masonicknight
Registered User
I think you have a better approach to it and it covers a larger area while still addressing the main issue at hand. It also put everyone on notice without it appearing to be a direct threat, though it actually is.
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!
Proposed Racism Resolution
- Thread starter Bill Lins
- Start date
- Status
jonesvilletexas
Premium Member
I say again you cannot legislate or control his actions, because of the ballet box and that is the final outcome is it not?
Are we talking Prince Hall here or the black man? There is a difference we have and can permit him in, and that is fine with me, I also stand against bigotry, but if you are trying to force Prince Hall in you might ask if that is what they won’t! You might be surprised to the answer.
Are we talking Prince Hall here or the black man? There is a difference we have and can permit him in, and that is fine with me, I also stand against bigotry, but if you are trying to force Prince Hall in you might ask if that is what they won’t! You might be surprised to the answer.
The Lodges which NEED to do it never would.
Strictly the individual- this has nothing whatsoever to do with Prince Hall.
H
Huw
Guest
No doubt there are some in PHA who would not want to see an anti-racism resolution: so long as State GLs are perceived to be racist (regardless of whether or not they actually are), PHA has less competition among its main recruitment base. I don't suggest that that's a majority view in PHA, indeed I'd be pretty surprised if it were, but I'm sure there must be some PHA members who'd see it that way.
Regarding the finality of the ballot-box ... perhaps not necessarily. I don't know the rules in GLoTX, but here in UGLE it is not unknown for disciplinary action to be taken against a member who blackballs, if he lets it be known that he did it and if he announces an improper reason for using the black ball. Is that not possible under GLoTX rules? If he keeps it secret then nothing could be done, but if there were a case here such as reported by Owls, of infrequent attenders turning up and openly declaring that they're there to "vote on the n-word", then UGLE would have had those guys up on charges of unmasonic conduct, and would quite likely have suspended the warrant of the Lodge as well. (Incidentally, we don't even have any specific provision over here defining racism as unmasonic conduct, it's simply taken for granted that bigotry is obviously unmasonic ... but of course I realise that we have a different historical context.)
T & F,
Huw
Regarding the finality of the ballot-box ... perhaps not necessarily. I don't know the rules in GLoTX, but here in UGLE it is not unknown for disciplinary action to be taken against a member who blackballs, if he lets it be known that he did it and if he announces an improper reason for using the black ball. Is that not possible under GLoTX rules? If he keeps it secret then nothing could be done, but if there were a case here such as reported by Owls, of infrequent attenders turning up and openly declaring that they're there to "vote on the n-word", then UGLE would have had those guys up on charges of unmasonic conduct, and would quite likely have suspended the warrant of the Lodge as well. (Incidentally, we don't even have any specific provision over here defining racism as unmasonic conduct, it's simply taken for granted that bigotry is obviously unmasonic ... but of course I realise that we have a different historical context.)
T & F,
Huw
As to the finality of the ballot box, under GLoT law the result of the ballot would not be affected by actions occurring afterward, i.e. a Brother announcing how he voted.
Art. 420. (457). Ballot Is a Finality When Announced.
A ballot on any kind of a petition or application named in Art. 419
may be retaken as many times as may be necessary to satisfy the
Worshipful Master that no mistake has been made, before the
result of any ballot is announced by the Worshipful Master, but not
thereafter.
No result of a ballot shall be announced until called for
by the Worshipful Master, but the result must be announced before
the meeting at which the ballot is taken is closed. If the Junior and
Senior Wardens and the Worshipful Master find that the ballot is
favorable, each shall declare the ballot favorable at their respective
stations. If the ballot is reported favorable by both Wardens, and
the Worshipful Master has received one or more protests, which,
when combined with the number of blackballs cast equals three
or more, he shall announce the number of blackballs cast and
the number of protests received by him, and declare the ballot as
unfavorable. If the ballot is unfavorable when the final ballot is
taken, they shall declare the ballot “unfavorable” and the Worshipful
Master, only if the combined vote and protests is unfavorable,
shall announce the number of blackballs cast and the number of
protests received by him, and the same shall be recorded in the
minutes of the Lodge. (Revised 1992)
The only instance in which the result of a ballot could be changed,
AFAIK, would be where a petition was approved and the election protested
afterward.
Art. 420. (457). Ballot Is a Finality When Announced.
