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!

Georgia pondering

goomba

Neo-Antient
Site Benefactor
What about GLs that only allow Christians?

Will you be making such a motion at GL?

No I will not be making such a motion. But I would vote for it.

Regarding the GL's which only allow for Christian members, while I disagree with it personally, I must agree I cannot find fault today.
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
Grand Lodges are sovereign entities and have the right to self regulate within the accepted landmarks. I
Unless a landmark was broken, unless something illegal happened.. than I can't see how you would pull recognition. It's a serious thing...
The fraternity already discriminates on the basis of gender, religious belief and race.

Why shouldn't we withdraw recognition of GLs based on exclusion of non-Christians? Why not withdraw recognition because of Christian (and even Trinitarian Christian) side orders?).
All excellent points. Bottom line....if we get into pulling recognition from GLs over things that "offend" us where will it end.
 

Bloke

Premium Member
If we don't admit atheists, we discriminate on the basis of religion.

Not quite right Brother. If we don't admit atheists, we discriminate on the basis of the belief on a Higher Power, commonly called God or the GAOTU. That is not discrimination on the basis of religion (but also realize there are regular jurisdictions that do - it always jars when I read "Bible" in a craft ritual - here it is always "VSL".

I guess the bigger question is should we try to regulate the goings on in the activities of other sovereign lodges ? Would that be what we are trying to achieve in pulling recognition ? Certainly there is precedent for that - the most notable being the schim between the modern and ancients which raged for decades...

I think my GL is faitly functional, but despite that, we've got our problems. I am probably more interested in reforming my own house than that of my masonic neighbours in other jurisdictions,,,
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
Not quite right Brother. If we don't admit atheists, we discriminate on the basis of the belief on a Higher Power, commonly called God or the GAOTU. That is not discrimination on the basis of religion (but also realize there are regular jurisdictions that do - it always jars when I read "Bible" in a craft ritual - here it is always "VSL".

I guess the bigger question is should we try to regulate the goings on in the activities of other sovereign lodges ? Would that be what we are trying to achieve in pulling recognition ? Certainly there is precedent for that - the most notable being the schim between the modern and ancients which raged for decades...

I think my GL is faitly functional, but despite that, we've got our problems. I am probably more interested in reforming my own house than that of my masonic neighbours in other jurisdictions,,,

I will accept your opinion that rejection of atheists is not religious discrimination in your country.
 

Bloke

Premium Member
Thanks. My point was not all people who are not atheists actually have an organized religion they belong to or which they identify with. We don't discrimate based on membership of a religion, we discriminate according to having a belief or no believe in a supreme being...
 

Emjaysmash

מחפש כל האור
Premium Member
Thanks. My point was not all people who are not atheists actually have an organized religion they belong to or which they identify with. We don't discrimate based on membership of a religion, we discriminate according to having a belief or no believe in a supreme being...

For the sake of argument here (and as I see it being used in the U.S.), Discrimination based upon religious belief also applies to the persons belief of religion (any theistic or atheistic belief in general).
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
I've seen no formal proposals, but many suggestions on the Net that this occur.

Thanks Brother Glen. This further increases my high opinion of the members of this board.

My typical response has been to query why the same action isn't taken with Christian only GLs. I get two responses: that's historical so that's okay; we should do that too.

Right. There's no way I would submit such legislation. If it were to come up at a GL communication I attend and have a vote, I would be tempted to vote to pull recognition but probably would vote against pulling recognition. For the same reason I asked the question here. Their jurisdiction their rules.

Grand Lodges are sovereign entities and have the right to self regulate within the accepted landmarks. In banning gay men, what landmark have they clearly broken ?

Discussion of partisan politics in tiled meetings. Gay marriage is a political hot button in the United States at the moment so discussion of it is a partisan political discussion. This one is quite direct as it is this year's political hot button.

Also discussion of sectarian religion in tiled meetings. Forbidding gay activity comes from one specific section of one specific book of one specific religion and is only upheld by a limited subset of the lists of sects of that one religion. This one is less direct as it is the majority religion in that jurisdiction and in very many other jurisdictions.

