A Brother Asks: Why Is Excluding Women Legitimate?

Discussion in 'General Freemasonry Discussion' started by coachn, Aug 9, 2018.

  1. Bloke

    Bloke Premium Member

    4,365
    3,071
    133
    Exactly, there is more than one kind of "regular" and only one kind matters to each Freemason :D

    Thanks, but again I am not sure I agree, "Regularity" is a jurisprudence concept, and while it might be emotional, it is also underpinned rules which are facts, even when we allow our emotion shapes those rules; and interesting thing to ponder !
     
    Glen Cook likes this.
  2. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 Site Benefactor

    7,340
    3,333
    183
    Uh......er.......O.K.
     
    CLewey44 and Glen Cook like this.
  3. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    3,003
    3,437
    183
    As an aside, I’d clarify that even within “regular “ Freemasonry, UGLE is not the sole arbiter.
     
    dfreybur, Warrior1256, Bloke and 3 others like this.
  4. JamestheJust

    JamestheJust Registered User

    1,735
    538
    113
    >Uh......er.......O.K.

    It is regrettable that the practice of Masonic Science is not taught in lodges. It is not hard.
     
  5. Bloke

    Bloke Premium Member

    4,365
    3,071
    133
    Do you think UGLE's Recognition might be at risk because of its Guidelines on Transgender Bro Glen ?
     
  6. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    3,003
    3,437
    183
    Good question. I don’t know. The summer national meetings are over. KYCH meets in September. CGMNA in February. Perhaps a better feel then.
     
    Bloke likes this.
  7. LK600

    LK600 Premium Member

    654
    715
    113
    I understand now the point we disagree on, and it isn't regularity. It's back to the concept of an "overarching" organization where all groups regular, irregular etc are Freemasons. You appear to believe that exists whereas I do not.
     
  8. Bloke

    Bloke Premium Member

    4,365
    3,071
    133
    Sound like a fair assessment. I think Freemasonry is a very broad term which picks up a lot of organisations and "Regular" is a subjective term, but also critical to the boundaries of where and what we can experience as "Regular" Freemasons.
     
    LK600 and Warrior1256 like this.
  9. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 Site Benefactor

    7,340
    3,333
    183
    Very much agree.
     
    Bloke likes this.
  10. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    3,003
    3,437
    183
    We have objective criteria to determine if a lodge is regular.
     
    Warrior1256 likes this.
  11. Bloke

    Bloke Premium Member

    4,365
    3,071
    133
    We do, but they are not the same as other Masonic Groups like LDH.
     
  12. LK600

    LK600 Premium Member

    654
    715
    113
    I understand the point of view, but would disagree that Regularity is subjective. "Regular" is objective, unless you form a group that chooses it's own set of rules that differ... then those would be subjective (again, there is nothing wrong with that). Those groups are just as much rightful organizations as we are, but that doesn't make them connected to us in any way. :)
     
    Bloke likes this.
  13. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,935
    2,393
    133
    The discussion has been objective versus subjective. I think that misses by a bit. It should be relative versus absolute. Noting that nothing in the human world is absolute so it's position on a spectrum not an either-or.

    Of course everyone who takes their degrees figures their own lodge is regular. That's relative to their own lodge. For all I know there are lodges out there that are completely independent without even a Grand Lodge they report to. But every lodge I've heard of does report to a grand lodge and that grand lodge considers itself regular.

    Because grand lodge Masonry created itself in 1717, lineage claims are always subject to interpretation. This makes claims of "clandestine" foundation iffy at times. To us some guy doesn't get to go out and found jurisdictions once expelled, but Masonry is not copyrighted so we don't get to stop them. It has happened many times. Lineage is by far the most unclear of the regularity criteria. The fact that the PHA family remained loyal to the Premier Grand Lodge of England from before the 1812 Union very much helped with their lineage issue for example.

    If we go with regularity being relative, some jurisdictions can say that being a man means being human. And *to their own members* that's regular. While *to our members* they are not. Let's see what happens if ships with Star Wars or Star Trek aliens so up and request membership!