A ballot on any kind of a petition or application named in Art. 419
may be retaken as many times as may be necessary to satisfy the
Worshipful Master that no mistake has been made, before the
result of any ballot is announced by the Worshipful Master, but not
thereafter.
No result of a ballot shall be announced until called for
by the Worshipful Master, but the result must be announced before
the meeting at which the ballot is taken is closed. If the Junior and
Senior Wardens and the Worshipful Master find that the ballot is
favorable, each shall declare the ballot favorable at their respective
stations. If the ballot is reported favorable by both Wardens, and
the Worshipful Master has received one or more protests, which,
when combined with the number of blackballs cast equals three
or more, he shall announce the number of blackballs cast and
the number of protests received by him, and declare the ballot as
unfavorable. If the ballot is unfavorable when the final ballot is
taken, they shall declare the ballot “unfavorable” and the Worshipful
Master, only if the combined vote and protests is unfavorable,
shall announce the number of blackballs cast and the number of
protests received by him, and the same shall be recorded in the
minutes of the Lodge. (Revised 1992)
The only instance in which the result of a ballot could be changed,
AFAIK, would be where a petition was approved and the election protested
afterward.
Last edited:
From Art. 505, Laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas:
16. Disclose to any person how he voted on any applicant for
affiliation or for the degrees, or on any question decided
by a secret ballot.
As you can see, it is a violation for a Brother to disclose how he voted, but there is nothing specific that I could find regarding "an improper reason for using the black ball." It may possibly be construed as "unMasonic conduct", but I've found nothing specifically stating such.
16. Disclose to any person how he voted on any applicant for
affiliation or for the degrees, or on any question decided
by a secret ballot.
As you can see, it is a violation for a Brother to disclose how he voted, but there is nothing specific that I could find regarding "an improper reason for using the black ball." It may possibly be construed as "unMasonic conduct", but I've found nothing specifically stating such.
I have heard a 50 year Mason who is very prominent and respected in the community say he would never sit in lodge with any other book than the Holy Bible, implying that he would black ball anybody not christian. He also told a GL representative at teh dinner table he would not sit in lodge with a black man and when the GL rep. asked why not, the mason replied "because I am a bigot". Food fell out of my mouth and the GL representative just kinda scoffed and that was it but what could he do besides give him a piece of his mind. Brother Bill as sad as it may be the full wording to your resolution is needed. If the scenario comes up where a Masons converts to Atheism why would he want to stay in Masonry? Would it be considered negative campaigning against someone if they become incompatible with Masonry and you told them such? I mean if a Mason went to GL b/c he felt he had a case of discrimination b/c he is an atheist would they even entertain his request? Would that not render him a non-mason on the spot?
masonicknight
Registered User
I have met a few men who have felt the same way regarding who they would be willing to sit with in Lodge with similar reasons. I actually met one person who had demitted from Masonry when the GL of California acknowledged PHA as being regular many years ago. I also see where a GL would not do any action that would have an effect on the bottom line regarding the number of members on the list should you have someone say they no longer had a belief in the Supreme Being. They would want the per capita tax and as long as no one made an objection to his presence or pushed it to a Masonic Trial they would let sleeping dogs rest.
A few years back GL of California had a proposal presented at the annual communication that would have required each proposed member to be certified that he was male. This came about because someone had heard about a transgendered male petitioning to become a Mason. Whether or not this actually occurred I don't remember as I thought it hilarious that it was even discussed. The proposal failed on the voting floor. But it did bring to the table a discussion and understanding of what is appropriate and what is not to place into Masonic Law.
The question of PHA regarding this situation in Texas is a descent one. How would it be perceived if it is worded in such a way that its implications could be misconstrued. If GL Texas is negotiating words of understanding between both groups this may become a concern. Or it may not as the sincerity factor may be in play. The waters are deep regarding this subject and sometimes we make the right decision at the appropriate time. Each GL has to have the ability to function within its own area based on the combined will of the individual Masons that they preside over. On the other hand, a GL that will not consider friendly advice from a brother speaking quietly to them is in violation of its own obligations also.
Only time will tell and the willingness to adopt and change as time moves on and the last of the other states recognize PHA may be the only way to truly calm the waters down. Threats of Unmasonic Conduct may only entrench those that already feel battered and their walls are now up defending what they are as sure of as his opposing side is. Causing an alienation/shunning is not any better in order to get change to occur willingly.
