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!

GLs that dont recognize PHA

CLewey44

Registered User
I think the single black ball system is a huge problem. But that is just my opinion. I would prefer multiple black balls.

giggidy...but seriously, I think the investigation committee should really report something of a physical nature or at least talk about any observations they had instead of just automatically saying "he's favorable" or whatever. Not everyone gets to meet the man before he's initiated so really most members are voting blindly without any sort of report or observations. Idk, it's a tough thing to fix and Masonic law isn't perfect at times.
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
Not everyone gets to meet the man before he's initiated so really most members are voting blindly without any sort of report or observations.
While I agree that this is the way things are often done, I also view this as part of the problem. But herein lies the beauty of the one blackball system. I do not agree with simply taking the advice of the investigation committee, so I usually approach the man who has petitioned and offer him my business card and let him know that I'd like to get to know him prior to voting. That's my polite way of saying that he will not be getting my vote unless I am satisfied through direct interaction that he is worthy. We have no one to blame for the sloppy admittance but ourselves.

Going back to racism within lodges, this is another reason for the single blackball rule. Yes, the racists can keep out black men with a single black ball, but we can also keep out the racists with a single black ball. Removing the racists that are currently in the lodge will be next to impossible, but you can stop new ones from coming in. Requiring multiple black balls means that a lodge with rampant racism will continue. While I lament the fact that good men are being denied entrance due to the color of their skin, if given the choice between admitting a few more black men now or ridding our lodges of racists to allow us to admit many more worthy black men in the future, I'll choose the latter.

And of course, while this discussion has been focused on black men, the same principles apply any characteristic by which a man might be discriminated against.
 

CLewey44

Registered User
Not likely. How many guys are likely to admit they are racist when petitioning a lodge?

That's kind of what I was thinking. A man can look at a black man (or a Latino, Asian, Arabic or whatever) and not vote him in by just looking at him, a racist would have the ability to hide that for the most part and likely not mention that on a petition.
 

CLewey44

Registered User
While I agree that this is the way things are often done, I also view this as part of the problem. But herein lies the beauty of the one blackball system. I do not agree with simply taking the advice of the investigation committee, so I usually approach the man who has petitioned and offer him my business card and let him know that I'd like to get to know him prior to voting. That's my polite way of saying that he will not be getting my vote unless I am satisfied through direct interaction that he is worthy. We have no one to blame for the sloppy admittance but ourselves.

Going back to racism within lodges, this is another reason for the single blackball rule. Yes, the racists can keep out black men with a single black ball, but we can also keep out the racists with a single black ball. Removing the racists that are currently in the lodge will be next to impossible, but you can stop new ones from coming in. Requiring multiple black balls means that a lodge with rampant racism will continue. While I lament the fact that good men are being denied entrance due to the color of their skin, if given the choice between admitting a few more black men now or ridding our lodges of racists to allow us to admit many more worthy black men in the future, I'll choose the latter.

And of course, while this discussion has been focused on black men, the same principles apply any characteristic by which a man might be discriminated against.

I think the one ball rule is good. Now as a rule, usually a revote is done to ensure that it wasn't a mistake. As few a people that get blackballed in the first place in this day and age of 'let anyone in' practically, to me, if someone were to not vote them in, must be a pretty good reason. Like I said before, however, if any sort of racist b.s. was being discussed, in or out of lodge as far as I'm concerned, then that individual would need to dealt with. Nobody is perfect and a lot of good men, black or white, have said things they may regret, but as a general rule, lets get that rhetoric out of our lodges and more importantly out of our society.
 

CLewey44

Registered User
PHA has a great tradition, legacy and history of honor but to me, it seems to be a throwback to the segregation days. Since black men weren't allowed to join "regular" lodges, they started their own, which I find extremely brave and admirable for that time. I think the only way to remove racism is to integrate all lodges, PHA and non-PHA, in each state as one Grand Lodge. I think PHA is beautiful and should be apart of the Masonic family but maybe sort of like the Scottish Rite or York Rite, as an additional degree or other appendant body. It isn't intended to segregate in this day and age but at one time it was "necessary" with the old segregation laws that have been abolished for a long time. "Separate but Equal" was the norm in everyday life at one time but is not the norm anymore and I think in Masonry, one way to get rid of racism is to integrate all lodges. A state simply recognizing PHA isn't enough to me. And by the way, some states don't do that, even in the 21st century. If we want to be on the level, then let's be on the level. If a racist man walks in to petition a lodge and was to see men of all colors, creeds, religions and orientations, that'd really weed out the bigots and racists.

I understand there are white PHA Masons and that is awesome. I even considered it when I was coming in but I didn't know how I'd be received or if that was faux pas or not. I know now it would have been fine but why is this passive-aggressive segregation still around or considered necessary?
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
PHA has a rich history. I don't think the grand lodges should be merged. I would settle for plural memberships with their jurisdiction. Most PHA grand lodges do not allow plural memberships even within their own grand lodge to the best of my knowledge. I doubt that most of them would want to merge either.
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
Actually, Prince Hall & 14 others did join a regular lodge. It was a British military lodge and they were raised there as well. The issue was with US lodges.
 

Mindovermatter Ace

Registered User
I assume you all live in places where mutual amity exist with the two Grand Lodges because there are places that don't admit blacks. AR, TN, KY and a few others. There has even been instances where some blacks who are members of state Grand Lodges in the north that have denied admission to blacks when visiting a southern lodge. Just because you haven't heard of it or it hasn't happened near you doesn't mean it hasn't happened at all because it has.
 
Last edited:

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
I am sure there are places in your grand lodge as well. We have full amity here in Texas. That doesn't mean that you won't encounter racism in some places.
 

CLewey44

Registered User
I assume you all live in places where mutual amity exist with the two Grand Lodges because there are places that don't admit blacks. AR, TN, KY and a few others. There has even been instances where some blacks who are members of state Grand Lodges in the north that have denied admission to blacks when visiting a southern lodge. Just because you haven't heard of it or it hasn't happened near you doesn't mean it hasn't happened at all because it has.

Well, I didn't know that some GLs did that. It's bad enough to not recognize PHA but to not even allow visitation, PHA or not, from other jurisdictions is despicable. Masonry in the U.S. (and maybe abroad too, not sure) for some reason has a race issue still and it needs to be addressed as I posted earlier and possibly merged all as one to prevent such absurdity. Racism and bigotry is extremely UNMASONIC.
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
I assume you all live in places where mutual amity exist with the two Grand Lodges because there are places that don't admit blacks. AR, TN, KY and a few others. There has even been instances where some blacks who are members of state Grand Lodges in the north that have denied admission to blacks when visiting a southern lodge. Just because you haven't heard of it or it hasn't happened near you doesn't mean it hasn't happened at all because it has.
This is false. While I can't speak from personal experience regarding AR and TN, I am a KY Mason and this is not correct.
 
Last edited:

dfreybur

Premium Member
I think the only way to remove racism is to integrate all lodges, PHA and non-PHA, in each state as one Grand Lodge.

Prince Hall Masonry is older than my country. I have no wish to lose that fine heritage by assimilation.

Then again if I'm in attendance in one of the jurisdictions where I hold vote and the local PHA jurisdiction offered unification it is highly likely I would vote in favor. The direction of such a proposal matters.
 

Mindovermatter Ace

Registered User
If what sad was false then tell me the name of some black members in the jurisdiction of Kentucky please.


Aaron Christopher
Cervantes #5
Grand Lodge of Louisiana F&AM
 
Top