Kentucky Action By Edict
Torence
The following Edict has been issued by Grand Master, Herman M.
Forrester;
EDICT
HERMAN M. FORRESTER, GRANDMASTER
June 23, 2009
To all constituent lodges under the Constitution of theGrand Lodge of
Kentucky, Free & Accepted Masons:
Whereas Freemasonry is universal in scope, and professes to be a
Brotherhood of man under the Fatherhood of God, and;
Whereas the Grand Lodge of Kentucky, Free & Accepted Masons is a full
member of this worldwide Brotherhood, and;
Whereas our Ancient and Honorable Fraternity welcomes to its doors and
admits to its privileges worthy men of all faiths, creeds and of every
racewho believe in a Supreme Being, as stated in our Degrees and
lectures, and;
Whereas there is no reference to the exclusion of any petitioner with
regard to race, creed, and/or faith in any of the accepted Rituals and/
or Monitors authorized for use within the constituent lodges chartered
by the Grand Lodge of Kentucky, F.&A.M., and;
Whereas it is incumbent upon the Brotherhood to abide by the Laws,
Rules, Regulations, and Edicts of the Grand Lodge of Kentucky, F,&A.M.
and be what they profess to be;
Therefore be it resolved:
That no negative reference is to bemade by any officer or member of
any lodge chartered under the constitution of the Grand Lodge of
Kentucky, F.&A.M. in reference to a petitioner�s faith, creed or race
at any time in the conferral of the Degrees�i.e. lectures, obligation,
by proficiency lecturers, etc.�or during any lodge Communication.
Further, it is the responsibility of the Master of each lodge
constituted under the Grand Lodge of Kentucky, F.&A.M. to insure
strict compliance with this edict, and, further, have it read by the
lodge Secretary at the following three Stated Communication of the
lodge following its reception.
Any lodge found in violation of this edict will be subject to Masonic
discipline accordingly.
Given under my hand, as Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Kentucky,
F.&A.M., this 23 day of June, 2009.
Herman M. Forrester
Grand Master
Attest: Joseph R. Conway, P.G.M.
Grand Secretary
Larry W
> EDICT ISSUED BY GRAND MASTER
I wonder what the next GM of Kentucky might do about this, given the events
in Georgia so far.
Frats, etc.,
Larry
--
PM, Holbrook #30, AF&AM | Forest Grove #37, RAM | Tualatin #31, OES
RP, Acacia #22, Amaranth | Sunset #20, Cryptic | Dad, Hillsboro #24, IORG
Mudge
One is tempted to wonder just why such an edict was even thought
necessary - anyone any ideas ??
--
BES (in Calgary)
Save our precious CO2 - plant many trees
Chris H
<Nos...@never.ever> writes
>On 2009-07-29 11:53:48 -0600, Torence said:
>
>> EDICT ISSUED BY GRAND MASTER
>> The following Edict has been issued by Grand Master, Herman M.
>> Forrester;
>> EDICT
>> HERMAN M. FORRESTER, GRANDMASTER
>> June 23, 2009
>One is tempted to wonder just why such an edict was even thought
>necessary - anyone any ideas ??
My thoughts exactly.... Though it did occur to me that it was a subtle
shot across the bows of the GL of Georgia without naming them.
I have suggested they my own GL breaks relations with the GL of Georgia.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Chris H
n.from....@gmail.com> writes
>Torence wrote:
>> EDICT ISSUED BY GRAND MASTER
>
>I wonder what the next GM of Kentucky might do about this, given the
>events in Georgia so far.
>
>Frats, etc.,
>Larry
>
horrified at the recent events in Georgia.
kiv 11
I know many (most?) Freemasons were
horrified at the recent events in Georgia.
--
George K.
Dave Vick
<7902fbe1-a60b-49cb...@e27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
kiv 11 <KI...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ya got me... I've been out of the loop lately.
Anyone?
--
Dave Vick, PM
Somewhere in the US, soon to be in Tokyo
Torence
> Ya got me... I've been out of the loop lately.
The New York Times has the story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/us/03masons.html?_r=1
Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Senior Deacon - Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois\
PM - Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lansing, Illinois
Larry W
A Lodge there initiated, passed and raised a black Man. Much fuss ensued,
including Masonic charges being raised against the man's Lodge and WM, and
said WM filed civil charges against his accusers and the Grand Lodge.
More details are on Chris Hodapp's blog, starting here:
http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2009_06_01_archive.html
and here:
http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html
And in the news:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/business/stories/2009/06/29/masons_atlanta_lawsuit.html?cxntlid=inform_sr
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/us/03masons.html?_r=1&ref=us
Dave Vick
<659a949b-b8a6-499d...@r38g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Torence <toren...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/us/03masons.html?_r=1
Oh, fercryinoutloud....