This is leadership in action or inaction based on how a problem is resolved and should the problem persist. Hopefully our leaders in all branches of Masonry can take up the challenge and not fall back on the verse "but this is how we always have done it".
A few years back GL of California had a proposal presented at the annual communication that would have required each proposed member to be certified that he was male. This came about because someone had heard about a transgendered male petitioning to become a Mason. Whether or not this actually occurred I don't remember as I thought it hilarious that it was even discussed. The proposal failed on the voting floor. But it did bring to the table a discussion and understanding of what is appropriate and what is not to place into Masonic Law.
The question of PHA regarding this situation in Texas is a descent one. How would it be perceived if it is worded in such a way that its implications could be misconstrued. If GL Texas is negotiating words of understanding between both groups this may become a concern. Or it may not as the sincerity factor may be in play. The waters are deep regarding this subject and sometimes we make the right decision at the appropriate time. Each GL has to have the ability to function within its own area based on the combined will of the individual Masons that they preside over. On the other hand, a GL that will not consider friendly advice from a brother speaking quietly to them is in violation of its own obligations also.
Only time will tell and the willingness to adopt and change as time moves on and the last of the other states recognize PHA may be the only way to truly calm the waters down. Threats of Unmasonic Conduct may only entrench those that already feel battered and their walls are now up defending what they are as sure of as his opposing side is. Causing an alienation/shunning is not any better in order to get change to occur willingly.
This is leadership in action or inaction based on how a problem is resolved and should the problem persist. Hopefully our leaders in all branches of Masonry can take up the challenge and not fall back on the verse "but this is how we always have done it".
Personally I don't really care about the color of the skin and neither should Masonry. If we go back to the oath that we all took it should be the Internal and not the External qualities that qualify a man to be a mason. I understand that there will be some elder masons that might disagree with that and might even leave the lodge cause of a black or African American is voted in but I would rather lose some elder members of the lodge for a good cause. Racism still exists but it should not in our fraternity. This is a step that needs to be taken and a move forward. Its the 21st century people not the 12th.:11:
Problem with the internal thing is that it is part of the ritual and not the obligation therefore not a Masonic offense otherwise I personally would have filed charges. I as many from my lodge asked this very question but it is much easier to change the law than to change the obligation so it would be hard for me not want a law that would help fight bigotry
On the point as well about some leaving lodge, this I can attest to this truth as well. It was just my last SM at elections (wink wink) when I was reminded by 2 of my PM that they would not sit in lodge with a black man (wished they used nice words like me though) and at dinner and before lodge. Feel sorry for our WM, wait that is me. You might find me in the alter! :confused1:
I wondered if I should have told them I appointed a black man as JD?
hmy: a very good man I might add.
took me a sec on the meaning of PB but I got it, thanks I think.
Mebbe we should abbreviate your title to W:.P:. ! :lol:
H
Huw
Guest
Hmmm. If it's gone in with the wording last published (as I assume it has), then I reckon that your Jurisprudence Committee will see the same flaws as I previously mentioned, and recommend a no vote. In which case, sorry Bill, but I'll think hats off to Jurisprudence for standing up for the need to get it right in spite of the public pressure on here to "do something" regardless of whether it's correctly worded. Well, we shall see. When is their verdict due to be announced?
I note that there was an analogous situation in Florida just a few weeks ago. Someone put in a resolution in favour of PHA recognition (which they still don't have in GLoFL), and there was some fuss in various internet forums when their Jurisprudence Committee recommended a no vote. However, when I got hold of a copy of what the resolution actually said, it was obvious why their Jurisprudence Committee had had to say no, regardless of whether or not they agreed with the objective of the resolution: the wording as proposed would have caused chaos.
By the way, I don't get the "WMPB" joke ... perhaps it's an American terminology? Can someone explain?
T & F,
Huw
I note that there was an analogous situation in Florida just a few weeks ago. Someone put in a resolution in favour of PHA recognition (which they still don't have in GLoFL), and there was some fuss in various internet forums when their Jurisprudence Committee recommended a no vote. However, when I got hold of a copy of what the resolution actually said, it was obvious why their Jurisprudence Committee had had to say no, regardless of whether or not they agreed with the objective of the resolution: the wording as proposed would have caused chaos.
By the way, I don't get the "WMPB" joke ... perhaps it's an American terminology? Can someone explain?
T & F,
Huw
- Status