Free Masons

[Daynor]

Our entire point is freedom... The only religious requirement is to be monotheistic,

Our entire point is freedom - except for Atheists.

That was a very... eh, I won't say it.

Just because atheists can't join dosn't mean we attempt to oppress them in any way... I actually don't think there is ever a question that says "Do you believe in God" in the initiation.... there may be, can't remember.

There are prayers to whatever god you believe in, and atheists would be a little left out there...

Anyway, the point of no atheists isn't that we hate them or anything stupid like that, it's that since we all pray to whatever god we believe in together, they couldn't participate.

[Grave_n_idle]

Our entire point is freedom... The only religious requirement is to be monotheistic,

Our entire point is freedom - except for Atheists.

That was a very... eh, I won't say it.

Just because atheists can't join dosn't mean we attempt to oppress them in any way... I actually don't think there is ever a question that says "Do you believe in God" in the initiation.... there may be, can't remember.

There are prayers to whatever god you believe in, and atheists would be a little left out there...

Anyway, the point of no atheists isn't that we hate them or anything stupid like that, it's that since we all pray to whatever god we believe in together, they couldn't participate.

Right. So - rather than make those optional, or make them a separate aspect... Mason's have instead taken the easy route - just don't let them in.

Don't worry... historically, every group has made just those kind of excuses, to keep out the women, or the blacks, or whoever else was flavour of the month.

[Scolopendra]

Remind me again how not letting people into a private social club is repression, or at the very least an opposition to the freedom of the group of people so excluded? If this were governance, I think you'd have a point, but it's equivalent to not letting girls into the Boy Scouts. Given that capital-A Atheists also have organizations that theists generally aren't welcome in, your complaints would be more than a little hypocritical.

I don't mind that--it's part of human nature--I just prefer it when people recognize when they're being hypocritical and admit to it.

And, once again, I must out of fairness bring up Co-Masonry, which is for all intents and purposes identical to regular Masonry except they accept women and atheists as members.

[New Limacon]

Are Catholics allowed to join the Freemasons? I remember someone (whose older, about my parents age) saying when he was younger, he was one of the few guys in the neighborhood to not be a member because of that, but I also know the Church was very anti-Mason, and may still prohibit its members from joining.

[Scolopendra]

Are Catholics allowed to join the Freemasons? I remember someone (whose older, about my parents age) saying when he was younger, he was one of the few guys in the neighborhood to not be a member because of that, but I also know the Church was very anti-Mason, and may still prohibit its members from joining.

Yes. Catholics are allowed to join the Freemasons. For the longest time the Church threatened to excommunicate any Catholic who did, but it was only a sort of one-way hatred (although Albert Pike's imagination didn't help any). That's why the Church formed the Knights of Columbus; basically as a Catholic anti-Masonic fraternal group.

Nowadays the Catholic Church has admitted that Freemasonry is mostly harmless but Catholics are still mildly discouraged from joining the Fraternity, mostly due to social inertia. The Knights of Columbus are still generally very anti-Mason.

[Grave_n_idle]

Remind me again how not letting people into a private social club is repression, or at the very least an opposition to the freedom of the group of people so excluded?

Did I say repression? No.

Is it opposition to 'freedom'? I guess that depends on your view of freedom. If you think freedom is something that is connected to religious belief, then, obviously, you wouldn't have a problem with it.

If this were governance, I think you'd have a point, but it's equivalent to not letting girls into the Boy Scouts.

No - it's like not letting Muslims into Boy Scouts.

Not letting girls in MIGHT have the excuse of cohabitation during camping... or, something else. It would still basically be an excuse.

Given that capital-A Atheists also have organizations that theists generally aren't welcome in, your complaints would be more than a little hypocritical.

I wouldn't know. I'm not a member of any Atheist groups.

Indeed, I'll admit, I didn't know there WERE any groups that didn't allow religious people to join.

I don't mind that--it's part of human nature--I just prefer it when people recognize when they're being hypocritical and admit to it.

You know that irony doesn't just mean 'tastes like metal', right?

And, once again, I must out of fairness bring up Co-Masonry, which is for all intents and purposes identical to regular Masonry except they accept women and atheists as members.

