to think that Freemasonry should not be allowed to exist?

[StickMeToTheMan]

... or that members should declare their membership - especially those in positions of power - police, SS, politicians etc?

I am just flabbergasted that this is allowed in this day and age. Take a look at the JS scandal and the potential involvement of the masons, and surely no-one can dispute that this old boy network is dangerously shady.

Can anyone explain to me what it is really for, and if membership to any secret society is justifiable in this day and age?

AIBU?

(Namechanged as have been discussing on FB)

For all those who are Masons on the thread or are married to one - what's the deal with walking away? Do lots of people leave? Is there any kind of lifetime commitment expected? Or is it once you're in, you are expected not to leave?

I'm not being "obtuse"

Freemasons are no more "brothers" than Muslim MNers are "sisters", for example. And they would be no more likely to cover up each other's criminal acts than Muslim women would be.

You want to believe that they are all corrupt gangsters. That doesn't mean that they are.

I know someone who says he got kicked out because he couldn't pay his lodge fees.

He's a bit of a bullshitter, though, to be fair.

The secrecy goes back a lot further than the second world war sandycat.

Jimmy Savile did a lot of charitable work. He was a paedophile who gained access to children through his charitable undertakings.

i had to declair my membership when....

i started doing talks about dv to the wi.
if ive been involved in legal stuff with another member
if a file lands on my desk with the name of someone whom i know to be in my wi.

those are just the ones that pop into my head and are also grounds for me to declair a possible conflict arising from any other way i also socialise with a indervidual.

Hell - A Freemason can "walk away" whenever he likes. In fact, he will have quit if he fails to pay the dues to his lodge, just like with any other dues-paying organisation.

Seriously, you know so little about Freemasonry that I find it scary that you have made a negative judgement on it. All from prejudice.

I don't want to believe they're "all corrupt gangsters"! I'm all in favour of mutual support and shared interest groups. I am far less in favour of group members concealing their relationships. It compromises accountability.

So they are not bad but they make you uncomfortable because you don't know who is there and who isn't?

Assuming you're a woman, you don't know everything about male freemasonry either Cote. You know less about it than a member who has taken an oath of secrecy and even he cannot know how all freemasons operate. People who deny any wrongdoing are as illogical as those who insist that all freemasons are corrupt.

Cote - why the assumption that asking a question means the person asking doesn't already know the answer? do you only ever ask questions when you don't know the answer? Or do you sometimes ask questions because while you think you know the answer you are interested in other people's answers or personal experiences because they might challenge or corroborate the answer you think you have already?

Yes theyve always been secretive but became more so at this time. I take people as I find them and have no reason to believe that the people I have come into contact with are deserving of such derision.

I would rather make a decision about an organisation based on what I have seen and experienced, rather than hearsay or isolated incidents which could occur in any close group of people. It is a shame and offensive that you are trying to compare the charity I have received from the Masons to allegations against someone who also did charity work.

It's entirely relevant to link Jimmy Savile to the organisation who gave you money. He was a freemason and it is currently alleged that his membership of that organisation was one of the factors behind him successfully evading detection and prosecution while alive.

And have the allegations actually been proved yet, or are you just happy to jump to negative conclusions about people before any allegations have actually been proved?

If they are so secretive, what are people basing their negative opinions on? Surely you must know a great deal about Freemasonry to hold such strong opinions.

sandy - i don't think that's what charbon is saying at all. As I said up thread my family have taken money from the masons because my grandfather was one, so was my great-grandfather it turns out. If it was my mother in the position of my GM and I had to make her choice, I woud take the mason's money if it meant I could help her die with dignity too.

I think the point is that argument A:

JS did a lot of good works and charity in his time. Therefore I can't possibly believe he did anything bad.

or even arguemtn B:

JS did a lot of good works and charity in his time. His good works exceed his bad works and therefore we shouldn't think of him too badly.

SOunds very similar to arguemnt C:

But the masons do a lot of good works and charity. Surely this means they can't be bad at all?

I think I agree Hell. You often hear arguments such as these where the behaviour of one person is used against a whole group and it is prejudiced and wrong in my opinion. I do not think JS charity work can be compared to the Masons as they do not make a display of their giving and it is done with a dignity which I find admirable. I am sure if I mixed with Freemasons there would be some I got on with better than others, but it would be the same with any group of people you mix with. I am aware that they are making an effort to be open but that is very inconvenient for those who are determined to think badly of Freemasonry.

Is challenging the UK government on a requirement to declare membership of the masons in positions of publc authority part of their efforts to be more open? Maybe I am as naive and ill-read as Cote suggests because that looks to be a move that would suggest non-openness. It would have been inconvenient to someone like me with such bias and prejudice if they hadn't threatened legal action surely?

No Charbon it is not relevant at all. Your entire argument is based on allegations. If it is proved that these allegations are true, and he got away with abusing children because he was a Freemason then those involved should be dealt with. Until anything is proved your argument is meaningless.

I really do not have a problem with them not wanting to declare membership. If I belonged to a group which was spoken about as the Freemasons have been spoken about on here I would want the choice to declare my membership of such a group. A Freemason declaring membership will not lead to the general public being any more informed about Freemasonry. However I believe the open events I have become aware of will lead to a better understanding and leave people free to make up their own mind. Until people are better informed it would be wrong to force someone to declare membership of an orgainisation of which there is so much ignorance about.