What century is this, again?
--
Dave Vick, PM
Lansing #33, Michigan
(somewhere on tour in the USA)
Mudge
> Oh, fercryinoutloud....
>
> What century is this, again?
You may well ask - I know I did !
Chris H
s.com>, Torence <toren...@aol.com> writes
>On Aug 2, 7:16�pm, Dave Vick <dave.v...@gmail.comINVALID> wrote:
>> Ya got me... I've been out of the loop lately.
>
> The New York Times has the story:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/us/03masons.html?_r=1
Is there another link as that one is subscription only
Torence
interesting that all he does is to prohibit negative remarks about
another Mason's color or faith during lodge work. He does not in this
document go on to include that race cannot be a factor in deciding
whether or not a lodge can receive a petition, discussions about race
of course being abhorrent, or otherwise encourage the Master Masons in
his jurisdiction to improve themselves in diversity. While I support
Local Lodges in their ability to discuss any issue that affects the
fraternity without restriction, it seems to me that Grand Lodges and
Grand Masters should not host any discussion at all about race or
faith, even if they think the conversation of the positive sort.
Forums like this one seem a better place for such discussions and our
Grand Lodges should keep clean from any remarks.
Do you think there is a need for such an edict in any jurisidiction?
Chris H
>interesting that all he does is to prohibit negative remarks about
>another Mason's color or faith during lodge work. He does not in this
>document go on to include that race cannot be a factor in deciding
>whether or not a lodge can receive a petition, discussions about race
>of course being abhorrent, or otherwise encourage the Master Masons in
>his jurisdiction to improve themselves in diversity. While I support
>Local Lodges in their ability to discuss any issue that affects the
>fraternity without restriction, it seems to me that Grand Lodges and
>Grand Masters should not host any discussion at all about race or
>faith, even if they think the conversation of the positive sort.
>Forums like this one seem a better place for such discussions and our
>Grand Lodges should keep clean from any remarks.
> Do you think there is a need for such an edict in any jurisidiction?
There *should be* no need for it... but given the actions of Georgia it
seems there is a need.
Mudge
> I just reread this Grand Master's Edict more closely and I think it
> interesting that all he does is to prohibit negative remarks about
> another Mason's color or faith during lodge work. He does not in this
> document go on to include that race cannot be a factor in deciding
> whether or not a lodge can receive a petition, discussions about race
> of course being abhorrent, or otherwise encourage the Master Masons in
> his jurisdiction to improve themselves in diversity. While I support
> Local Lodges in their ability to discuss any issue that affects the
> fraternity without restriction, it seems to me that Grand Lodges and
> Grand Masters should not host any discussion at all about race or
> faith, even if they think the conversation of the positive sort.
> Forums like this one seem a better place for such discussions and our
> Grand Lodges should keep clean from any remarks.
> Do you think there is a need for such an edict in any jurisidiction?
In my view - there should be no need for discussion of "race" -
because, in the final analysis, we are all of the same "Human Race" -
the ONLY thing that should ever matter is CHARACTER !!!!!!!
Doug Freyburger
>
> � �I just reread this Grand Master's Edict more closely and I think it
> interesting that all he does is to prohibit negative remarks about
> another Mason's color or faith during lodge work.
I think that's because setting additional criteria for balloting is
beyond the scope of a Grand Master's power. The privacy of
the ballot must remain absolute.
> He does not in this
> document go on to include that race cannot be a factor in deciding
> whether or not a lodge can receive a petition, discussions about race
> of course being abhorrent,
I don't see what cars or horses have to do with it. Or maybe
it's airplane pylon racing? As much as I like that I no longer
follow it either.
Less flippantly, should a giant space ship drop a bunch of
non-human aliens on the planet in the style of the TV show
"Alien Nation" I want individual lodges to be able to decide
if they only admit humans or if they admit both humans and
aliens. My point being that any discussion of the topic ends
up a slippery slope - Better to not deal with it through policy
at all. Use social pressure.
> or otherwise encourage the Master Masons in
> his jurisdiction to improve themselves in diversity.
Noting that some folks confuse statements like "Behold how
good and how pleasant it is to see the brethren dwell
together in unity" as having something to do with diversity
and uniformity. I'll repeat my stance on the slippery slope -
Such encouragement leads to a socially oppressive
atmosphere of dictatorship by political correctness. I want
character to matter not quotas.
> While I support
> Local Lodges in their ability to discuss any issue that affects the
> fraternity without restriction,
This is the sharp edge of the discussion. Religion and
politics effect the fraternity yet those topics are forbidden
in tiled lodge. The prohibition is strong enough that most
brothers don't discuss the topics even in social settings
away from lodge.