I know nothing about Co-Masonry. I know that there are Masons that meet within a quarter mile of where I'm sitting right now, though. And - apparently - i wouldn't be allowed in, because they discriminate on the basis of religion.

And - an interesting point - around here, the difference between joining their social group, and governance (as you mentioned earlier), is the spelling.

[Scolopendra]

Did I say repression? No.

Is it opposition to 'freedom'? I guess that depends on your view of freedom. If you think freedom is something that is connected to religious belief, then, obviously, you wouldn't have a problem with it.

There is the freedom to associate, or not to associate, as desired. Certainly a group's exclusion might infringe upon your desire to associate with them, but forcing them to accept you would infringe against their desire not to associate with you.

No - it's like not letting Muslims into Boy Scouts.

Not letting girls in MIGHT have the excuse of cohabitation during camping... or, something else. It would still basically be an excuse.

Actually, it's more like not letting atheists into Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts also generally assume a theism, but for them, it's not mandatory (except in some places). As it stands in terms of regulation or the "rules of the club" as it were, then gender discrimination and religious discrimination are essentially equivalent. Nevertheless, they're private clubs and free to do so, just like there are women-only and _ist-only organizations.

Using this logic every "guy's night out" or "girl's night out" is a sexist affair... which, generally, it is. Is it unacceptable, though, once again considering the right of freedom of association?

I wouldn't know. I'm not a member of any Atheist groups.

Indeed, I'll admit, I didn't know there WERE any groups that didn't allow religious people to join.

Any skeptic group of any note are generally hostile to theists, well beyond Masonry's mere exclusion of atheists. Masonry figures that atheists can be atheists and that's fine, but due to the rules of the fraternity we have no real desire to associate with them. Most skeptic groups not only believe that atheism is correct, but theism is a wrong that must be actively combated.

You know that irony doesn't just mean 'tastes like metal', right?

Irony is generally a very poorly understood and utilized concept. It is not the same thing as sarcasm, nor hypocrisy, although there is inevitably some overlap between the concepts.

I know nothing about Co-Masonry. I know that there are Masons that meet within a quarter mile of where I'm sitting right now, though. And - apparently - i wouldn't be allowed in, because they discriminate on the basis of religion.

So does Islam, generally--without special dispensation, non-Muslims aren't allowed into mosques. I'm not saying that Masonry is a religion at all, or in any way equivalent to Islam, merely that religious discrimination is not automatically a repressive evil. For that matter, most skeptical and freethinking groups will not tolerate religious members because religious faith is an example of magical and irrational thinking, which said groups openly despise. That's also religious discrimination and, on the basis of the freedom of association, they're free to do so in that way.

And - an interesting point - around here, the difference between joining their social group, and governance (as you mentioned earlier), is the spelling.

That's unfortunate, since that's not how it's supposed to work. Take any social structure, though, and networks will emerge--this is not an excuse, merely a fact of how human social systems operate. It's still unacceptable, assuming that in this case correlation is in line with causation.

[Brogavia]

probably only put it in because of Angels and Demons, which can't happen because we don't have enough Anti-matter to blow up a hill.

...and it's a work of fiction. Dan Brown knows diddly-squat about most of the stuff he writes about.

And yet he still makes millions..what a sad world we live in

Oh noez, a professional writer making lots of monies off of a book of fiction!

[Brogavia]

snip

Of course the mods are going to defend them. Its part of the cover up I tell you.

*Gets drugged and carried off*

I bet Scolo is the Smoking Man....

[Grave_n_idle]

There is the freedom to associate, or not to associate, as desired.

Unless you're an Atheist. In which case, the freedom to associate is not a freedom that Masons consider important.

Actually, it's more like not letting atheists into Boy Scouts.

Which is... good? Bad?

Any skeptic group of any note are generally hostile to theists, well beyond Masonry's mere exclusion of atheists.

Again, I wouldn't know. I don't even KNOW a 'skeptic group', much less belong to one - so I'm having to rely on your witnessing.

Masonry figures that atheists can be atheists and that's fine, but due to the rules of the fraternity we have no real desire to associate with them.

Right. Segregated schools didn't mind black being IN schools, just not THEIR schools.

Irony is generally a very poorly understood and utilized concept.

And yet, sometimes, incredibly appropriate.

