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)

In my area many local councillors are members and when tradesmen are invited to put in quotes for work only the tradesmen that are Freemasons get the job. This has been going on for years and it is so unfair.

I was at a restaurant with friends and a man came in clocked our freind and they did a funny handshake/hug thing. I asked DH about it and he said that our friend was I freemason - I never knew, but if I see him do the funny handshake again I know I will piss myself laughing.

MrsFruitcake

Depending on which constitution of Freemasonry you are under it is possible to be an unattached Mason (for example, your Lodge may be erased as members die off, and you can't hold meetings with too few members). You can visit other Lodges, while unattached, but the guidance used to be that you shouldn't visit any Lodge more that twice while unattached.

You would be excluded from Freemasonry if you hadn't paid your dues. When you leave a Lodge, or it is erased, you get what is called a Clearance certificate, which shows you were in good standing when you left.

I visited a a couple, found one that suited me and affiliated to it. I'm a member of several Lodges.

Jelly15
In my area many local councillors are members and when tradesmen are invited to put in quotes for work only the tradesmen that are Freemasons get the job.

I don't actually believe that, but if true that's a criminal offence and you should report it - I'm sure the procurement team would be delighted to deal with that...

A local builder said he did report it a few years ago, after years of putting in tenders and quotes and always losing out to two other local companies, but nothing ever came of it.

Onemorechap: "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"."

Being Jewish is both a protected racial and religious characteristic under anti-discrimination law. Gypsies, as a distinct racial group and arguably a degree of religious homogeny but more accurately cultural rights, homosexuals are protected as all sexual orientation is protected - because sexual orientation it is a characteristic that a lot of people feel is something inherent to one's identity and to a certain degree biology and it is not a choice - like choosing to be born Jewish or into the Jewish religion is not really a choice, and like being born a gypsy is not a choice.

Two questions:

1. At what point does becoming a Freemason not be a choice? When individuals feel obliged to sign up because their parents are Freemasons? I can see that happens at aristocracy levels and titles of certain lodges are expected to go to certain relatives through the ages so perhaps that is true?
2. Or at what point does being a Freemason affects one's entire life philosophy and moral bearings like a religion does? I suppose I am arguing with you on this one if I am saying that it provides opportunities for corruption in people with public authority or in positions of wealth and power because I would say being a Freemason has influenced their actions for the bad. But then power's quite good at corrupting all by itself so am not sure sure about that one.
3. At what point does Freemasonry require you to wear either clothes or style your hair or wear a hat or have a traditionally 'Freemasonic' name that others can discard your CV on the basis of? I agree you have to attend a certain building (mosque/church/lodge).

I think your answers to those questions are important because If I agree with you that requiring Freemasons to make declarations of membership in public office is akin to the Nazis making the Jews wear the Star of David (I call Godwin's Law on you btw because I'm guessing I'm the Nazi in your analogy) then I would have to believe being a Freemason is also not a choice but in some way either biologically or inherited in some other way and that being a Freemason marks you out in some way you cannot possibly hide even if you tried.

Another reason Jelly15 - it's anti-competitive (provides motivation for businesses to behave like a cartel) in certain circumstances which is unlawful - but because those losing out are not in a position to know who is a freemason or not involved in the tender and bid process, they would have no idea they were being acted against by a cartel.

OMC, I'm not demonising, satanising or whatever. It's the concealment that bothers me. My reasons have been clearly stated, by me and others, and you understand them I'm sure.

If you're gay and seem to award an abnormal proportion of business/acquittals/whatever to other gay men, a potential bias would be noticed and investigated. Likewise for any shared quality, other than professional competence. If you and your beneficiaries were all members of the same golf club or supporters of the same football team, that too would be noticed.

But a hidden quality can't be noticed. That's my objection - not the existence of the damn network (I've got a problem with male-only institutions but that's another thread) or its ranks & rituals. I object to the concealment, and to the Order's insistence on its protection.

HellATwork

See, I said I'd answer questions

Two questions:
You want to think about that some more ?

1. At what point does becoming a Freemason not be a choice? When individuals feel obliged to sign up because their parents are Freemasons? I can see that happens at aristocracy levels and titles of certain lodges are expected to go to certain relatives through the ages so perhaps that is true?

Never. Freemasonry requires perfect freedom of choice, and you're asked to testify that when you join.

2. Or at what point does being a Freemason affects one's entire life philosophy and moral bearings like a religion does? I suppose I am arguing with you on this one if I am saying that it provides opportunities for corruption in people with public authority or in positions of wealth and power because I would say being a Freemason has influenced their actions for the bad. But then power's quite good at corrupting all by itself so am not sure sure about that one.

