There's no place for "Racism" in Freemasonry

[dfreybur]

There is nothing in GLoTX law that either requires or suggests that ballots be unanimous.

I did use the word "supposed to" for this reason. I figure a number of GLs have moved away from unanimous ballot to address the bug that with unanimous ballot one errant brother can reject a worthy candidate. Different jurisdictions handle the problem differently, some choosing to let an occasional lodge fail from abuse, others dodging the landmark. Having seen a lodge in one of my other jurisdictions struggle with this issue I don't object to requiring more than one cube.

In addition, Brothers in other GLoTX Lodges DO have the opportunity to exclude candidates, either for the Degrees or for advancement, in other GLoTX Lodges.

Neither of us can travel to a Stated meeting in El Paso many hours away and be back in time to attend a Stated meeting across the state. So our opportunity is limited. Yet a brother from across the state can insist on attending. This is a different bug, in this case one created by this rule in Texas. Just another variation jurisdiction to jurisdiction to me.

 

[Bill Lins]

What is a protest in your jurisdiction?

Had to go there, didn't you?

CHAPTER 3— TITLE IV PROTESTS
Art. 421. (458). Against Whom Effective.
The election of a candidate to receive the degrees or any of them, can be prevented or set aside by protests made to the Worshipful Master or any officer acting as Worshipful Master of a Lodge. A protest against the reinstatement to good standing in the Lodge of a former member or restoration to the status of a nonaffiliated Mason of a former member of another Lodge, convicted in said Lodge, who is laboring under a sentence of indefinite suspension or expulsion, for a Masonic disciplinary violation, other than for nonpayment of dues, shall be given effect by the Worshipful Master, or the officer acting as such, as a rejection of such petition as provided in Art. 627. Such protests cannot be withdrawn after they have been announced. (Revised 1992)
Art. 422. (458a). Against Whom Not Effective.
A protest is not effective on a petition for affiliation; or on applications for a dimit; waiver of jurisdiction, certificate of dismissal; or for a certificate
of good standing.
Art. 423. (462). When and By Whom Made.
Any member of a Lodge in this jurisdiction may protest, either orally or in writing, a candidate for any degree, either before or after his election. In each case the protestor must give clearly his name and the name, number and location of his Lodge. Protest may be made by telephone if the person called is satisfied as to the identity and qualification of the Protestor; in each such case the person called must in the same telephone conversation advise the caller whether or not the protest is accepted. The Worshipful Master or officer acting as Worshipful Master, shall not disclose the identity of the Brother who made the protest, but shall immediately upon receipt of the protest notify the Wardens and Secretary that it has been made. To be effective as to any petitioner for a degree, protests must be made after the petition is received by the Lodge and before conferring the degree has begun. (Revised 1992)
An outgoing Master is under duty to transmit to his successor all unannounced protests made to him. Only members in good standing of the acting Lodge may protest against reinstatement or restoration as authorized in Art. 627.
Art. 423a. Separate and Joint Protests: Defined.
A separate protest is that made by an individual Brother to the Worshipful Master. A joint protest is that made by two or more Brethren who
simultaneously appear before the Worshipful Master and lodge a protest. Separate and joint protests shall have the same value or effect.
Art. 424. (459). Withdrawn: When.
A protest may be withdrawn by a Brother who made it, at any time before it is announced, but not thereafter.
Art. 425. (460). Effect of Protests.
A protest shall have the same effect and value and be counted as a blackball under Art. 418. Three protests, or a combination of protests and blackballs with a combined total of three shall reject for one year. Four protests, or a combination of protests and blackballs totaling four shall reject the petitioner for two years; five or more protests, or a combination of protests and blackballs having a collective total of five or more, shall reject the Petitioner for three years. (Revised 1992)
Art. 426. (460a). Advancement After Protests.
When a candidate is protested after receiving the Entered Apprentice or Fellowcraft Degrees and wishes to advance after expiration of the time for which he was protested, he shall be required to present a new petition in writing for advancement and be reelected before he shall be permitted to advance. A committee on investigation and report shall be appointed and the petition shall lie over not less than one lunar month before the ballot is taken thereon. (Revised 1992)
Art. 427. (461). Rejection Must Not Be Published.
The identity of rejected candidates shall not be published to the world.
Art. 428. (463). Announcement of Protests.
When three or more protests are lodged against a petitioner for the degrees or a degree or for advancement, before his election thereto, no announcement thereof shall be made by the Worshipful Master, or officer acting as such, until after the ballot on said petition has been taken and the result announced. The Worshipful Master shall then announce that three or more protests have been lodged against the petitioner, stating the number of such protests, which shall be recorded in the minutes of said Lodge; provided that the Brethren making such protests were not present during the taking of the ballot on such petition. In case they are present during the balloting, the protests of such are as present shall be disregarded,
not counted, nor announced. (Revised 1992)
When three or more protests are lodged against a petitioner after his election to receive the degrees or a degree, it shall be the duty of the Worshipful Master, or officer acting as such, to announce said protests at the first meeting of the Lodge, whether it be a stated or called meeting and it shall be recorded in the minutes. (Revised 1992)
No degree shall be conferred on a protested candidate during the term of his rejection, after three or more protests have been lodged against him. (Revised 1992)
Art. 429. Duty of Worshipful Master. It shall be the imperative duty of the Worshipful Master, or officer acting as Worshipful Master, to recognize and announce three or more protests as provided in Art. 428 and a failure to do so shall constitute a Masonic Disciplinary violation for which he may be suspended from office by the Grand Master upon the filing of an allegation of Masonic disciplinary violation for such failure to act, if the Grand Master accepts the allegation. (Revised 2012)