    Mention of women is in the wording of what I swore, but that was only about being present. And I can see a viewpoint where that wording gets changed and a new generation grows up with different wording. I would very likely vote against changing the wording like that, but I can imagine how that evolution of wording and rules could happen.

    There is some outside enforcement that is definitely going to happen - The Shrine now solicits the general public for charitable contributions. The means that the Shrine Hospital Foundation is going to have non-discrimination policies forced upon it. The separation of Shrinedom and the Shrine Hospital Foundation is going to be pierced at some point. The Shrine will have to become a non-discriminating organization. At which point the separation between the Shrine and Arkansas become moot. The Shrine will eventually have to exit Masonry because of the commercials they current run on TV.

    The issue of admitting women is coming at us from multiple directions for multiple reasons.

    It is valid to exclude women because women are free to form and join organizations that exclude men. That's the ultimate justification. But staying discriminatory comes with a long list of prices that we will eventually have to pay.

    Consider the separation of the Girl Scouts from the Boy Scouts about gender and religion. The Girl Scouts sell cookies and so they are a business enterprise. As such they had non-discrimination rules pushed onto them by some states. Now the Boy Scouts sell popcorn. And sure enough, before it gets forced upon them they are stepping back from their discriminatory policies.

    It might not matter that we are a fraternity.
     
    Bloke and Glen Cook like this.
  14. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    3,003
    3,437
    183
    Ahh. Got it.
     
    Bloke likes this.
  15. Symthrell

    Symthrell Registered User

    71
    70
    18
    In this day and age of Political Correctness run amok, you can bet that the day will come that this issue will become a hot-button item for some group out there. They will demand that the government step in and force the Mason's to accept female members or they will lose 501c3 status. (Did I get that status right?)
     
    Warrior1256 likes this.
  16. Bloke

    Bloke Premium Member

    4,365
    3,071
    133
    Thanks LK. I think this is a very good conversation because we need to understand what "Regular" is. Some will scream it means "NON ATHEIST , MALE ONLY, VSL PRESENT, NO RELIGION OR POLITICS, LEGITIMATE LINEAGE" where that is not the case for some of who I consider my masonic Brothers and Sisters, but I would also expect them to respect me when I bar their entry to the lodge or decline to sit in theirs. That's all about me, not them. (oh and to the capital words before, some GLs append things like being Christian or white or not being communist, poor, gay or owning a bar..)
     
  17. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    3,003
    3,437
    183
    No GLs of which I’m aware have a constitutional prohibition based on colour.
     
    texanmason likes this.
  18. Bloke

    Bloke Premium Member

    4,365
    3,071
    133
    Agree, but rules and precedent do not always match.

    Sent from my SM-G920I using My Freemasonry mobile app
     
  19. LK600

    LK600 Premium Member

    654
    715
    113
    I agree, it's a fundamental discussion more Brother's should brush up on, But it's only half of the necessary topic. Defining what is "regular" and how the term "regular" only applies to one's specific (to use your term) lineage could assist many to understand every group (in this case "Masons") have their own laws, rules and regulations which are true and appropriate to those specific organizations. The other aspect, and the one I believe most people take issue with is the notion that all groups calling themselves Freemasons are linked under some form of a Masonic banner where we are one society with many shades/branches. I would submit that most Freemasons do not feel this is accurate. Those screaming "NON ATHEIST , MALE ONLY, VSL PRESENT, NO RELIGION OR POLITICS, LEGITIMATE LINEAGE" are among that group ( who believe the Landmarks have true meaning and aren't disposable), but only the vocal portion of the same, and they're citing of the Landmarks is appropriate and accurate, in reference to their regularity. The issue is not really regularity alone but the argument that while each organization under the sun has the right and ability to define what regularity means to themselves, is there anything that links all organizations calling themselves Masons to each other. That is where the dichotomy exists in these expressed differences.
     
    Bloke and Warrior1256 like this.
  20. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 Site Benefactor

    7,340
    3,333
    183
    I certainly don't feel it is accurate.
    This is the group that I belong to.
    Agreed.
     
    LK600 likes this.

Share My Freemasonry