So does Islam, generally--without special dispensation, non-Muslims aren't allowed into mosques.

I've never encountered that, either. Maybe that's the difference between Islam in the UK and in the US - I've actually been invited to come in and experience a mosque, both when I was still Christian, and after I was an Atheist.

That's unfortunate, since that's not how it's supposed to work. Take any social structure, though, and networks will emerge--this is not an excuse, merely a fact of how human social systems operate. It's still unacceptable, assuming that in this case correlation is in line with causation.

'That's not how it's supposed to work' falls strangely flat when uttered by a group that uses generations of discrimination as a justification for continued discrimination.

[Scolopendra]

Way to miss the point: the freedom to associate includes the freedom not to associate. If a private Group X wants to discriminate against people who like the color blue by not letting them join, that's inherently acceptable. Using segregated schools as a counter-example is a red herring because schools are generally public institutions that accept public funds, and, as such, take funds from the entire population. Since the entire population theoretically has a stake in the public institution, such organizations should not discriminate on the basis of demographics.

Private institutions, however, are controlled only by small groups of people that have stakes in them. Since they own it, they can make up whatever rules of association they like. Is it necessarily justifiable? No. Justification need not enter into it.

By insisting that all organizations allow everyone in, no matter considerations of 'stake,' you're actually the one infringing on the freedom of association since you're telling people what they must do with their organization. You then extrapolate from that since they won't let you into their club, they must have something in particular against a class of people you self-identify with. Such an extrapolation isn't unnecessarily unfair, but then saying that they've no interest in your freedoms because they're exercising theirs is. It's tantamount to suggesting that all private sororities let men join or fraternities let women join or rape therapy groups let convicted sexual predators join merely because individuals in these excluded populations want to.

Of course, this argument appears to center around the fact that we have wildly diverging positions on the freedom of association. I hold that private groups should be free to discriminate if they wish--private discrimination not being a priori automatically bad, instead depending on results and attitudes--while you seem to hold that any sort of discrimination, or at least discrimination against atheists, is automatically bad.

As for using generations of discrimination as justification for continued discrimination, it's something of a fair cop. However, most Masonic ritual is written with a theistic concept in mind and the Deity is invoked quite regularly. For someone who does not believe in any sort of deity, these statements would be extraneous at best and have no meaning or value at worst. Since it is a secretive (rather than properly secret) society, this may not be widely known and thus bringing atheists into a society where a large part of the ritual and communication has no meaning to them is a disservice to everyone.

I apologize if I presume too much, but it seems here that your biggest gripe is that there happens to be a door closed to you based on an opinion or ideological group you self-identify with and you seem to take personal offense at it. Other than commiserating with your offense and asserting that it certainly is not nothing personal, under these circumstances I'm relatively certain I can't convince you otherwise (nor is it likely that you'll convince me).

[Grave_n_idle]

Way to miss the point: the freedom to associate includes the freedom not to associate.

No, you miss the point.

Masons don't have to discriminate. They choose to. Perhaps, 200 years ago, when everyone was at least nominally 'religious' that wasn't inappropriate - but now it is just discrimination, using a history of discrimination as an excuse.

Clearly there has been realisation among some Masons that this is somehow broken - hence the existence of these mason-esque groups you mention, but for the most part, then, the Masons have collectively just accepted the discrimination, and willingly participated in it.

I dont belong to any groups that block entry to... anyone. If I found out that I belonged to a group that DID block entry to anyone, I'd leave the group, rather than making excuses for it.

[Scolopendra]

And you're free to that opinion. Mine differs.

I apologize if I presume too much, but it seems here that your biggest gripe is that there happens to be a door closed to you based on an opinion or ideological group you self-identify with and you seem to take personal offense at it. Other than commiserating with your offense and asserting that it certainly is not nothing personal, under these circumstances I'm relatively certain I can't convince you otherwise (nor is it likely that you'll convince me).

I'll repeat this in case it got lost in the exchange.

[Grave_n_idle]

And you're free to that opinion. Mine differs.

I apologize if I presume too much, but it seems here that your biggest gripe is that there happens to be a door closed to you based on an opinion or ideological group you self-identify with and you seem to take personal offense at it. Other than commiserating with your offense and asserting that it certainly is not nothing personal, under these circumstances I'm relatively certain I can't convince you otherwise (nor is it likely that you'll convince me).

