Freemasons and Political Discussions

D. W. Brown · 01-08-2008, 12:32 PM

I knew the minute a placed a banner for Ron Paul on the web site it would make a few people jump up on their non-political discussion soap boxes. Good we need a healthy debate to clear the air and once and for all answer the question of Masons discussing politics. So let's discuss the facts and see if we can come to a resolution that the majority can live with after all we are a democracy (political), right?

Here is my take on the prohibition of political discussions. I believe strongly that the prohibition was not intended for politics outside the lodges but was to keep the internal politics to a minimum.

Benjamin Franklin used his Masonic connections in France during the American Revolution to bolster support for the U.S. Every time you turn on the history channel you see the Masons touting George Washington as a Mason. We know that the Boston Tea party was planned and executed by Masons at the Green Dragon Tavern. In my opinion I think we should be more involved in politics than we are today. I think that U.S. Masonry has focused so hard on charity, nothing wrong with that at all, that it has lost it’s way.

Please I remind you these are my observations and not the observations of every “Free” Mason around the world.

George the 3rd · 01-08-2008, 12:43 PM

I believe that discussions on political matters among Brethren are proper outside the Lodgeroom and possibly outside the Temple building as well. I think this extends to "lapel buttons" and the like also.

I also believe that any discussions on political matters between two or more Brothers should be respectful and kept on the highest intellectual level leaving passions and prejudices out of the exchanges. After all, are these not basic Masonic principles?

D. W. Brown · 01-08-2008, 12:57 PM

George thank you for the thoughtful response, I apprecaite it knowing the differences we share on most topics.

Are you aware of any thing written that specifically says Brothers cannot discuss politics, that is not specific to Masons of a particular state of government?

George the 3rd · 01-08-2008, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D. W. Brown

George thank you for the thoughtful response, I apprecaite it knowing the differences we share on most topics.

Are you aware of any thing written that specifically says Brothers cannot discuss politics, that is not specific to Masons of a particular state of government?

From the Antient Charges:

Quote:

vi. Of Behavior

2. Behaviour after the Lodge is over and the Brethren not gone.

You may enjoy yourselves with innocent Mirth, treating one another according to Ability, but avoiding all Excess, or forcing any Brother to eat or drink beyond his Inclination, or hindering him from going when his Occasions call him, or doing or saying anything offensive, or that may forbid an easy and free Conversation; for that would blast our Harmony, and defeat our Laudable Purposes. Therefore no private Piques or Quarrels must be brought within the Door of the Lodge, far less any Quarrels about Religion, or Nations, or State Policy, we being only, as Masons of the Catholick Religion above-mention'd; we are also of all Nations, Tongues, Kindreds, and Languages, and are resolv'd against all Politicks, as what never yet conduc'd to the Welfare of the Lodge, nor ever will. This charges has been always strictly enjoin'd and observ'd, but especially ever since the Reformation in Britian, or the Dissent and Secession of these Nations from the Communion of Rome.

This would be the closest I can think of given the restriction of being "not specific to Masons of a particular state of government".

Tinker · 05-17-2008, 06:48 PM

Hi all, this is my first post here.

I just want to add my agreement to the idea that the prohibition against politics refers to speaking of politics in the lodge room specifically, while lodge is in session, and to internal intriguing within the craft.

Just my .2

Erek

D. W. Brown · 05-18-2008, 12:18 PM

Agreed Brother Tinker, you discuss politics every chance you get, as that is the only way we can affect change in a government that was founded on our principles. I could see the argument for no discussion of religion but politics, hardly, given our influence in the early 1700s.

Tinker · 05-19-2008, 08:07 AM

I don't know, I discuss religion with my brothers outside of lodge all the time. Religion and politics are an important part of life, and they are intertwined. In the search for more light, I don't think we can avoid such topics in our discussions.

D. W. Brown · 05-19-2008, 11:04 PM

Oh I believe in religious discussion also but am a staunch believer in the separation of church and state. There only seems to be problems when you mix religion and politics together.

brandt · 05-20-2008, 05:21 AM

Let us remember Brothers that it is "partisan" politics and "sectarian" religion, not politics and religion. Politics is not what people seem to think it is. It is not about stumping for a particular candidate. It is about the methods and manner of coming to consensus. That requires discussion and education.

Regarding the passions and the idea that politics and religion cannot be discussed without causing disharmony. That is just wrong headed. Anything can be discussed by adults acting as adults. Sure there are some that just can't handle the fact that others don't agree with their pet ideas. Perhaps those folks are in the wrong place. I am sure the local party can use another talking head. The Masonic lodge is a place of learning. To learn one must challenge and be challenged.

Brandt

Tinker · 05-20-2008, 07:09 AM

Brandt excellent point.

D.W. Brown I am the sort that believes that religion and politics are two sides of the same coin. Brandt's point about the semantics of it is well worth some consideration as it is very much the method by which the American political system was devised. The government does not favor any particular religion. That does not mean that religion isn't tied in intrinsically with politics. In America, the church was often the town hall as well. We as a people have for many years organized around our churches. Religious people vote in blocs and people's religious views underly the very fabric of their belief system, informing the political philosophy by which they vote.