3. At what point does Freemasonry require you to wear either clothes or style your hair or wear a hat or have a traditionally 'Freemasonic' name that others can discard your CV on the basis of? I agree you have to attend a certain building (mosque/church/lodge).

There are certain standards of dress you have to observe, which may make you stand out - conservative business dress on certain Lodge days - and as you say, you have to attend a temple/lodge.

Depends upon your approach. It should affect your whole life, becuase you are attempting to live your live according to strict moral principles and practice virtues.

You can make your judgement according to those answers, but do be aware
some folk disapproved of Freemasonry at all sorts of times.

• Adding to this: a potential bias would be noticed and investigated. I'm aware of at least two High Court judges who've been censured for passing excessively light judgement on criminals who share their old school or regiment. Again, those qualities are not hidden. Membership of an organisation which does comprise many powerful members shouldn't be hidden, either.

garlicbutty

If you're gay and seem to award an abnormal proportion of business/acquittals/whatever to other gay men,

Remind me again, how do you know if someone is gay?

I object to the concealment, and to the Order's insistence on its protection.

See, inter alia www.pglel.co.uk/About_Freemasonry_Pages/Your_questions.asp
members are free to speak openly about freemasonry

and www.ugle.org.uk/what-is-masonry/frequently-asked-questions/
^Are Freemasons expected to give preference to fellow members?
Certainly not. This would be unacceptable and may lead to action being taken against those involved. On joining, each new member states that he expects no material gain from membership.^

bollocks would anybody actually notice the handshake and identify it as odd.

garlicbutty
Membership of an organisation which does comprise many powerful members shouldn't be hidden, either.

Who decides what should be published and recorded?

I believe that rad fems favour each other in business, therefore I want published list of all members of radical feminist organisations.

Well, it's the Jews, innit, we need to be able to map all their financial dealings

Them muslims, and their secret banking, they're all tax dodgers...

OMC: OK so freemasonry is not a religion or a race but claims protection alongside religion and race as a separate category in its own protected right. If standing outside a certain building in certain clothes at certain times of the day marks you out as a religion then the OAPs queuing outside my local Bingo Hall strike me in a whole new way. I never knew.

But as you accept that it should affect your whole life including your moral compass (for the good as you point out), what is this new category of protection against discrimination Freemasons should enjoy? Is it the same one as Scientology? Or perhaps Trade Unions? Is it claiming protection under freedom of association for political purposes?

Sockreturningpixie
bollocks would anybody actually notice the handshake and identify it as odd.

Too right.
I'd pay £5 to a charity of your choice if any 3rd party spotted a masonic handshake from me.

Is power classed as a material gain? I guess money is or financial benefit classed as material but not sure how power is. Power is the key to wealth but not actually wealth.

HellATwork

so freemasonry is not a religion or a race but claims protection alongside religion and race as a separate category in its own protected right.

What? Where do you get that from?

what is this new category of protection against discrimination Freemasons should enjoy?

Where did you get that from? I never suggested that...

I did suggest that the sort of people that want to record - compulsorily - memberships of organisations have a bad history. Follow some of the links...

and see what good company you're in:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Freemasonry

HellATwork
Is power classed as a material gain? I guess money is or financial benefit classed as material but not sure how power is. Power is the key to wealth but not actually wealth.

You are wriggling.
Obviously. Come on, try harder to show where and why Freemasonry should be singled out for this sort of invidious attention.

hmmm well then what you said puzzles me, if I'm like a Nazi (look what good company I'm in - surely the point of that comment no?) then the Freemasons as the role of persecuted are like Jews and gypsies and homosexuals

That's your point isn't it, or so I thought? - your wikipedia link would suggest so and your attempt to draw an analogy between me suggesting Freemasons in public office should be required to declare? If Freemasons should not be singled out to require this and you are saying to do so would be like requiring all Jews, gypsies and everyone in the world in the world to declare their sexuality if they held public office that is who you are comparing yourself.You support and agree with the United Lodge's challenge on legal grounds so on that basis you must be claiming similar assertions as they stated their grounds? They too are arguing being a freemason is comparable to being religious or protection under freedom of association as a protection for political rights necessary in a democracy. Is being a Freemason a fundamental human right and should it be protected as such? That's the arguemnt I thought you were making when comparing freemasons with other protected groups like religion or race.

HellATwork

I'm answering for myself.
I've said nothing about agreeing with any individual or organisation's stance on this thread, and you're being quite naughty to straw-man that in.

I am - as you suggest - pointing out that targeteting Freemasons as a dodgy group was something the Nazis did; and the Communists, and many Islamic countries.