 

[Bill Lins]

Neither of us can travel to a Stated meeting in El Paso many hours away and be back in time to attend a Stated meeting across the state.

That's why we have the right to protest.

 

[dfreybur]

That's why we have the right to protest.

I noticed the quoted rules on protests do not extend to visitation nor do they describe a mechanism for knowing who are candidates across the state. Strange that a jurisdictional difference of this sort ever came about as it's a minor bug in the system.

 

[Bill Lins]

I noticed the quoted rules on protests do not extend to visitation

That's in a different section:
383. (419). Visitors Excluded: When.
A visitor, who is not a member in good standing of a Lodge working under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Texas, may be excluded on the objection of a member of the Lodge at the discretion of the Worshipful Master. When three members make the objection, such visitor must be excluded.
Like objection may be made to a member of a Lodge working under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Texas only if such member is under charges preferred against him.

As I mentioned in an earlier post to this thread, this Article is currently held under abeyance and, I suspect, will be either repealed or drastically modified at the Grand Annual Communication in December.

 

[MRichard]

That's in a different section:
383. (419). Visitors Excluded: When.
A visitor, who is not a member in good standing of a Lodge working under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Texas, may be excluded on the objection of a member of the Lodge at the discretion of the Worshipful Master. When three members make the objection, such visitor must be excluded.
Like objection may be made to a member of a Lodge working under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Texas only if such member is under charges preferred against him.

As I mentioned in an earlier post to this thread, this Article is currently held under abeyance and, I suspect, will be either repealed or drastically modified at the Grand Annual Communication in December.

Am I interpreting this right, if you are a member of a Lodge under the GLOT; you have a right to visit another lodge. Or can an objection be made to exclude you?

 

[dfreybur]

Am I interpreting this right, if you are a member of a Lodge under the GLOT; you have a right to visit another lodge. Or can an objection be made to exclude you?

Which makes visitation a privilege in Texas as elsewhere if the rule were in effect. Interesting that the section is currently excluded from enforcement.

 

[Bill Lins]

Am I interpreting this right, if you are a member of a Lodge under the GLOT; you have a right to visit another lodge. Or can an objection be made to exclude you?

You are correct. Any member of a GLoTX Lodge who is not suspended or laboring under charges may visit any GLoTX Lodge and may NOT be prevented from entering, as long as he can successfully stand an examination or otherwise prove his status (normally by presenting a valid GLoTX dues card & a photo ID). Now, once he is in Lodge, he may be expelled if he disrupts the peace & harmony of the Lodge, just like a member of that Lodge could be.

 

[Bill Lins]

Which makes visitation a privilege in Texas as elsewhere if the rule were in effect.

No, visitation in GLoTX Lodges by other GLoTX Brethren is a RIGHT, not a privilege.

Interesting that the section is currently excluded from enforcement.