The question "Why should we reveal our membership?" is far weaker than "Why should you not?"

In public and business life, it's more usual to advertise extra-curricular friendships than to hide them. People generally conceal them only when an unfair advantage is being abused.

Can any of the organisation's supporters actually explain its opposition to disclosure?

so should nobody challenge the gov with regard to anything?

smacks of ohhhhh its the gov they always get things right and never do anything that breaches peoples rights because they are the gov.

Oh FFS, StickMeToTheMan
It may seem to be reasonable that a mason who isn't personally friendly to not feel the need to declare an interest,
Indeed so.

however they are sworn by blood to protect one another.

That's nonsense, in both respects. My assertion is at least as valuable as yours, so where does that take you?

I said upthread that I can see why people who benefit from privilege might be in denial about it and I think the 'good and charitable works' concept often exploits people's human nature. The Freemasons are not secretive about their charitable works; in fact it is probably the most public thing known about them and like those defending Jimmy Savile, is often put forward in mitigation if that organisation or a charitable individual attracts any criticism or risk of exposure.

People who therefore benefit from these 'good works' are more likely to defend allegations about other more nefarious activities practised by that organisation or individual. At the most sinister level, those benefits received buy people's collusion and at a more innocent level, it tricks people into thinking that individuals or organisations who do so much good, cannot do any bad - which is illogical.

Many patients reported that Harold Shipman was a good GP who gave infinite amounts of care to his patients. That didn't mean that he hadn't murdered a large number of them and because he had access to his victims and hid beneath the cloak of respectability and authority where few people questioned his activities, that evil was allowed to flourish for years.

No allegations have been proved about the freemasonry connection, but people are making them and have made them for several years. I am suggesting that instead of clinging on to a blinkered belief that they are true or untrue, it would be more logical for people to suspend judgement and to have more questioning minds.

HellATwork

For all those who are Masons on the thread or are married to one - what's the deal with walking away? Do lots of people leave? Is there any kind of lifetime commitment expected? Or is it once you're in, you are expected not to leave?

People leave the Craft for all sorts of reasons. Age, boredom, moving away, their partner things it;s some dark and sinister organisation, young kids taking up too much time...

But the masons do a lot of good works and charity. Surely this means they can't be bad at all?

Who's making that argument?
Masons do give a lot to charity. I give a lot to non-Masonic charities. Doesn't make me a good or a bad person, just someone who gives to charity.

The issues seems to be "Ooh the Freemasons are bad, declare your membership".

To which the Freemasons - or at least some - say "Well, we will if it is required; but we would expect you not to single out Freemasons - because the sorts of people that single out groups within society like Freemasons... also pick on Jews, gypsies and homosexuals".

I'm happy to tell anyone who asks if I'm a Freemason; I take public tours through our Lodge buildings for heaven's sake. I'll probably tell anyone who I vote for... but tell me I have to and you'll likely get Molon Labe or equivalent as an answer.

Charbon

You know less about it than a member who has taken an oath of secrecy and even he cannot know how all freemasons operate.

So your suggestion is that no member of any worldwide group can know how all members of that worldwide group behave. Yes, that seems fair, but hardly surprising or relevant...

It's entirely relevant to link Jimmy Savile to the organisation who gave you money. He was a freemason and it is currently alleged that his membership of that organisation was one of the factors behind him successfully evading detection and prosecution while alive.

Hmm. Relevance is in the eye of the beholder, perhaps. Who's doing all this alleging? The same sort of people who allege there were no Moon landings, or "the Jews" were behind 9/11?

garlicbutty
The question "Why should we reveal our membership?" is far weaker than "Why should you not?"

Actually, no it isn't. I have alluded to the fact that amongst many other groups, Freemasons have been singled out in the past. It's another reason why I oppose mandatory ID cards, which is part of the same spectrum - it's a way of the state controllng their population.

Why is it your business what my religion is, what political party I belong to - or if I'm a Freemason?

In public and business life, it's more usual to advertise extra-curricular friendships than to hide them.

Indeed so. Do you disclose co-religionists? Other people who are members of another golf club? Or just friendships?

People generally conceal them only when an unfair advantage is being abused.

Can any of the organisation's supporters actually explain its opposition to disclosure?

Why is it your business that I'm a gay, Jewish Freemason, and why do you want to know?

It's true, you do get kicked out if you don't pay your fees.

My Husband was what is called a 'Lewis', the son of a Mason, who was also a Lewis, and was therefore guaranteed entry into Masonry. He walked away after 3 years as he couldn't make time for the meetings and the fees were too expensive. There was no comeback at all, although he will always be considered to have a rank and could re-join at any time he chose.

DHs father is very high ranking officer now, his job is virtually full-time and he is involved with 2 large and local charities and fundraising for them.

The Freemasons look after not only their own, but others too.

Rumours about Freemasonry have existed for many years. I think this is because people are naturally wary of a society which keeps itself to itself.

Re the fees thing - it is at least very difficult for you to continue if you don't pay your fees...not sure if you could actually get booted out, as my husband chose to jump before the situation got to that.