hanzosbm
Premium Member
Libertine, yes. Irreligious...less so.The term "libertine" is a little loose.
Libertine, yes. Irreligious...less so.The term "libertine" is a little loose.
But even polytheistic religions will tend to have a "Supreme Being" , hence the number of Hindus among our ranks. Freemasonry does not require a belief in monotheism - only a belief in a Supreme Being - they are different. A good example of this which might be accessible to many is Trinitarian Christianity.
I've been a member of jurisdictions that refer to it as the oath and obligation, my current jurisdiction very intentionally refers to it solely as an obligation. The verbiage in question is identical between the two and I agree with your definitions. I have my opinions regarding the reasoning, but prudence would dictate that I keep those opinions to myself, or at the least, off of a public forum.I find it interesting the discussion of the Obligation. Do other Jurisdictions, outside of Pennsylvania, refer to what is sworn as simply an "Obligation?"
Here all of what is sworn by Candidates in Initiation, Passing and Raising, by Officers at Installation and at Visitors at Examination are termed an "Oath and Obligation." All the promises to do or not do specific things and how to behave are the "Obligation" but they are ALWAYS followed on by an "Oath" namely "So Help Me G-d..." The Obligation is what you personally agree to on your own. The Oath binds that promise to G-d. One can certainly swear an Obligation with no reference to Deity, but it is the Oath that is essential to have all bound to the same entity and thus on the Level. At least here in PA!
Nice one Doug. "Belief" is an interesting word - I always say Freemasonry has no religious qualifications but only a qualification of faith. When it comes to the Supreme Being, we only "believe" because we have "faith" - where that faith comes from is multitude but still not really logical; that is the nature of faith - we are believing in something which cannot be proved, even if we claim to have seen it ourselves..Asking a Buddhist or Taoist or Confucian - well outside our buildings and after being friends for years - tends to lead to an interesting discussion about "exist". The Dharma Padha doesn't mention deity.
Asking a polytheist - well outside our buildings and after being friends for years - tends to lead to an interesting discussion about "supreme". Among Neo-Hellenics it can be easy. Zeus is supreme, all finished. Among Asatru it can be a struggle. Is Odin in charge or just one member of the council? And what about the king function of Tyr? I puzzled over this question for about a year before I asked for a petition.
But going even further, the "belief" part is fun. Before Christianity no religion ever seems to have demanded belief. Both belief and disbelief were common and at peace. Look up cultural Jew, ethnic Hindu, small boat Buddhist and so on. Yet the term insurance Christian gets used as an insult. Our requirement for belief definitely shows our Christian roots. we are universal in accepting members of every religion we have ever heard of as well as all of them we have never heard of. Yet we insist on belief even though most religions in the world are about practice not about belief. Christian missionaries tend to bash other religions that many of their members don't believe, yet belief isn't a requirement in religions outside of the Abrahamic family or members of the family older than Christianity.
On an obligation not being binding on an atheist, that's openly nonsense. But our founders believed (or at least asserted) it so it's a part of our cute antique charm. In fact, having such a glaring deviation from fact be a part of our degrees helps show how our entire system is veiled in allegory. Sure enough we even state in our lectures that Masonry is a system veiled in allegory!
An allegory is a fictional story that teaches a truth. The fictional part is that an obligation is not binding on an atheist. The truth part is that being men of faith who actively chose to join an order of men of faith is one of the features that binds us together so effectively.
We call it an "obligation" and it is titled as such in our Ritual Books. However as you suggest, that does not quite reflect the wording of it, indeed we "promise and swear" (does that make a double commitment?) and we do it with "So Help Me Almighty G-d"... still, regardless if I take and Oath, Obligation or make a promise, I am going to do all I can to keep it. Promises from me are very rare - with the exception to "Do my best to..." but getting into the details is not something I am keen on in an open forum. However whether I make a promise on my honour or before God, it is still a promise and needs to be kept - so the point for me is do not make them unless you can keep them, and there is nothing unreasonable in any of my Masonic Obligations that I have taken (perhaps except Loyalty to the GL when being Obligated Master - but that is only for 12 months so I had a get out of jail card.. but Doug, like you puzzling before asking for a petition, I puzzled on that before I accepted the position of Master of a Lodge... but I also had the advantage of being to hear, see, and read the WME obligation before taking it. Had I been able to do that as an applicant, FC or MM of those obligations - I still would have taken those obligations knowing they were reasonable and viable promises.I find it interesting the discussion of the Obligation. Do other Jurisdictions, outside of Pennsylvania, refer to what is sworn as simply an "Obligation?"
