Undemocratic traditions in Freemasonry

[paul]

What are undemocratic traditions in Masonry?

Are they appropriate in a system where advancement is upon merit?

[tamrin]

Oct 29, 2011 7:04:28 GMT 9.5 @tamrin said:

Oct 28, 2011 20:28:49 GMT 9.5 stewartedwards said:

I would still laugh my head off if a ufo were to land, and mum and dad were to pop out in full masonic regalia and say "right chaps what have you been doing in our absense" ;D Half the conspiracy world would petition for membership while half the masonic world would resign wondering what this has to do with social networking and the bar

Stewart, you keep using this analogy and it touches a nerve with me: I find it most unmasonic. I need to keep reminding myself that you are not a Mason and cannot be expected to understand our peculiar system of morality (although you have disappointed me).

Were I present on such a hypothetical occasion, I’d tell "Mum and Dad" they were not wanted and I would have a sound Masonic case for denying them any Masonic authority:

There is great emphasis on liberty within Freemasonry. Some enemies even say we have a “Cult of Liberty,” albeit, liberty of the wrong sort (but they would say that, wouldn’t they). Despite the much vaunted ban on involvement as Masons in politics, we find:

And during the whole of the Nineteenth Century, to be a Freemason was tantamount to being a champion of democracy. Many of the leaders in the great year 1848, which saw so many uprising against feudal rule in Europe, were members of the Order; among them was the great Hungarian hero of democracy, Louis Kossuth, who found temporary refuge in America. Like Kossuth, another celebrated champion of democracy, Guiseppe Garibaldi, was a thirty-third degree Freemason and Grand Master of the Italian Freemasons. Most leaders of the Young Turkish Committee, which in 1908 forced Sultan Abdul Hamid “the Damned” to give his nation a parliamentary form of government, and who deposed the “Red Sultan” in the following year, were likewise Masons. In Latin America, too, the process of liberation from the Spanish yoke was the work of Freemasons, in large measure. Simon Bolivar was one of the most active of Masonry’s sons, and so were San Martin, Mitre, Alvear, Sarmiento, Benito Juarez — all hallowed names to Latin Americans.

I could name many more of these real, historical events (they are not just some UFOlogist's wet dreams). While UGLE et al. may question the regularity of such involvement, their judgment will not change history, anymore than their judgment regarding the regularity of women's involvement in the Craft will make women Masons disappear.

One thing most of these liberators had in common was a desire to be free of theocratic rule, especially from the Catholic State. Note I said State not Church. If there were a clear distinction between church and state there would be no objection to the Catholic Church. The Catholic State however was a superpower, with authority resting with the Pope. He was the overlord of European Feudalism. Serfs reported to officials, appointed by lords, approved by kings: Kings ruled under the sufferance of the Pope who reported only to God. The Catholic state also had direct power and had amassed the greatest landholdings and other wealth in Europe, it was exempt from local taxes and its officials were largely exempt from local laws, coming and going as they pleased.

In stark contract to this feudal state were the guilds and lodges of artisans, especially in the building trades. Indeed, even beyond Europe, in China, Africa, India and South America, artisans have to an extent been exceptions to the local expressions of feudalism. Why? Because ultimately it was more important who an artisan was and what they could they do than just their presumed place in society.

Returning to Europe, before the modern Masonic ritual (post 1725) the philosophy and politics of our predecessors could be judged by the way they organized their affairs. In effect they turned feudalism on its head. Instead of top down governance, they organized their affairs from the bottom up. To the local feudal lords it must have seemed like the inmates were in charge of the asylum (akin to the Feast of Misrule or Day of Fools when servants and masters pretended to change places).

However it might have seemed to others, it worked! (at least to their satisfaction). James Wasserman, in his 2009 address, “Freemasonry and the Quest for Liberty,” to the Grand Lodge of New York described what are either our lineal predecessors or our chosen role models, the medieval operative stonemasons:

These skilled craftsmen, geometricians, and designers formed a class of medieval worker outside the restrictions of the feudal system. They were extended the right to travel to various worksites as required. They were considered Free of any town or estate. They were thereby known as Freemasons.

They were allowed to elect their own officers, and establish and enforce guild practices and standards; construct and occupy their own worksite living quarters — often in isolated areas — to meet the practical needs of their task; and organize themselves to create charitable, health, and death benefit programs.

Further in this address, Wasserman goes on to say:

Men exposed to the liberties of self-government would be unlikely to accept the restrictions of the larger society when they returned home. They would carry their ideas and insights wherever they travelled. Chafing at the bonds of Feudalism, Freemasons, along with artisans, merchants, and lawyers helped build a hitherto unknown social grouping — the Middle Class. Neither landed hereditary nobility, pledged vassals, nor bound serfs, they widely experienced their own sense of independence. They tended to work autonomously. They faced stiff challenges of economic survival, were required to exhibit diplomacy with clients and customers, and needed to train and manage others. Freemasons, especially, observed their construction projects transform barren landscapes into magnificent edifices aspiring heavenward, stained glass windows diffusing divine radiance. Their hearts would swell with Pride of Accomplishment — the singular experience of a free person.

