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!

LA puts Prince Hall recognition on the next GL agenda

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bryan

Registered User
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.

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.
 
H

Huw

Guest
Hi Rich.

When did you pull recognition from jurisdiction that put racism into their constitutions?

I can't recall any GL outside the US putting racism into their constitutions. So the situation has never arisen, so far as I know, except in the case of US GLs.

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.

Well, obviously I'll agree with you that racism is abhorrent to masonic principles. However, it is obviously possible for a group of men who happen to be of the same race (let's suppose for a moment that that's just a coincidence, or that they live in a place where pretty much everyone is the same race) to practice regular masonry together. But it is not possible for a group to practice regular masonry at all without a VSL, nor if the group includes women or atheists. In that sense, therefore, these other issues are more fundamental to masonry than race.

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.

Nonsense. There are other ways of expressing disapproval than pulling recognition. In UGLE our disapproval of racism has always been unmistakeable, both by our racially-integrated example and by what we have said. Most other non-US GLs have done the same as we have.

If we outside the US had behaved the way you seem to want us to have behaved, we would probably never have recognised any US GL at all until the last few decades. And bear in mind that, in that case, the US would have counted as "vacant territory" for regular masonry, so UGLE and the other non-US GLs would all have been free to go around setting up their own Lodges in the US for a couple of centuries ... and we would have done so. But heck, no, we thought Americans wanted independence after that fuss you kicked up in 1776, so we withdrew and agreed to accept the US GLs as independent jurisdictions. But by accepting the US GLs as ever being legitimate at all, we automatically put up with them being racist jurisdictions, because they were racist from the moment they were erected - remember that PHA was created precisely because the brand new GLoMA were racists who wouldn't admit African Lodge in Boston - and of course the racists who set up GLoMA were the same Lodges who kicked off your War of Independence by organising that Tea Party in Boston. So in terms of its effect on masonry, the American War of Independence might just as well have been called the "War for the Right to Practice Racism in Masonry". Obviously in the real world there were a lot of other issues involved, but those other issues weren't relevant to masonry.

So I don't see why you persist in trying to shift the blame for racism in American masonry to us outside the US. You did it yourselves, and you've got to fix it yourselves, it's not our fault. You wanted independence, you got independence, and independence meant racism. So what are you saying here, Rich? Are you saying that we should never have recognised GLoTX in the past, until you abolished overt racism from your rules not so very long ago? Or since GLoTX is still very largely white, are you still asking us to withdraw recognition from GLoTX even now, until you have a more demonstrably non-racist mix of members? I'd rather we didn't do that, I'd rather remain in amity with the many good Brethren in Texas and the other States, regardless of the fact that there are also racists in the same jurisdictions ... and therefore I'm glad that my GL chose to express disapproval through all these decades by diplomatic means rather than by pulling recognition.

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.

It can be done, yes, of course in theory we could have pulled recognition of GLoTX and all of the other (many!) US jurisdictions which used to have racist rules. Have you thought through the consequences if we'd done that? It's often an unfortunate necessity in the real world to make uncomfortable compromises, and masonry is not immune to such compromises or it'd be nearly impossible to recognise any other GL anywhere, there's always some disagreement about something. I agree that we made a larger moral compromise in the case of the US than any other in masonic history, in order to have anyone at all in the US to recognise. We haven't done the same elsewhere, and it wasn't a comfortable compromise to make and to stick to for two centuries, but racism used to be so deeply ingrained in American culture that non-racist masonry simply wasn't going to happen until recently. What would you have done in our position?

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

Of course we were aware of what they were doing, and of course we knew it was a violation of masonic principles. They always knew we didn't like it, but they didn't care, and obviously some US GLs still don't care what "outsiders" think. But remember that we're not just talking about a couple of aberrant GLs in the South, we're talking about what used to be the agreed and determined position of almost every US GL. If we hadn't put up with things we didn't like, we'd pretty nearly have had to take the position "there is no masonry at all in the US". Is that really what you'd have wanted us to do? Surely that would have been absurd.

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.

Yes. And that's always been a problem caused by US GLs and US Brethren, and has always been a problem which can only be fixed by US GLs and US Brethren dealing with it. So long as all the US GLs stood together in defence of blatant racism, no progress was possible. Quit blaming those of us who don't even live there!

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.

So tell me, Rich: which GLs do you want de-recognised? There's a classic "elephant in the room" problem here: no-one is naming names. Which specific Grand Masters are you accusing of being covert racists, which specific GLs do you believe are racist? You're right there in the US, you're much closer to the situation than people like me over here.

From where I'm sitting, it's hard for me to be sure what the difference may be between your own GLoTX and some of your neighbouring GLs. You've abolished the explicitly racist rules, but so have they. You've "recognised" your local PHA, but only in a very limited sense which doesn't include visiting and the other privileges of normal recognition, and you haven't recognised the rest of PHA at all, so really your compact with PHAoTX doesn't make much difference. So if you want us to pull recognition from some of your neighbours, don't you think we should pull recognition from you as well? Are you telling me that you yourself are actually a member of an irregular organisation which is only masquerading as a regular GL? Should I stop calling you "Brother", then? Or if GLoTX is fundamentally different from some other GLs which remain racist, then I'm glad to hear it, but please explain how outsiders are supposed to be able to tell which is which.