The Grand Master was concerned that some of our less enlightened Brethren would use that Article to deny visitation to already-approved Texas PHA Brethren, so he ordered enforcement of the Article be suspended.

from the Grand Master of GLoTX in his letter of April 24, 2015, advising GLoTX Masons of the procedure to be followed when requesting visitation from or to TXPHA Lodges:
"Consequently, once a Lodge agrees to accept a visitor from another Grand Jurisdiction through the prescribed visitation process, the provisions of Art. 383 of The Laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas and any other article dealing with inter-jurisdictional visitation do not apply and the visitor cannot be prohibited from visiting the Lodge."

 

[Warrior1256]

C

If it was purely racism then they wouldnt allow blacks to join and vice versa. Also they would recognize the white pha members...im jus sayin

Certainly something to ponder.

 

[MRichard]

C

Certainly something to ponder.

Not really. The premise is flawed. It assumes that every lodge would be racist. That is certainly not the case. It only takes one ball in most states and maybe three in others. Talk about opening yourself up to lawsuits if you only recognized the white PHA members, that makes little sense.

 

[ChicagolandMason]

I just joined in regards somewhat to this issue. I am NOT a racist but there were protesters with cameras outside the WCRMGL conference in SF last month trying to make us look like that.

(FYI--this is not me)

I refused to answer the questions and now I found a video of myself on the internet being made to look like a racist. Someone needs to do something. I own a business in Chicago and I can't afford the allegation of racism attached to me--these 'Black Lives Matter' guys or whatever will be at my doorstep asking for a boycott. What should we do?

 

[coachn]

I just joined in regards somewhat to this issue. I am NOT a racist but there were protesters with cameras outside the WCRMGL conference in SF last month trying to make us look like that.

(FYI--this is not me)

I refused to answer the questions and now I found a video of myself on the internet being made to look like a racist. Someone needs to do something. I own a business in Chicago and I can't afford the allegation of racism attached to me--these 'Black Lives Matter' guys or whatever will be at my doorstep asking for a boycott. What should we do?

As I responded to your identical post elsewhere, forgive me for being suspicious, but this is your first post, your wording sounds contradictory and you should already know that anyone can accuse anyone else of just about anything.

Perhaps sharing who you are might be a good start.

 

[MRichard]

I just joined in regards somewhat to this issue. I am NOT a racist but there were protesters with cameras outside the WCRMGL conference in SF last month trying to make us look like that.

(FYI--this is not me)

I refused to answer the questions and now I found a video of myself on the internet being made to look like a racist. Someone needs to do something. I own a business in Chicago and I can't afford the allegation of racism attached to me--these 'Black Lives Matter' guys or whatever will be at my doorstep asking for a boycott. What should we do?

So where is the video of you since you said that wasn't you in the video posted? Not sure why Black Lives Matter would concern themselves with you since it seems they are only focused on a particular or specific issue.

 

[Dontrell Stroman]

So where is the video of you since you said that wasn't you in the video posted? Not sure why Black Lives Matter would concern themselves with you since it seems they are only focused on a particular or specific issue.

I believe if you quit talking about it, it should die down like most things. The more it is brought up, the more this subject will be in the spot light.

 

[Warrior1256]

I believe if you quit talking about it, it should die down like most things. The more it is brought up, the more this subject will be in the spot light.

Absolutely!

 

[MRichard]

I believe if you quit talking about it, it should die down like most things. The more it is brought up, the more this subject will be in the spot light.

Actually, he hasn't told us anything. No video of him that we are aware of. And unless, you were on video and gave them your real name; how would they know who you are? Something is off here. Coachn nailed it.

 

[acjohnson53]

Me myself I try not to think along those lines, and I blink a blind eye, but I teach my grandchildren, that all people are created equally, and my grandchildren are not better than the next person, the schools they belong to are very diverse, and I know that Master Masons been there because they have a monument on the campus, and I volunteer there every work. The reason I reference my grandchildren is because they my future. I don't want them to struggle with all that drama...and what made me proud to be a Master Mason is my Lodge don't discriminate...and we are PHA. No Lodge I ever been to goes thru stuff like that....So let's keep this conversation at a minimum I hate reliving the past...

 

[MRichard]

So let's keep this conversation at a minimum I hate reliving the past...

Might not be an issue where you live but that doesn't mean it's not a problem somewhere else. I could name you 9 states where it might be.

 

[Bill Lins]

the schools they belong to are very diverse, and I know that Master Masons been there because they have a monument on the campus

Can you tell us more about the monument, & maybe post some pictures, please?