What exactly is a social, political, cultural, or religious conflict and how may we know whether something is one of those things or not?
n.b. "
to take a side" is
not the right framing, because it implies some form of two-sided sectarian conflict and the language focuses on the conflict between those sides. A better framing is
to state a position. When a person or organization states a position, this does not "affiliate it with a side" (although some may think they're the same thing, they are not). If you take the position (for example) that Catholics should be permitted to be Freemasons (as I'm sure most of us would) it would be bogus to frame this as "taking a side against the pope" (who of course disagrees). I hope we would also agree that saying Catholics can be Freemasons would not be seen as "taking a side on a religious issue" - so we need some clear boundaries on how that's interpreted.
It's a serious question though about what is a social, political, cultural, or religious conflict. Because I would submit that it is wholly appropriate for Freemasonry to state positions on some issues that directly relate to the principles of the fraternity, as for example was done in the
recent masonic statements of unity. Back to the (example) statement about Catholics; this is a religious issue, but it's also an issue of masonic principles. Do Catholics meet the requirements? (Yes of course) - and so they may be Freemasons. That causes conflict with the pope, and most freemasons correctly judge that's the pope's problem, not ours.
Because outside society is becoming increasingly divisive, we have a serious threat we need to address: just about everything is being drawn into "politics". If, in the name of promoting harmony, Freemasons go with that - we will find ourselves unable to take positions on our core values, hoping in vain not to be seen as contentious on a political or social issue.
As in the example with Catholics & Freemasonry, it is futile to avoid conflict. Freemasons can however choose to make sure that when our actions may trigger it, we are grounded in first principles. That would be the strong footing under the position.
So, reframed: how do we know if something is political, cultural, or religious - and what do we do if one of those issues touches on masonic principles? Should the craft be unable to take a position on such an issue?