I'll repeat this in case it got lost in the exchange.

It being 'personal' would be okay.

My problem is that it's the exact opposite of personal - it's saying regardless of your own personal history, your own merit, your own virtues - you are not welcome because you are an Atheist.

Since arriving in America, I've encountered that same response either explicitly, or subtly, just about everywhere.

The Masons are just the tip of a very big iceberg in the discriminatory psyche of the United States. But I'm not well disposed to forgive them for that on the grounds that 'everyone else is doing it'.

[Scolopendra]

It comes from the fact that private institutions are allowed to be exclusionary or otherwise discriminatory. This points out less severe examples: discounts for children and the elderly are age discrimination, every private "guys' night out" and "girls' night out" among groups of friends is gender discrimination, so on and so forth.

Or, if I'm to parse your statement and thus viewpoint correctly, it's more a matter of general social discrimination towards atheists of which the historical rules of Freemasonry end up being only a symptom? Well, I can't deny that it's true--unfortunate but true--and it has a lot to do with how the separation of church and state protected religion just as much, if not more so, than it did the state when compared to Western Europe. That American society in general seems to have a problem with atheism is stupid and wrong; I must agree with that. However, I (with wry amusement) stand by the discriminatory practices of private organizations since one must accept the grimmer parts of freedoms along with the brighter ones; it's not really freedom if you say "you're free to associate as you please, but only in these particular ways."

[Roania]

Unless we live in a dramatically different world from the way it was when I woke up this morning, Freemasonry is an international organization whose rules are much the same no matter where you go. That's part of what being a club is about. Why are you saying this is an American thing, Grave?

[Grave_n_idle]

...discounts for children and the elderly are age discrimination,

Not really. As someone who has worked in the leisure industry and restaurant industry, discounts for the elderly and children are actually a fairer reflection of their proportional expense. Generally, old people and kids eat less, and make less use of the facilities.


Something like that is both good business practise AND a fair reflection - I have no problems with things like that.

Or, if I'm to parse your statement and thus viewpoint correctly, it's more a matter of general social discrimination towards atheists of which the historical rules of Freemasonry end up being only a symptom?

This is true.

As an Atheist of Roma descent, I am in the glorious position of belonging to the two totally acceptable discriminations in our culture.

Well, I can't deny that it's true--unfortunate but true--and it has a lot to do with how the separation of church and state protected religion just as much, if not more so, than it did the state when compared to Western Europe. That American society in general seems to have a problem with atheism is stupid and wrong; I must agree with that. However, I (with wry amusement) stand by the discriminatory practices of private organizations since one must accept the grimmer parts of freedoms along with the brighter ones; it's not really freedom if you say "you're free to associate as you please, but only in these particular ways."

I'm not suggesting that 'freedom' should be removed. That sounds like the government regulating the membership, which I don't agree with.

No, what I'm saying is, in this day and age, Masons themselves should feel so ashamed of their discrimination that they dispense with it from the inside. Some, apparently, already reached that decision... and have, apparently, been paid in full for their choice.

[Grave_n_idle]

Unless we live in a dramatically different world from the way it was when I woke up this morning, Freemasonry is an international organization whose rules are much the same no matter where you go. That's part of what being a club is about. Why are you saying this is an American thing, Grave?

I don't know about the rest of the world. I do know that a relation of mine that was a Mason in the UK suggested the requirements over there were much the same, in as much as the 'faith' element. But then - the UK doesn't exactly have any claim to the same kind of separation of faith that the US pretends.

And, also, of course, I've encountered much more discrimination against Atheists since I arrived in the US, than I ever saw in the UK... as counter-intuitive as that seems, at first blush.

[Scolopendra]

Still no statement on genders' nights out?

No, what I'm saying is, in this day and age, Masons themselves should feel so ashamed of their discrimination that they dispense with it from the inside. Some, apparently, already reached that decision... and have, apparently, been paid in full for their choice.

If you mean "considered irregular" by "paid in full," then yes. They exercised their freedom of association, others exercised theirs, and the world continues to turn. No one was forced to shut down.