I don't believe that the UK should do this, as I similarly support the right of Muslims to build mosques here, people to be allowed to belong to trade unions - as I do, and political parties - I've been a member of more than one.

I understand some countries disapprove of other organisations I belong to - Amnesty, for one - should I have to disclose that, too?

I'll ask you a couple of questions if you're up for that?

1. Are you suggesting that people should be compelled to state whether they are/were Freemasons or not.

1. Is it your contention that this should be only Freemasons?

2a) If so, why only Freemasons 2b) If not, then who decides the other target groups.

1. Do you think that individuals right to associate should be proscribed, and in what circumstances - and who should be the arbiters of this.

No I am asking why SHOULD it be singled out so as to fall within the groups protected against discrimination as you are claiming. We have lots of instances in financial markets regulations where traders have to submit to credit checks, childcare providers have to submit to crb checks, as an employee of a large plc in the past I have had to submit to personal reference checks, i have to register any invites and refusal of gifts in a central register at work. However, I could quite rightly say no to giving any information about my race, religion, political affiliations if I wanted to and still get the job. The norm is that in every day life and purely for employment purposes lots of different people submit to checks that are about mitigating risk of malpractice in office.

Society has moved on, we may not like it and yes, it's all a bit Big Brother - but it means that to claim that freemasonry is exempt from background checks or declarations in employment is to argue that freemasonry is in a special protected class - like race, religion - that cannot be consciously collated without anonymous protections (for reporting statistics purposes as in race and religion and disability) in order to inform on access to and representation in employment for those groups - but I thought you were saying it is something that people should not be required to declare because they be discriminated against for it. No?

So that means no, then?

I have to disclose hospitality/gifts from suppliers, no problem.
My employer asks which political party I'm in? Go piss up a rope.

I have to say if I belong to a pressure group, campaigning organisation, church, masonic Lodge, Rotary club, Round Table, Foresters? I'd tell them to go pound sand up their ass.

Because you think there's something suspicious about me, I have to tell you what organisations I belong to? Swivel.

Make it law... go on. I'll obey the law; I'll campaign against it passing - as I did ID cards (your view on those, by the way?)

I'll be looking forward to tallying membership in all those radical feminist organisations, too. I'm sure they favour each other....

I really think some of you are just determined to think what you want to about freemasons despite some very reasoned answers. Well done OneMoreChap you are doing a sterling job.

My experience has been exactly that of all the other masons' partners on here but it seems pointless repeating it again.

If anyone ever finds proof of these lodges that run the world could you please let us know where to apply as DS would far sooner join that one than the bog standard drinking and charity one DH is in!

being a mason does not exempt you from all those checks.why should it require you to undergo additional ones

Do you hold a position in public office OMC? Because unless you do I wouldn't expect anyone to have to declare their membership so if you don't hold a position in public office then at least try and be intentionally rude if you want to swear at me because I haven't said anything about requiring anyone who wasn't so the command to swivel (swivel on what btw? I always wonder that when people use that as an insult. Is it supposed to be swivel on my finger or swivel on my penis or swivel on that bar stool over there.) It wouldn't affect you in any other way other choosing between being a freemason or taking a job in public office?

Are the freemasons a campaigning organisation? Or a church? Or are they politicially motivated? Do Rotary Club members have a requirement for mutual furtherance? I am just trying to understand why, if it is just a hobby and a nice relaxing way to spend time, is it morally repugnant to you to consider having to tell people about it. Yo invite other people to join don't you? You want friends to know what a great way to spend time it is? But if legislation required you to declare your membership in applying for a role in public office, you would tell them to swivel because you consider it as integral a part of your identity as race, religion, political and sexuality that no job should ever require you to declare it. I am just trying to understand why that is.

Just as an aside here - if I do have to declare I am a Freemason - what do you expect to happen?

If I am discriminated against and do not get a job because of that - because the person who interviews me has a prejudicial view of freemasonry as illustrated on this forum - how do I fight that discrimination?

Will there be checks as to how many freemasons have been employed and if over a certain % they will be banned from employing any more?

How will it be reported? Who will judge what % of contracts rewarded to freemasons is too high?

We are not asking for special exemptions - just not to be singled out. The whole bit about freemasons being targeted by intolerant regimes is because we firmly believe that no one should be excluded for their religious choices. Some brave people, non-freemasons as well as freemasons, have stood up for those being persecuted - and have become targets themselves.

How do we prove a negative - how do I prove we are not part of some world wide consipracy to take over the world and make everyone believe that faith, truth, charity are good things? Apolgies to aetheists there - I think you have every right to believe (or not). I may not agree with you but I respect your decision.