Here all of what is sworn by Candidates in Initiation, Passing and Raising, by Officers at Installation and at Visitors at Examination are termed an "Oath and Obligation." All the promises to do or not do specific things and how to behave are the "Obligation" but they are ALWAYS followed on by an "Oath" namely "So Help Me G-d..." The Obligation is what you personally agree to on your own. The Oath binds that promise to G-d. One can certainly swear an Obligation with no reference to Deity, but it is the Oath that is essential to have all bound to the same entity and thus on the Level. At least here in PA!
Exactly!The Landmark barring atheists , whether codified or unwritten, is a foundation of our Order.
Same here.my current jurisdiction very intentionally refers to it solely as an obligation.
I think this is a perfect example. Your bolding of the term Libertine shows that by the Landmarks, only adherents to "established" religions (whatever that means) are acceptable.
So, belief in a Supreme Being is not enough.
Do we conform to this Landmark, or do we fail to apply it uniformily?
I find it interesting the discussion of the Obligation. Do other Jurisdictions, outside of Pennsylvania, refer to what is sworn as simply an "Obligation?"
Well, I have to say that I have seen atheists which are in a higher moral standing than most of the faithful I have met. Being a moral being has nothing to do with religion or your personal faith.
Just compare the number of members you had 30 years ago with the numbers you have now. And the decrease is exponential.
So if we want to survive as an organization, we need to change also. Otherwise, c`est fini ....
I don`t think that a F:.M:. from the USA can criticize any other masonic body for interfering in politics, as the Masonic interference in American politics was the most pregnant in history. You even had an Anti-Masonic Party at some point for G-d`s sake...
Good point....I hadn't looked at it this way before. We're Brothers regardless.at the end of the day we won’t unite and really we shouldn’t in the same way Prince Hall masonry shouldn’t be assimilated, there’s history there that would be lost if we try to fit square pegs into the regular round hole.
Agreed.The whole debate isn't going to be solved here no matter how many words we throw at it. The GOdF will continue to justify admitting atheists and mainstream Masonry will continue to not recognize them for it. I don't see that changing any time soon.
Maybe you can answer this, was Mustapha Kemal Ataturk a member of the Grand Orient de France in the country of Macedonia?My Dear Br:.
I was initiated in the Grand Orient de France and am now integrated in the Grand Orient de Roumanie.
I would like to send you all my Triple Fraternal Accolade.
I registered on this forum because I would like to have debates with "regular" Br:. on the topic of regular vs. irregular in the sense of UGLE vs. GODF (dogmatic vs. adogmatic).
T:.A:.F:.
,,...After reading all posts here I realize that the biggest issue you see is that the GOdF accepts atheists. Well, I have to say that I have seen atheists which are in a higher moral standing than most of the faithful I have met. Being a moral being has nothing to do with religion or your personal faith. You can stand by an oath even tho you do not believe in anything. If a G:.O:. accepts atheists and does not inquire about your religious beliefs in an official manner, this doesn`t mean that 1. We are just atheists in the R:.L:. and 2. We accept "immoral libertines"..
&......There was a Br:. who commented on the GOdF and blamed it for interfering with French politics. Why do you see the straw in the others eye and do no see the beam in yours? I don`t think that a F:.M:. from the USA can criticize any other masonic body for interfering in politics, as the Masonic interference in American politics was the most pregnant in history. You even had an Anti-Masonic Party at some point for G-d`s sake...
...You may want to check your facts on that. We haven't had a Masonic President since the late 1970's when Gerald Ford was in office. And the Anti-Masonic Party was a political party dedicated to fighting against Freemasonry as an organization as a direct result of the Morgan affair....
Agreed.completely agree that the moral character of people who are atheists can be very high, that is not what is in question, it is how the value of faith in a Supreme Being permeates our type of Freemasonry.
Also agreed.there is a big difference between a Masonic Politician and a Politician who is a (regular) Freemason