> it seems to me that Grand Lodges and
> Grand Masters should not host any discussion at all about race or
> faith, even if they think the conversation of the positive sort.
Unless we get into unMasonic conduct as in the case of
the news article. But a glance at the news article makes
it clear who's committing the unMasonic conduct and it
is not the members of the lodge who conferred degrees on
a new brother.
> Forums like this one seem a better place for such discussions and our
> Grand Lodges should keep clean from any remarks.
> � Do you think there is a need for such an edict in any jurisidiction?
I think any such discussion at the GL level is more likely to
cause harm than good until and unless it comes to unMasonic
conduct trials.
Stuart H.
>
> Less flippantly, should a giant space ship drop a bunch of
> non-human aliens on the planet in the style of the TV show
> "Alien Nation" I want individual lodges to be able to decide
> if they only admit humans or if they admit both humans and
> aliens. My point being that any discussion of the topic ends
> up a slippery slope - Better to not deal with it through policy
> at all. Use social pressure.
>
Surely the requirement, in our jurisdiction, for a candidate to be
"A man, free-born, of mature age, and under the tongue of good report"
would exclude non-human life forms.
Is this the requirement in your US jurisdictions?
W.Bro. Stuart H.
Alberta, Canada
Doug Freyburger
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> > Less flippantly, should a giant space ship drop a bunch of
> > non-human aliens on the planet in the style of the TV show
> > "Alien Nation" I want individual lodges to be able to decide
> > if they only admit humans or if they admit both humans and
>
> Surely the requirement, in our jurisdiction, for a candidate to be
> "A man, free-born, of mature age, and under the tongue of good report"
> would exclude non-human life forms.
>
> Is this the requirement in your US jurisdictions?
The exact wording isn't identical but that list is used in both
jurisdictions I'm a member of.
Depending on the science fiction author, "man" can mean a male
human versus a woman, a human versus other intelligent Earther
species (just in case anyone ever learns to talk with porpoises
and they talk back), an Earther versus alien species from other
planets.
I rather like the idea that should aliens ever arrive each lodge
would get to pick on its own where to land on that spectrum.
The lectures in my jurisdictions mention all humans being
members of one family and living on one planet. Numberless
worlds revolve through the great expanse each following the
same unerring law of nature, so should aliens from another
planet to ever show up I figure I may want to view them as
fellow children of the same Great Architect. Whether I'd
manage such a broad perspective I don't know until it happens
but I'd like to think I could.
When I was going through the line the first time, after a first
degree one of the older brothers commented to another older
brother and me "If my Father saw what we just did he'd roll
over in his grave". I asked him what he meant. He looked at
me and said "I'm glad you're too young to understand". It
took me a while to add the pieces together. The brother we'd
just initiated was black. The old brother had just stated that
he wasn't raised a racist but his father had been one who
didn't pass it down across the generations. The older brother
had not objected to initiating a black brother. I hadn't even
thought it unusual enough to comment on. Thus do times
change across the generations.
Alan Schwartz
>[Default] On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:27:17 CST, "Stuart H."
><stu...@health4u.ca> typed:
>
>>Surely the requirement, in our jurisdiction, for a candidate to be
>>"A man, free-born, of mature age, and under the tongue of good report"
>>would exclude non-human life forms.
>>
>>Is this the requirement in your US jurisdictions?
>>
>>W.Bro. Stuart H.
>>Alberta, Canada
>
I am reminded of an excellent short story "On Venus, have we got a Rabbi"
by William Tenn (which I believe you can hear the author read at
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/spinning/episodes/2002/11/22 ).
Someone needs to write some Masonic science fiction!
--
Alan Schwartz, PM
Master, Berwyn Lodge #839, A.F. & A.M., Berwyn, Illinois, USA
Royal Arch Mason, Lincoln Park Chapter #177 RAM
32nd deg. Scottish Rite Mason, Valley of Chicago, AASR (NJ)
kiv 11
> Someone needs to write some Masonic science fiction!
>
All you have to do is read the alt.freemasonry newsgroup, nothing but
fiction and some is even fiction about Freemasonry.
George K.
Stuart H.
> David Simpson <faro...@picknowl.com.au> writes:
>> [Default] On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:27:17 CST, "Stuart H."
>> <stu...@health4u.ca> typed:
>>
>>> Surely the requirement, in our jurisdiction, for a candidate to be
>>> "A man, free-born, of mature age, and under the tongue of good report"
>>> would exclude non-human life forms.
>>>
>>> Is this the requirement in your US jurisdictions?
>>>
>>> W.Bro. Stuart H.
>>> Alberta, Canada
>> Define "man".
>
>
> I am reminded of an excellent short story "On Venus, have we got a Rabbi"
> by William Tenn (which I believe you can hear the author read at
> http://www.wnyc.org/shows/spinning/episodes/2002/11/22 ).
