "supreme being"
>means, even in the broadest possible terms?
No, I am saying that it is not our place to define it for anyone but
ourselves, as individuals.
> If so, I guess people
>who write dictionaries must be terrible bigots. :-)
No, but some people who use them to promote their judgements of others
based on their own opinions of what they think others believe - are.
>The meaning of words may seem to be a matter of common sense, but
>in our post-modern culture it isn't always so. Words change, e.g.
>"queer" used to mean "peculiar" but nowadays means "homosexual".
>I've met people who consider it an act of oppression when someone
>tries to correct their spelling or choice of words; "Who appointed
>you language police?" Individualism and subjectivism combine to
>make people forget that language is a system of communication
>which requires that words have some sort of meaning that we all
>agree on. When "bad" suddenly means "good", many get confused.
>
>Words with a high "value" potential are especially susceptible to
>individual definitions and even programmatic attempts to change
>their meaning, or borrow positive connotations. In the 18th century
>there were sex clubs, political conspiracies and drinking dens who
>all called themselves "Masonic lodges".
>
>Freemasonry established landmarks to distance itself from groups who
>claimed to be Masons but were not. The fact that there are no land-
>marks for the meaning of "supreme being" is probably because there
>was, at that time, a general consensus of what was meant by it.
>Today, that consensus is probably a lot weaker.
Yes, today we allow non Christians to be members. Many of us believe
that to be a good thing.
Gene Goldman
>To clarify: It would seem to me that the logical conclusion
>of your position (and Steve's) is that we should abolish the
>requirement for belief in a deity -- because there is no
>inherent difference between that and other forms of "passing
>judgement" on people's beliefs.
While it would not trouble me to see that requirement changed, I do
not expect any change in my lifetime, nor do I recommend one. There
is a difference, albeit a complex and difficult to understand one.
Allow me to attempt to explain.
Our ceremonies are constructed and designed to elicit understanding
from *within* the candidate's own character. We have predicated some
of them on a Belief in a Supreme Being. We established a requirement
based on that predication.
However, the moment we stand in judgement of what we *think* his
beliefs are (as we can never know without reading his mind), we have
stopped eliciting his understanding and begun dictating our own
meanings to him.
That is not Masonry. That is dogmatism.
We recommend that the Mason be true to that duty he has to his
country. He is - and should remain - free to have whatever political
*beliefs* he wants. Even none at all, if that is how *HE* sees his
duty to his country.
It should be no different for his duty to his Deity. He - EVERYONE -
should be free to *believe* whatever he chooses to believe, without
our interference, judgement, dictation, or demands.
In times past, the world has seen what happens when people are judged
by what they *believe*. It has never been humane.
Don Wagner
>For MY Jurisdiction, not necessarily Your Jurisdiction.
Certainly, but by-laws between recognized jurisdictions are similar in
form and content if not wording.
Show me a regular and duly constituted lodge that eats unbaptised
babies so I won't be surprised at their next "BBQ Long-Pork Pull".
;-)
>What standards do I apply when doing a courtesy degree on your Lodge's/Grand
>Lodge's Candidate where a given action is considered a Masonic offence by My
>Grand Lodge but not by YOur Grand Lodge?
You would function as a guest within the hosting GL and lodge. Now,
are you asking what proper manners are within such a situation, or are
you saying that Masonic morality is so diverse between GLs that it
requires a score-card?
;-)
>My Lodge's by-laws are silent on the matter. My Grand Lodge Constitution &
>By-Laws are not.
There you go. The by-laws serve to spell out your conduct.
>Granted there are differences between the theoretical and the practical. My
>discussion is not about what is current practice but whether any "standard" can
>be universally applied to all Masonic candidates.
Sure thing. One is belief in a supreme creator. Another is not being
insane. ;-)
JB
> When you attribute to "Pagans and Wickens" the concept of human sacrifice,
> you are moving exactly in the direction which I mentioned in a much
earlier
> post,
No I didn't mean to do that. As I said in the post I know nothing of these
things. I was simply trying to invent the most outragous example of what I
find incompatible. I was actually thinking about pre-Spanish South America.
>
> We've all been steeped in bigotry, in some form or another, throughout our
> lives. To an extent, its part of our survival instinct: Us vs. Them.
But
> we, as MM's, should already be of a mind that these things are wrong, and
> make an even greater effort to understand and rid ourselves of these foul
> residues.
>
> Steve Miller
> South Shore 1126
>
Bigotry is just the term used by non-conformists (ohh I bet that gets some
responses). Seriously though, it isn't always wrong to publicly object or
reject someone because of their attitudes, beliefs or actions. I would have
just as little problem with rejecting someone who was a raving racist or
anti-Semite. You've got to take a stand sometimes.
Jim Bennie
<br_...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Our ceremonies are constructed and designed to elicit understanding
> from *within* the candidate's own character. We have predicated some
> of them on a Belief in a Supreme Being. We established a requirement
> based on that predication.
> However, the moment we stand in judgement of what we *think* his
> beliefs are (as we can never know without reading his mind), we have
> stopped eliciting his understanding and begun dictating our own
> meanings to him.
But, Gene, isn't there *some* judgement involved? There are attributes
in a Supreme Being at the time the ritual was written that are, in a way,
dictated to the candidate.
1. He must be the Creator of the Universe.
2. He must reward virtue.
I say "in a way" because, although the ritual was written in a day
when these attributes were a given when it comes to a Supreme Being,
I can't say whether *every* religious belief today encompasses both.
I simply don't know, thus I pose the question about judgement.
Jim Bennie
> What standards do I apply when doing a courtesy degree on your Lodge's/Grand
> Lodge's Candidate where a given action is considered a Masonic offence by My
> Grand Lodge but not by YOur Grand Lodge?
Jack, this simply wouldn't happen. A GL would have to agree to allow
one of its lodges to perform a courtesy degree. The GL has already applied
its standards.
Besides, someone is guilty of a Masonic offence only once he is tried and
convicted.
Åke Eldberg
>Our ceremonies are constructed and designed to elicit understanding
>from *within* the candidate's own character. We have predicated some
>of them on a Belief in a Supreme Being. We established a requirement
>based on that predication.
It seems to me that when our ceremonies were designed, the designers must have
been working from an implicit definition of the concepts involved. We can
hardly elicit understanding of anything from within the candidate by reference
to e.g. elephants, if the candidate thinks that elephants are a kind of small
lizards. There has to be a basic coherence between what we and the candidate
mean by the things we are talking about.
>We recommend that the Mason be true to that duty he has to his
>country. He is - and should remain - free to have whatever political
>*beliefs* he wants. Even none at all, if that is how *HE* sees his
>duty to his country.
But we are assuming that he HAS a duty to his country. And that there is a
country which he regards as "his". And that his understanding of the word
"country" is at least remotely similar to our own. If he is convinced that he
has no duty at all, or that he has no country, or that "your country" means
"your back yard", the recommendation becomes pointless.
>In times past, the world has seen what happens when people are judged
>by what they *believe*. It has never been humane.
Again, this looks like an argument for abolishing the "belief in supreme
being" requirement. It could even be construed as an argument for making
Hannibal Lecter a Mason, since we must not judge him by his belief that humans
are good food. :-)
Åke