It is clear that GLofGA broke landmarks in this process. There seem to be landmarks that define who we let in and there are landmarks that define how we behave among ourselves. Clearly there are priorities among our landmarks as shown by the different reactions to Florida banning a specific list of religions versus Florida banning behavior that is only mentioned in one specific religion.
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
Thanks Brother Glen. This further increases my high opinion of the members of this board.



Right. There's no way I would submit such legislation. If it were to come up at a GL communication I attend and have a vote, I would be tempted to vote to pull recognition but probably would vote against pulling recognition. For the same reason I asked the question here. Their jurisdiction their rules.



Discussion of partisan politics in tiled meetings. Gay marriage is a political hot button in the United States at the moment so discussion of it is a partisan political discussion. This one is quite direct as it is this year's political hot button.

Also discussion of sectarian religion in tiled meetings. Forbidding gay activity comes from one specific section of one specific book of one specific religion and is only upheld by a limited subset of the lists of sects of that one religion. This one is less direct as it is the majority religion in that jurisdiction and in very many other jurisdictions.

It is clear that GLofGA broke landmarks in this process. There seem to be landmarks that define who we let in and there are landmarks that define how we behave among ourselves. Clearly there are priorities among our landmarks as shown by the different reactions to Florida banning a specific list of religions versus Florida banning behavior that is only mentioned in one specific religion.
Ummmm. You said the landmarks wooooord. I'm gonna tell.

What landmark do you feel it violated?
 

Zack

Registered User
[QUOTE="dfreybur, post: 152237, member: 8289

Have I missed any call to pull recognition? When Florida banned a specific list of religions in an edict there was at least one state that had already announced they would pull recognition if the edict got approved. In this case the edict was approved by vote at annual communication and I have not seen any recommendations to pull recognition.[/QUOTE]

I ask again, what state?
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
I ask again, what state?

The name of the state in question is in the subject line of the thread. Georgia.

What landmark do you feel it violated?

1) Bringing partisan political discussion into tiled meetings. The topic of gay activity is current political news in the United States and it forms a partisan division. Bringing the topic up at all has created strife among the brothers.

2) Bringing sectarian religious discussion into tiled meetings. The topic of gay activity appears in one chapter of one volume of one book of writings sacred to one family of religions, and it is not accepted as authoritative by all religions in that family nor by all sects of the largest population religion in the family. This is dictatorship of the majority who knowingly impose the new rule on members of other faiths.
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
The name of the state in question is in the subject line of the thread. Georgia.



1) Bringing partisan political discussion into tiled meetings. The topic of gay activity is current political news in the United States and it forms a partisan division. Bringing the topic up at all has created strife among the brothers.

2) Bringing sectarian religious discussion into tiled meetings. The topic of gay activity appears in one chapter of one volume of one book of writings sacred to one family of religions, and it is not accepted as authoritative by all religions in that family nor by all sects of the largest population religion in the family. This is dictatorship of the majority who knowingly impose the new rule on members of other faiths.
That is where we disagree. The GL had for some years forbidden fornication, we are informed. This was a clarification to indicate that homosexual acts were included.

Our obligations also prohibit other sexual activity. Mere discussion of our codes without reference to a religious proscription does not, for me, constitute a violation of any supposed landmark.

Additionally, as we have Grand Lodges who allow Christians only, and a Grand Lodge who has been allowed to prohibit other faiths, such as Latter-day Saints, clearly the discussion of such matters is allowed.
 

Zack

Registered User
[QUOTE="dfreybur, post: 152237, member: 8289

When Florida banned a specific list of religions in an edict there was at least one state that had already announced they would pull recognition if the edict got approved. .

My question is....what state announced they would pull recognition of FL?
 

drw72

Premium Member
Don't know what state Zack but from what I found Florida's GM passed the edict in Nov. 2012 and it was overturned in May 2013.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Don't know what state Zack but from what I found Florida's GM passed the edict in Nov. 2012 and it was overturned in May 2013.


EmptySeats.jpg




edicts_04.JPG
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
My question is....what state announced they would pull recognition of FL?

Indiana had passed legislation that if Florida upheld the edict banning a specific list of religions, recognition would be pulled. Indiana's GL communication is earlier in the year than Florida's.

I was circulating legislation for signatures in California and Illinois at the time as I am PM in those jurisdictions able to propose legislation. I withdrew them when the edict was rejected.
 
Top