Such sentiments hardly lend themselves to willingly handing over that cherished liberty to yet another bunch of chinless, effete, upper class twits claiming hereditary rights. Even while we could always have done better, we have been following our choices and willingly taking responsibility for those choices, good and bad.

Personally, I strongly object to undemocratic traditions in Freemasonry such as those of “hidden masters;” noble patrons, self-appointing councils; a purported “Head of All True Freemasonry;” and now your spurious, alien "Mum and Dad" coming to check-up on us. Such wilful abandonment of our characteristic liberty in exchange for dependency is cause for scorn, not pride, and has no place among Free and Accepted Masons.

[paul]

I was rather hoping for some simple propositions easy for the rest of us to comprehend

[tamrin]

Anything which goes against: "Meet on the level, act on the plumb and part on the square."

[paul]

Any examples come to mind?

[paul]

An obvious possibility is the practice of exclusive territory.

[paul]

The brethren cannot choose their preferred order

[tamrin]

Oct 29, 2011 15:21:24 GMT 9.5 paul said:

The brethren cannot choose their preferred order

1. Why not?

2. How is this undemocratic?

BTW, I do not favour the exclusive jurisdiction policy but I do not see how it is undemocratic, especially where the constituency is the membership and they choose not to change the policy.

[paul]

From discussions over the years, many brethren would prefer a choice of Grand Lodge but the rule is set by the Grand Lodge. With exclusive territory, a shift to another Grand Lodge, even if available, generally means no inter-visitation.

[tamrin]

Oct 29, 2011 19:15:37 GMT 9.5 paul said:

From discussions over the years, many brethren would prefer a choice of Grand Lodge but the rule is set by the Grand Lodge. With exclusive territory, a shift to another Grand Lodge, even if available, generally means no inter-visitation.

"But the rule is set by Grand Lodge," and the rule could be changed by Grand Lodge, meaning by us (I presume you are a member). In NSW all MMs are members of Grand Lodge and can propose motions and vote (it used to be just Wardens and Wor. Brethren).

[paul]

You have more faith than I in such processes. Recently a credible candidate for GM had his application lost.

[tamrin]

Firstly, participate (be part of the solution not part of the problem): Attend the Quarterly Communications, as is your right. Propose motions (with notice) and vote.

Secondly, if you are sure of corruption, blow the whistle (call in the authorities or even resign in protest). If not, allow those you accuse the benefit of your doubt.

In my opinion, the main problems with getting changes through Grand Lodge are ignorance and apathy.

[LorrB]

Oct 30, 2011 7:11:50 GMT 9.5 @tamrin said:

In my opinion, the main problems with getting changes through Grand Lodge are ignorance and apathy

Spot on, the same problems which plague many individual lodges.

I also know (first hand) that some GM's would like to make changes but dare not, because of they have been warned off by GM's of other Grand Lodges - repercussions and all that.

[LorrB]

Oct 29, 2011 11:43:09 GMT 9.5 @tamrin said:

Anything which goes against: "Meet on the level, act on the plumb and part on the square."

Our forum motto.
Much simpler to say than to do, it seems.
Still we all persevere, and try to grow through experience.
Temperance, Fortitude, Prudence, and Justice.

[paul]

Oct 29, 2011 7:33:14 GMT 9.5 paul said:

What are undemocratic traditions in Masonry?

Are they appropriate in a system where advancement is upon merit?

If advancement were on merit would that support a reduction in democracy?

[LorrB]

Interesting question. There are some that are most deserving of the highest accolades but who might not have the skills necessary to lead the Order on a national or international stage.

If the majority rules (democracy) them maybe each order is as it should be. In which case, those who feel uncomfortable with the status quo - at either end of the scale - maybe they might find an Order more in keeping with their qualities and aims.

But then we are back to square one, because of the exclusive territory bit. Plus most orders do not allow dual memberships.

Freemasons are not Free to choose.

[tamrin]

Oct 31, 2011 7:31:00 GMT 9.5 LorrB said:

Oct 30, 2011 7:11:50 GMT 9.5 @tamrin said:

In my opinion, the main problems with getting changes through Grand Lodge are ignorance and apathy

Spot on, the same problems which plague many individual lodges.

I also know (first hand) that some GM's would like to make changes but dare not, because of they have been warned off by GM's of other Grand Lodges - repercussions and all that.

The consideration of flow-on effects from other jurisdictions can make issues more complex, but decisions in such cases are still democratic if the constituency is given the opportunity to decide.