Touchy Subject

Al Queda is explicitly anti-american. As an order which may not be political, but does require a sense of patriotism and love for country/law, this would disqualify him.

 

Ugh, still not getting the point.

Look. Homosexuality is attraction. It is harmless. Pure and simple. There is no gay agenda. If it were a choice, don't you think all of those who have suffered oppression and degradation would go back to choosing being straight?


Remember also. We, Masons, Shared the \ chambers of the holocaust with these men and women. They, like us and the jews and roma, were persecuted and lost their lives.
Mind you, again, in such a scenario, were it a choice at all, don't you think they'd flip coins and go straight? Or in the radical islamic nations, like ones where al queda rules, wouldn't they rather switch the straight switch instead of running a risk of dying?

Their lives would be so easy, wouldn't it?

It'd be sad that any preacher of god would say that they have a choice in the matter. Furthermore, don't you think, as a christian, our lord and savior Jesus would've said something had he thought it to be of huge christian importance. Remember, verily, it's not Jesus that says anything, but Paul, a disciple who is a saint but not divine as christ is, therefore, human and eligible for mistakes.

 

well, the EA charge... peaceable citizen and all that. promising to believe in the constitution of the US on the petition, etc. wouldn't overly anti-american folks be DQ'd there?

 

We could debate this. While the question is far from settled, my view is that it is nothing of the sort (a choice), for no rational person would ever make such a choice when faced with the rank abuse and discrimination that the members of the LGBT community face throughout their lives, but let's not bother with that issue. For the sake of argument, I will stipulate that it is a choice, freely made.

How then is such a choice, which has no affect whatsoever on you or me, immoral?

There it is. You are injecting your religious beliefs into the argument. Your religious beliefs and any strictures that they impose on behavior are yours to grapple with as applied to your behavior. The VSL that each of us has chosen is given as the rule and guide of our respective faiths. It is entirely unfitting for us, as Masons, to apply them to another man. To be sure, there is a universal morality upon which we can all agree, but if all we've got is sectarian dogma to support our judgment of a man's particular choice, then such a judgment should probably not be made. The choice to do so is at the heart of every great inhumanity that this or that group has inflicted upon another.

So I ask again. Absent the misapplication of our individual religious beliefs, how is it that a gay man is "immoral"?

 

edit-- whoops accidentally responded to an old post.

 

But Brother Bill,

You are asking your brothers to use their Brains and Hearts and to "JUDGE." hmy:

So, now you're asking your Brothers to not use their Brains and Hearts and to not "JUDGE?!?!?" hmy:

1) Some are.
2) Nope

...none that people universally accept...

This is a moot point. The issue is one of Lodge Harmony. Would such a Brother promote or demote Lodge Harmony? I believe this depends totally upon its members collective beliefs, attitudes and behaviors.

Not if his behavior at the interview shows that he didn't represent himself honestly.

yup. i don't disagree! :wink:

 

IMO the difference between the two isn't so much a matter of who's morality standards to apply, but it comes down to the prinicples of Masonry. In Masonry, we are taught to be tolerant of other's beliefs. In the example of the Muslam candidate who believes in the morality of subjugating or annihilating infidels, has shown not only a strong degree of intolerance for the beliefs of others, intolerance is at the core of his beliefs considering al Queda has set that is one of its goals. It's the same as the "ex-Masons" that now attack Masonry under the guise of their beliefs as a fundimental Christian, who have turned intolerant of others who do not share their belief system.

 

I think the beauty of the vote as an exercise of freedom of conscience is that it is ultimately private. It is between you and God and your real obligation is to vote for the good of Masonry and for the good of your lodge.

Often things die in committee. For me the vote is not as tough as forum questions would make it sound. If I...that's right..."I" think he is a good man (I get to apply all kinds of values to this to include my version of morality, my version of peaceable citizen, etc.) and cast a vote.

I have thrown dark and I have thrown clear, but as I stand at our altar and cast my ballot, my conscience is clear. God gave me a head and I use it.

The charge of a Master of a lodge provides that you should turn away many good men in error before one unfit for the fraternity have a single foot fall through the door of a lodge.

My conscience is clear, my head held high, and I explain my votes to no one (its actually not allowed for discussion in Colorado once the vote it cast...you must leave it to the Brother).

I am glad and thankful it is like this, as it gives the vote a sense of being beyond cliques and desires to let others "see" how you voted.

 

Just because you can do such a thing does not, in the least, make it "right".

 

So what is the "right" way to vote then and who decides?

Masonic writings state that the Mason has been equipped with working tools and we should vote our conscience.

Why would we disregard the writings in Masonry concerning the vote when we vote?

Am I better off if I pick your version of Morality, my friends version? The Masonic version says I should love God, trust him, return to my sanctuary and have faith, that I should study my volume of sacred law....should I disregard these as well?

 

Each of us does, of course, but again, just because we are free to vote as we choose, does in no way automatically make that choice "right".
Consider, in other threads here it would appear (at least) that there are Masons who would cube a candidate without a second thought, merely because of his different religious beliefs. And no, I'm not talking about the "Al Queda" red herrring. Cube a man, simply because he's Jewish, Muslim, or Sikh. Surely you would agree that doing so is improper. Yes?

So, yet again, how then is an issue that is nothing more than a difference of religious dogma, one which has no impact on anyone, an acceptable reason to cube a gay man?

 

Brother I am a purist in this regard. I believe that there are ways in which I would vote. More importantly, because I can control only my vote...I take it seriously. I vote in men who I believe are good men and, quite frankly, of like enough mind to do what I believe to be right for the Fraternity.

Those that convince themselves that they are beyond personal perspective or subjective thought are being foolish. So I do not pretend that when I approach a ballot box that my personal perspective isn't present.

That being said, I can not control a brother who harbors racism. I fear the man who harbors it quietly more than the one who shouts it though, for I can at least engage in conversation with the man who shouts it.

I think the only "right" way to vote is applying the tools of Masonry to your life and voting your conscience. I might not always agree with a Brothers vote, but you can not legislate free thought, so the Brother is able to vote how he chooses.

I have never been present in a lodge where race was an issue. We have white, black and brown Brothers in my lodge, so I would be lying if I said I knew what that was like. I have been refused a visit in a PHA lodge for being white, and I hold the Brothers no ill will. I accept it as the way of things and figured that beating my chest or screaming racism wasn't going to change minds. I write, I vote, I read, I educate, and I try to educate myself. For me, that is what I feel called to do.

 

This is an excellent rebuttal. Thank you.
Here's mine

That's what I was about to say.

Furthermore, okay, maybe there's an agenda in 'wanting to be accepted as normal and receive the same benefits that we take for granted'.
Or an agenda may be that they don't want to be discriminated against in the workplace or whatever.

There is No Agenda for, hell I don't know what paranoid homophobes think, uh, for like turning people gay or to deny anyone religious freedom. That's as crazy as people thinking there's a Masonic Agenda to rule the world.

 

I can translate Timothy 1 /1-10 as being against gays. Its ok for me to know that others don't believe in this way of life. Just as long as I do. Our Almighty Father did not make adam and steve, but adam and eve.
Furthermore, I believe Men should act like Men and I would vote against a man who acts like a woman. It would be a bad representation of a lodge if one of their own was gay and participated in some gay movement, hugging and kissing on another guy, while wearing Our square and Compasses.