The problem is that not everyone is going to act within the exact same ideals as everyone else. Some people, like you (apparently), think that all doors should be open to everybody. That's an ideal, and that's fine. Other people, like me, think that there's nothing wrong with the occasional private closed door for various reasons but, with that in mind, in the public sphere in most circumstances discrimination is wrong. I may not let you into my clubhouse but I'll be damned if I treat you any less decently than I would anyone else if I meet you in public.

And, also, of course, I've encountered much more discrimination against Atheists since I arrived in the US, than I ever saw in the UK... as counter-intuitive as that seems, at first blush.

The US is a religiously conservative country--an oddity in the Western world--due primarily to functions of geography and founding ideology (an ideology that, unfortunately, a lot of people ascribe to but don't properly live). By all indications, however, the pendulum is however slowly swinging away from that conservatism with a younger population while the conservative religionists tend to isolate themselves further and further in public discourse.

[Free Outer Eugenia]

Nothing wrong with a private club per se. But when business is conducted in the club- well, it can get complicated. When just about all the political and business deals in town are made in the clubhouse or between club members, problems can arise. When a club has amongst it's members most of the powerful people in town, membership can become a prerequisite for access to power. Thus all-white country clubs and all-male esoteric societies have long been instruments of white supremacy and patriarchy.

I am not saying that the Masons control the world any more than the Elks or Shriners do, but the Elks also have a great deal of power in certain locales. And when such a club excludes a segment of the population that already lacks equal access to power, the club perpetuates social injustice.

[Scolopendra]

I can't rightfully disagree, but business and politics are supposed to stay out of the lodge. How effective that is, well, varies from location to location--I've not come across it myself. At any rate, when it is abused the problem is that 1) it's a club and 2) that it's secret; even if it had no limitation on potential members, it would still exist as a political power club that would perpetuate inequalities based on social networks. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that any social system can and will be corrupted by some people.

Think about it this way: if the rules were suddenly changed and everyone could potentially join, would a corrupt lodge actually change who it elects in? Probably not; it's corrupt. Corruption perpetuates corruption; while it's easier in some organizations than in others, simple rule changes aren't enough and complex rules bring with them more loopholes.

[Ryadn]

Freemasons definitely exist and my parents know some people who are in it, their club is nothing particularly fancy.

This. My grandfather was a member (well, I suppose he still is, but he's very old and doesn't get out as much). It sounds like a place where men sip scotch and smoke cigars and overestimate their importance in the world.

[Free Outer Eugenia]

even if it had no limitation on potential members, it would still exist as a political power club that would perpetuate inequalities based on social networks.

However, the problem becomes more serious when those networks are closed off to women. Which they are and generally have been. If mainstream masonry did not exclude women, then it would at least not be as guilty of perpetuating institutional patriarchy. That is IMHO the least one can expect of an organization with such a revolutionary democratic legacy as the Masons have.

And I'm not talking about corruption per se- I am simply talking about the day to day functioning of hierarchical society- networks with powerful people in them become power networks. If business is not conducted in the lodge, then business is surely conducted between lodge members. In certain communities, being a member of the lodge gives one a serious advantage over those who are not - even if there is no identifiable "corruption" as such. When the lodge excludes based on criteria such as gender or race, existing social injustice is perpetuated and recreated anew.

Why do we still see so few women in leadership positions? It's not that the Masonic cabal is hell bent on keeping women back- they reserve that kind of energy for holding back the electric car and keeping the truth about Jack the Ripper under wraps. But the Masons, Elks, Shriners and such sure as hell aren't helping. They are in fact contributing to the problem.

Why is it that the membership criteria of every group that righteously defends such "traditions" always seems to fall along the lines of existing social inequality? Why can't it just be red hair or something?

[Hanibar]

Dude, I'm a Freemason and I never get invited to any of these crazy snuff sex death orgy parties.

Freemasonry essentially exists as a pro-Enlightenment club that uses relatively simple tools that any working man can understand to generate a convenient vocabulary for discussing moral and ethical philosophy. When the movement was officially founded in Britain in 1717 it basically served the purpose of moving intellectualism and philosophy down from the upper classes and moving egalitarianism up from the working classes, which did establish the a subcultural mindset supportive of democracy and equality (which, if you recall from history, were rather in vogue during the Enlightenment). Seeing how Freemasonry in general was a democracy club at the time, it's not overly surprising that anybody interested in making a democratic country would either be members or influenced by them.

