My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Has this occurred?

Morris

Premium Member
Which landmarks?


I have never seen or heard of a landmark that prohibits men of any race from our fraternity, have you? I would be interested in reading the verbiage of one that prohibits if you know of one.

Of course that doesn't mean some lodges have "unwritten" rules but that's a little different.
 

Proudvet09

Registered User
I have never seen or heard, and if it's a landmark, landmarks are a place for public eye, which means that which should be kept amongst brothers is open to even the not so good man that was spoken about before which is where you get cowans and eavesdroppers
 

jjjjjggggg

Premium Member
Within my jurisdiction it is within the constitution and code that it be available for viewing by any brother, and is usually kept in the secretary's office... as well as each individual lodge's bylaws. We even have a correspondence course through the GL over the C&C. Both wardens and the WM are given an individual copy of the current C&C at the warden's training session.

And there are many brothers who have challenged, and continue to do so, any latent racism within the fraternity. Check out brother Charles Harper Sr. and his book "freemasonry in black and white". He stays pretty current on Facebook and does a lot of presentations, especially in his home state of Illinois.
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
Great response! Checkmate.

It is my own ideal to believe all worthy men, regardless of color, be given the opportunity to join our fraternity. And I hope that we are brave enough to correct the injustices of those masons in our history who thought contrary.
Well put.
 

MaineMason

Registered User
Having lived in Texas for many years but as a native Yankee, and active in a Grand Lodge (Maine) who's constitution said as early as the 1870's that no free man should be discriminated against on the basis of race, I find the entire discussion rather strange. Then again, at once, I totally get it.

I have been a member of a committee of inquiry for an African American man (actually, an African one, he's a legal resident and a businessman) and the very last thing that occurred to me was the color of his skin. I helped raise him. Texas needs to get into the 21st Century. Just sayin.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
It is my own ideal to believe all worthy men, regardless of color, be given the opportunity to join our fraternity.

Color means uniform, right? The Legion takes us blue uniform folks AND those green uniform folks. In Masonry we have to be a bit broader than that. We adopt the rainbow non-uniform folks as well. We all work to be of service to society in many ways, often not including a uniform.
 

Proudvet09

Registered User
Freemasonry is not a religion but a fraternity that declares in a Diety of A Supreme being of non- atheist views. I'm not the greatest with words but forgive me but I hope you know what I mean.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
We're working on it.

Does this mean there will be a vote in December? I scanned the write up and did not see mention so it's clearly not among the GM's recommendations. I visit a lodge tonight so I'll see if they have a write-up that includes other legislation that has been submitted.
 

chrmc

Registered User
Does this mean there will be a vote in December? I scanned the write up and did not see mention so it's clearly not among the GM's recommendations. I visit a lodge tonight so I'll see if they have a write-up that includes other legislation that has been submitted.

I doubt it. But if memory serves me right (and it may very well not) believe the ball is in PHA's corner and the need to respond to the latest invite / letter or something.
But guess that could also just be a good excuse to delay an already overdue topic even further.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
In the GLofTX the ball has been in our court since the Autumn 2013 quarterly communication of the MWPHGLofTX when they approved an invitation to change the recognition compact. It was too late to appear on the docket in December 2013. As such the report of the committee on fraternal relations "should" include a reactive vote on the topic in December 2014. Ah, that word "should". But at this point the committee has something to react to. Both hope and "past performance is the best predictor of future performance" spring eternal. Or someone may have decided to force the issue by submitting legislation through the process. That's why I'm interested in the agenda.

Of my 3 jurisdictions 2 have pending actions to move recognition forward.

Illinois has full blanket recognition and has had for many years. So I don't have any action item there * .

In Texas I pitched a submission but I'm not a PM in Texas so I have to depend on convincing a PM. My lesson is this year I start pitching in January to have more time working the topic. If corrected recognition is not on this year's agenda that's my topic this year starting in January. If it's there I start pitching in January legislation for blanket recognition emulating Illinois and several other states.

In California this year I explained to the Gr Sec's office where the committee on recognition meets that 2 states are missing from their list. If they don't appear in the 2014 proceedings work the paperwork remotely to put those 2 states to a vote in 2015. It's a slam dunk as I have several resident PMs willing to sign and there's no opposition in California to any PHA recognition issue so a housekeeping proposal would pass easily. If they do appear California has its own compact correction to work on, in this case allowing cross affiliation with jurisdictions that support multiple membership.

* There are further steps I want accomplished. It's not over if all of my jurisdictions have full recognition of all states that have local recognition. Once that's in place it will be time to go for the harder sell of recognizing states that don't have internal recognition. Last year MWPHGLorAR offered blanket recognition for any state that recognizes internally and that means they now recognize a lot of states that don't yet recognize them. Let's accept that challenge and exchange mutual recognition in Arkansas and then march on to the rest of states that have missing recognition. Taking the moral high ground on a proactive not reactive basis.
 
Last edited:

chrmc

Registered User
In the GLofTX the ball has been in our court since the Autumn 2013 quarterly communication of the MWPHGLofTX when they approved an invitation to change the recognition compact. It was too late to appear on the docket in December 2013. As such the report of the committee on fraternal relations "should" include a reactive vote on the topic in December 2014. Ah, that word "should". But at this point the committee has something to react to. Both hope and "past performance is the best predictor of future performance" spring eternal. Or someone may have decided to force the issue by submitting legislation through the process. That's why I'm interested in the agenda.

Thanks for the update. I wasn't aware of this latest move. And I do share your sentiment about hope and past performance spring eternal. Though if the head of the fraternal relations committee is still Pierre Normand you'd think he'd be pushing for it.
 
Top