>
> Someone needs to write some Masonic science fiction!
>
>
Stuart H.
An interesting perspective, but I think my GL would not be that
understanding! It would certainly cause them to have to chew on a new
concept!
>
> When I was going through the line the first time, after a first
> degree one of the older brothers commented to another older
> brother and me "If my Father saw what we just did he'd roll
> over in his grave". I asked him what he meant. He looked at
> me and said "I'm glad you're too young to understand". It
> took me a while to add the pieces together. The brother we'd
> just initiated was black. The old brother had just stated that
> he wasn't raised a racist but his father had been one who
> didn't pass it down across the generations. The older brother
> had not objected to initiating a black brother. I hadn't even
> thought it unusual enough to comment on. Thus do times
> change across the generations.
>
Prince Hall lodges are very few in Alberta, and almost unheard of.
Consequently, brothers of all backgrounds are accepted equally and
without reserve.
Would Georgia make a stink if someone proposed your current president
for membership in a non-PH lodge?
Stuart H.
Mudge
> Someone needs to write some Masonic science fiction!
Some may say that the whole thing, while not "Science" fiction, has a
heavy dose of "Fantasy" running throughout !!!
Chris H
s.com>, Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>Less flippantly, should a giant space ship drop a bunch of
>non-human aliens on the planet in the style of the TV show
>"Alien Nation" I want individual lodges to be able to decide
>if they only admit humans or if they admit both humans and
>aliens. My point being that any discussion of the topic ends
>up a slippery slope - Better to not deal with it through policy
>at all. Use social pressure.
You have to put things in to Historical context.
Freemasonry is about men because when it started and for a good while
after only men had trades/professions/apprentiships etc so only a Man
should enter the craft. Women were just not involved in those days*.
Though race and creed were not discriminated against (except in Georgia
it seems). Also of course there was not concept of intelligent non
human life forms.... would you let a horse or dog in? Life off the
planet was the angels.
* This is why UGLE "recognises" but does not "Recognise" female Masonic
groups...
Doug Freyburger
> Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >Less flippantly, should a giant space ship drop a bunch of
> >non-human aliens on the planet in the style of the TV show
> >"Alien Nation" I want individual lodges to be able to decide
> >if they only admit humans or if they admit both humans and
> >aliens. �My point being that any discussion of the topic ends
> >up a slippery slope - Better to not deal with it through policy
> >at all. �Use social pressure.
Being a science fiction fan since I was a kid I should go see
"District 9" that seems to be about this topic, with the usual
science fiction principle of indirectly referencing modern
social commentary.
> You have to put things in to Historical context.
>
> Freemasonry is about men because when it started and for a good while
> after only men had trades/professions/apprentiships etc so only a Man
> should enter the craft. Women were just not involved in those days*.
Nonetheless there's a side effect of a men's only order that
has benefits in some cases. I encourage my wife to join
women's only groups for similar reasons.
> Though race and creed were not discriminated against (except in Georgia
> it seems). �Also of course there was not concept of intelligent non
> human life forms.... would you let a horse or dog in? Life off the
> planet was the angels.
Should there be a selective breeding program to generate
dogs or horses smart enough to hold a conversation, I
would need to address the issue. I have no idea if any
living species might be of interest - No one can converse
with porpoises so we can't judge their position on a scale
of intelligence. Recent studies of apes suggest adult ones
have the social skills of human young children so they
would be excluded under the intended meaning of the
"under age" qualifier.
> * This is why UGLE "recognises" but does not "Recognise" female Masonic
> groups...
While I was going through the line the first time in the 1990s
in California each year there was legislation at Grand Lodge
that was driven by some other topic but that clearly took
steps towards recognition of Prince Hall. The final recognition
was before I reached Junior Warden so I didn't get to vote on
the topic of recognition. It was handled before I got there.
There were four annual steps before recognition if I recall
correctly.
One of the steps was to allow a Mexican GL to sponsor a
lodge in our territory - The "American Doctrine" of exclusive
territory could be waved in a single case without dropping it
completely. Another was an inspection of the Prince Hall
GL's requirements and declaring them "Regular".
If I understand correctly the stance most GLs have with
respect to female and mixed jurisdictions is they are
"Regular" on all issues but gender requirements.
And yet the male only jurisdictions are ten or a hundred
times as popular even though the male only, female only
and mixed gender jurisdictions all view each other with
some sort of amnity. This is related to my comment above
that there are beneficial side effects to having single gender
organizations. Some men want to be a member of a men's
club. When offered a women's club based on a men's club
fewer but non-zero women join. There exist women's only
clubs in other contexts but none that I know of end up
spanning the globe. Men and women are different in this.