As a society with secrets, we also have fun with the old "I know something you don't know" trick. Unlike some other Masons, I do tend to think that all of the geometrical curiosities you see in the planning of Washington D.C. and the $1 bill were intentional. Unlike conspiracy theorists, though, I don't think it particularly means anything beyond "we were here and therefore awesome." It's just a Kilroy daub or a graffiti tag applied to institutional design is all. The MASON anagram hidden in a hexagon is a good indicator; when the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (you know, the old guys with the little cars in parades) was formed, it was pretty much a kick-back-and-have-fun group made up of people with an interest in Orientalism and drinking; rearrange the letters in AAONMS and you get, tada, A MASON.

Sometimes we like to think ourselves clever that way.

I say "we," but Masonry really isn't organized in one super group. Each geographical location in "regular" ("orthodox," sort of) has a Grand Lodge which standardizes how Masons do their thing in their area: I'm a member of the Grand Lodge of California; there's a Grand Lodge of England, a Grand Lodge of Mexico, so on and so forth. These Grand Lodges communicate to each other and those which are 'close enough' to original Masonry (essentially following the rules "no girls allowed," "ritual secrecy," and "members must believe in a supreme being of some sort") are considered regular; this intercommunication is the closest thing that exists to a worldwide Masonic 'structure.' There's no shadow Pope/king/twelve that rule in majesty, and 33° Masons are just members of a related "appendant body" who have been given a title of respect; they don't get to order anyone around.

The reason why I bring this up is because there are "irregular" lodges which break some of those rules and are considered too heterodox to be part of the bigger whole. Co-Masonry, which started in France before the Revolution, is one of those irregular bodies: they allow women and atheists (I've got no problem with that; clubs can let whoever they want join) but are otherwise broadly identical. The Bavarian Illuminati were likewise irregular, if really related to Freemasonry at all. It was also an Enlightenment society, probably influenced by Freemasonry, which was a bit more aggressive and humanist in its standards. The Catholic Church took a dim view of it, sure, but more importantly, Duke Karl Theodor took a dim view of it and had it banned. It used to operate in the open.

Recall that the Revolutionary Period in Europe was a shocking game-changer; with the Enlightenment rolling around and royal heads rolling off, people wondered who was pulling the strings in the background. The Catholic Church was the status quo, and for something to stop it, obviously there had to be conspiracies afoot. Just like 9/11 conspiracy theorists today, a lot of royalists at the time pointed the finger at Freemasons and similar sorts since they happened to like, oh, everything the Church was against (religious tolerance, egalitarianism, democracy, and so forth). Admittedly, Freemasons didn't do much to dispel this, what with being secretive and all, and quite possibly a few lodges were used as local cabals and planning places due to their emphasis on secrecy. They shouldn't have, of course, but they did--the same thing happened in the modern world with Propaganda Due (which has to be the coolest name for a lodge ever, which is unfortunate since the Grand Lodge of Italy correctly declared them irregular and then they got mixed up in trying to take over the Republic of Italy). Some sort of world-wide conspiracy though is patently unlikely for more-or-less the same reasons that a worldwide conspiracy now takes a bit of faith to believe in.

There's no doubting that we've been influential through the years, but more due to the spread of ideas and philosophy rather than some sort of secretive control.

I don't understand why people are saying the free masons are satanic, do you know why?

[Rhodmhire]

from what I watched on the History Channel if you place the 6 pointed star symbol on the unfinneshed pyramid it points to 5 words: A,S,N,O,and M. if you flip these words around you get MASON.

Ah yes, the fact that a star symbol points to words that spell "MASON" is great evidence that they control the country, if not the world itself.

A,S,N,O, and M also spell "MOANS," does that mean anything?

I think it's cool but coincidental, I saw the special you did, I don't believe in the whole conspiracy.

I think after so long, if the Masons were really controlling the world like conspiracy theorists think, we would have known by now, or we would have seen immense instances that would make it obvious--not conspiracies and random "evidence" as it's called.