Ill admit it, i was one that didnt agree with it, still really dont...however I understand that it exists and offers something that my GL doesnt and there is nothing I can do about it. Also after reading what coach, glen and JC have said opened my eyes. Just cause my GL says something doesnt make it so outside of my borders! Also the PHA and gay situation made this topic a bit more clear for me as well
Often things are presented black-and-white, while the Masonic landscape is very divers. It could well be that of three GLs two recognise one another but not the third, while that third is not necessarily the same from all points of the triangle, just look at 'the Georgia situation'.
History learns us that "regular" versus "irregular" is not an unchanging situation either. Only decades after the "Premier Grand Lodge" there already were three other, some "united" later on, other took centuries to recognise each other.
Then there are quite big differences between what is sometimes called "Anglo-American" and "continental" Freemasonry. Just think about the fact that the largest Masonic organisation in France allows their lodges to admit women. The fact that they don't play by exactly the same rules as your own GL, so there can be no visitation, does that mean that they practice 'false' FM? Like I said earlier, perhaps we should (try to) see which organisations are "otherwise regular in their workings", there is no reason to fight.
I really have no problem with someone joining co-masonry, to each his own I say. However, I do have a problem when someone tells me that I SHOULD recognize it as legitimate and failure to do so makes me a bigot, sexist, etc., etc., etc.
There will certainly be people who think that way, but it's similar the other way around. Organisations that do not play by the same rules as someone's GL are "clandestine" and should vanish, instead of just 'not recognised by my GL'. A better path, in my opinion, is to acknowledge that there are different forms of FM and some (many) may not be ours.
I would also say that as long as they explain to their petitioners that their sect of Freemasonry is not what the World At Large recognizes as Freemasonry and that there will only be a small selection of lodges that they will be able to visit
That is not entirely true. Say, you're a member of the Regular Grand Lodge of Belgium. They represent
6% of the Belgian Freemasons, so you will not be able to visit 94% of the Belgian lodges. Or you're a "regular" Mason from the USA and you travel to France... Masonic life is easier for "irregular" Masons in both countries. On a global scale you are undoubtedly correct.
Personally I don't really see this as an argument either way. In my country there are some 30 lodges that I can visit (mixed gender of different organisations) and some 180 ("regular") that I can't. I have a hard time enough to even visit all these 30 lodges once. When I look at Belgium there are hundreds of lodges that I can visit, but I probably never will. When I travel to some country, say Iceland, there are lodges that I can visit. I can only 'pick' from fewer lodges, but still many more than I will ever have the time for.
You know, this thread has encouraged me to do a good deal of reflection on this topic and I've come to the same conclusion. In fact, the reason I started this thread in the first place was that I've voiced my opinion on this topic in the past and was told I was ignorant, sexist, and so forth.
We don't have to agree to get along. I'll hear your opinions and thoughts but be prepared to hear mine as well.
Like I said above, as long as we recognise that we all are here and respect that people make choices that would not have been your own, we can inform people who are looking for more information and tell them about the differences without torching organisations that are not (recognised by) your own.