On this very subject; has anyone here read Out of the Shadows: The Emergence of Prince Hall Freemasonry in America ?
It's on my to read list with a few others on the history. I will likely order it soon.
On this very subject; has anyone here read Out of the Shadows: The Emergence of Prince Hall Freemasonry in America ?
When did you pull recognition from jurisdiction that put racism into their constitutions?
You disapprove of removing VSL. You disapprove of admitting women or atheists. You disapprove of removing VSL. You disapprove of admitting women or atheists. You disapprove of "public indecency" that will bring ill repute on the fraternity. Segregation and racism is not something that was consider publicly indecent or putting bad reputation on the fraternity.
GLs haven't disapproved of segregation. Those who did disapprove took action. Those who supported segregation took action. Those who thought segregation was just another local bylaw, took no action or stood behind those supporting segregation.
As you can see form your own responses, when something is *actually* viewed as immoral or injurious to the fraternity (or is bureaucratic) action is easy and swift.
Sure, they could make a host of legalistic arguments. More than likely they would have to ignore the actions, records and statements of the white GLs which actively supported or demanded segregation
Racism has been codified in several GL constitutions and in many statements in the past two hundred years. Some GLs stood up only to have the others fail to support them when soem GLs pulled recognition.
I certainly agree it's not easy to "prove racism" even while many masons have direct experience in several areas with it and common sense is never enough. But staying in denial about the long history of tolerating it and constantly pushing rules of order over morality, and clouding morality in rules of order - it's just continuing to provide shelter.
... Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will ...
Don't get me wrong on any of this, I know there are GLs and individual masons who stood on the right side of brotherhood and human rights and I love to hear their stories and I hope more come out.
I have no problem sitting with masons of any color.
I will, however, never vote to recognize PH based strictly on the principal that I do not believe PH to be regular.
I would also say that some of the comments in this thread verge on the border of being disrespectful towards the GL of Louisiana. I trust that the brethren who participate in this thread will continue to choose their words carefully.
Hello Bryan,
Can you explain on what grounds that your Grand Lodge deems Prince Hall Masonry to be irregular? Is it by LA definitions that the statement is supported?
I have already explained earlier in this discussion that any lodge that operates within the confines of the State of Louisiana that is not a subordinate lodge of the GL of LA is "Clandestine". We are supreme within our own jurisdiction. The PH work in Louisiana is not does not conform to the ancient landmarks and tenets. That is our opinion. I can not speak for every mason in the state of Louisiana obviously.. however I believe i can speak for the majority of Louisiana masons that overwhelming voted not to receive this resolution. Out of the 700 or so voting delegates at our Annual Grand Communication I would guess that maybe 40 to 50 delegates voted to receive this resolution. Because this resolution was not filed in a timely manner as prescribed and set forth by Law it required a two thirds majority vote to be received.
While this subject is quite a "hot button issue" I don't think your Grand Lodge is being attacked. The issue does however needs a rather gentle approach in this discussion. As I have traveled all over the world our recognition of PHA, or lack of it is viewed as a rather strange anomaly and a throw back in time that needs to be dealt with.
Sincerely & Fraternally
I did not say my grand lodge was being attacked.. if you read what I said.. I said that some of the comments in this thread verged on being disrespectful. Please don't put words in my mouth.
And yes it definitely needs a gentle approach.
Whether I agree or disagree with any brother.. I try to do it respectfully. All I ask is the same of all the other brethren that participate in this thread. There are most certainly things I do not like that I've seem some grand jurisdictions do.. however I still respect their law and their decisions and I don't publicly bash other grand jurisdictions on this website or any other. I'm not suggesting in anyway that you or anyone else have done that here but it has been done by other "brethren" on many other websites and I think that deplorable.
I will, however, never vote to recognize PH based strictly on the principal that I do not believe PH to be regular.
There are actually quite a few jurisdictions throughout Europe and other places in the world that we do not recognize based on irregularity. Its not as if PH is the only masonic organization that we do not choose to recognize.
Racist can be found in every lodge in every grand jurisdiction around the world and I suspect that even in some of the jurisdictions that do recognize PH masons have a few racist that remain.. and I also suspect that there are probably quite a few racist in the PH organizations as well. Racism comes in all sizes, shapes and colors just like people do.
I would also say that some of the comments in this thread verge on the border of being disrespectful towards the GL of Louisiana. I trust that the brethren who participate in this thread will continue to choose their words carefully.
The Grand Lodge of Louisiana has full fraternal relations with all 50 Grand Jurisdictions in the United States and also with our ultimate mother lodge the UGLE. The GL of Louisiana will, in 2012, celebrate 200 years of masonry and I think whether or not you agree or disagree with the way we do things in the Grand Lodge of Louisiana it deserves your utmost respect.
I have already explained earlier in this discussion that any lodge that operates within the confines of the State of Louisiana that is not a subordinate lodge of the GL of LA is "Clandestine". We are supreme within our own jurisdiction.
The PH work in Louisiana is not does not conform to the ancient landmarks and tenets. That is our opinion.
Hi Bryan.
I was already writing my previous post when you posted your latest, so I didn't see it until afterwards.
I've already pointed out why that can't be a reason for considering them irregular (although of course it can be a reason for considering them unrecognisable). However ...
Aha! Now that's an objection I can understand a lot better, breach of Landmarks is the essence of irregularity. Can you enlighten us about the way in which PHAoLA fails to conform?
T & F,
Huw
I would invite you to direct this question to MW: Bro. Roy Tuck, PGM and Grand Secretary or to MW: Bro. Woody D. Bilyeu, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana as they are much more informed on this subject than I.
I wonder sometimes.. if the Grand Lodge of Louisiana extended recognition to PH of Louisiana if it would silence the critics when the PH of Louisiana rejects the extended recognition. Recognition is a two way street and to this point neither GL of La nor PH GL of LA have to my knowledge made any attempts at seeking mutual recognition and fraternal relations.
I would also ask.. why is it that the PH GL of Louisiana does not want to be recognized by the GL of LA? Could it be that they are racist? After all that seems to be the main factor that everyone agrees on as to the reason that we don't recognize them? All I'm saying is.. why is it that the same questions being asked of the GL of LA aren't being asked of the PH GL of LA?
I haven't seen any resolutions posted on here or anywhere else for that matter that were submitted at the PH Gl of LA to seek fraternal relations with the GL of LA. It seems to me that even though the above resolution was a failed attempt.. it seems that the only attempt so far.. is on the GL of La's side.
By the way.. I like the way you argue your points! I would hate to know I had to debate you.
Hi Bryan.
If Bros. Roy or Woody come on here, I can talk to them. I can't contact them directly, because protocol would require communications via my own GSec.
But protocol would require the newer GL to apply to the older for recognition. However, you could get around that by publicly asking PHAoLA if they'd like to apply.
It'd be an interesting experiment, I agree.
Certainly it works both ways. If PHAoLA members were here on this forum, then I'd hope that they'd join this thread and say their piece. However, I've not noticed anyone on this forum or any other forum who identifies himself as PHAoLA. No doubt the PHAoLA members do hang out online somewhere, but I don't know where. If I knew one, I'd ask one, since I'd like to hear what they'd say.
Fair point. We don't hear so much news from the PHA, I'm often not sure what's happening there.
In general, the PHA seems rather quiet on the Web, a lot of their GLs don't even have websites and I've only met a small number of PHA members online. I wonder if maybe some of the PHGLs have a policy like the State GLoAR, banning members from using the web for any discussion of masonry at all? Or maybe there's just more of a habit of secretiveness in PHA.
:2::laugh:
T & F,
Huw