You quote MLK as saying ...
... Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will ...

Perhaps it's sometimes so, especially when you're the one doing the jail time whilst your sympathisers in the chattering classes at the other end of the country are enjoying another fine dinner party with all their oh-so-well-meaning friends who've never seen the wrong end of the Man's baseball bat. But even so, note that Rev. King was talking about feelings of frustration, not suggesting that people of ill will were actually preferable to people of good will.

Does it occur to you that I might find it rather frustrating that you seem to be exhibiting a "shallow understanding" of the complexities of international masonic relations and the difficult position of overseas GLs? These things cut both ways.

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.

Really? I'm getting the impression that you don't know who your friends are, give no credit for centuries of diplomatic effort, blame everyone outside the US for not miraculously fixing your problems for you, and are only interested in the sort of support which would have involved permanently splitting the Craft instead of working towards healing and reconciliation.

T & F,

Huw
 

Traveling Man

Premium Member
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?

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

Traveling Man
 

Bryan

Registered User
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.
 
H

Huw

Guest
Hi Bryan.

I will, however, never vote to recognize PH based strictly on the principal that I do not believe PH to be regular.

As I've pointed out in my debate with Rich elsewhere in this thread, I agree that there can be respectable masonic reasons for not welcoming PHA recognition, as was the case in Ontario for a while.

However, in what sense do you not believe PH to be regular? The American doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction, as set out in the GLoLA rule-book, is not a legitimate argument because that doctrine has never been a fundamental principle of masonry and indeed is merely an innovation for the purpose of defining anyone you don't like within your territory as automatically irregular. Thus relying on that would amount to saying "I believe them to be irregular because we have arbitrarily declared them to be irregular", which is a circular argument, not a reason at all.

I do agree that it's legitimately possible to argue against the regularity of origin of PH (and indeed that was the problem UGLE had with PH for a long time) ... but the trouble with that argument is that by modern standards of regularity of origin, a lot of the State GLs are also pretty questionable. If you go for a strict origin argument, you might even find that you'll have to de-recognise yourself. Perhaps there was something especially irregular about the formation of PHAoLA in particular, which might make them a different case from most others, in which case I'd like to hear about it ... but so far as I'm aware, they were founded in a fairly ordinary way by Lodges chartered from PHAoOH.

If you're aware of anything irregular in the operation of PHAoLA, then that'd be a strong argument - but what irregularity might that be? Are they working without a VSL? Are they admitting atheists or women? Are they permitting partisan religion or politics within the Lodge? Are they deviating from the Landmarks in any other identifiable way? So far as we've been able to find out from over here, PHA practice is very similar to what State GL masons do, and indeed UGLE eventually concluded that current PH practice appears to be "of exemplary regularity".

Perhaps, being there on the spot, you've found out something which the rest of us ought to know. But in that case, please tell us.

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.

Sure. There are hundreds of irregular jurisdictions all over the world. In fact, you have nine (!) other jurisdictions in Louisiana alone, in addition to yourselves and PHAoLA. But in most cases, it's clear what the objection is, and readily justifiable. The difference about PHA is that it's not nearly so obvious that there's a justification for withholding recognition.

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.

Agreed. Of course that's bound to be true.

However, the presence of a few people with private prejudices is not at all the same thing as a whole GL behaving in a systematically racist manner. I can't show that any GL anywhere is doing that ... but there are some obvious cases where it's understandable to wonder about it.

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.

Well, yes, I agree that people ought to behave decently and politely. But so should GLs. If someone has some reason for suspecting misbehaviour by a GL, it'd be unacceptable for the GL to hide behind protocols of respectfulness to prevent a complaint from being brought. I agree that this forum isn't the place for formal complaints procedures ... but is it your position that if someone knew that GLoLA had done something wrong, then he should conceal what he knew?

For the avoidance of doubt, I've no knowledge of anything improper by GLoLA, I'm merely discussing the principle.

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.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matt. 7:16).

T & F,

Huw
 
H

Huw

Guest
Hi Bryan.

I was already writing my previous post when you posted your latest, so I didn't see it until afterwards.

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.

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 ...

The PH work in Louisiana is not does not conform to the ancient landmarks and tenets. That is our opinion.

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
 

Bryan

Registered User
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.

To be fair I can only speak as to what I know.

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. :001_smile: A lot of people just simply go on the attack with no sound reasoning.
 
H

Huw

Guest
Hi Bryan.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

By the way.. I like the way you argue your points! I would hate to know I had to debate you.

:2::laugh:

T & F,

Huw
 

Bryan

Registered User
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

This is good respectful debate and does not debase the dignity of any ones grand jurisdiction. Very good points!
 

JTM

"Just in case"
Premium Member
The horse is dead and the legs have fallen off the table. If you feel that any particular part/any one of the numerous tangents needs to be illuminated further, feel free start a new thread.

Closed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top