Could Masons be political?

If the political winds got to a certain point could it ever be discussed by Masons at the lodge? I'm talking about something huge like the government trying to put Americans in concentration camps (something I highly doubt would ever happen). I know that political/religious discussion is not allowed in the lodge, but what happens in the case of catastrophe? Would various lodges ask members to stand up to tyranny? This is not meant to be a derogatory post against the Masons, my experiences with members have been wonderful. I just wonder if they would ever endorse a political candidate if the opposition was known to be evil. I appreciate any comments, as long as they are not anti Masonic and remain hypothetical.

Political discussions would NEVER be allowed in the lodge.

As a historical example, during World War 2, many lodges, especially in Europe and Africa, received special dispensation allowing them to take guns into lodge meetings for the very first time for safety reasons. However, discussion on the war and its politics were still forbidden.

Even when Masons were being witch-hunted and put in concentration camps, even then, where it affected Masons directly in a horrendous way, discussion of those events were forbidden.

Brothers of both sides of the war met in the same lodges, and any discussion of what was happening would have destroyed the harmony of the lodge. This point and its reasons is discussed twice in the entered apprentice ritual, when the EA is given his badge, and again in the Charge that he is given. Changing this rule would mean changing the ritual. It simply will never happen.

reply to post by Raustin

---

No. I've know quite a few Masons personally and I've seen three of them have a rather heated discussions about politics. If there is a united political agenda as you claim, then the Masons I know don't actually adhere to it.

Not discussed inside the lodge itself, but outside most certainly.
What would go on with their views on politics would reflect them personally, and probably, not the standing of their lodge.
In the Revolutionary and the Civil War, Masons were on both sides,and if similar events come about (God, Jesus, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid) the rules of the Lodges would still stand, as they have.
It'd be my guess, anyway.

I do not think the lodge could ever be involved in politics in terms of endorsing a certain political party or candidate. To be frank, there are very few times in history where there was a clear "good/evil" dividing line in politics. Especially during revolutions and times of upheaval, which side is best for the country can become impossible to determine.

However, as RuneSpider has noted, that doesn't mean masons are never involved in politics. Just that the discussion of such politics stops when the lodge begins. Outside of the lodge, there is nothing to stop members from engaging in politics. I just don't ever see it happening for Freemasonry as a institution - there would have to be a clear and unambiguous side fighting for the "good" in order to keep it consistent with masonic oaths, and I just don't see it happening.

reply to post by RuneSpider

---

Random fact: As far as I understand, there was not a single masonic building bombed directly in WW2 anywhere on the planet.

(I must state here that this is heresay from members of my lodge who were present in WW2, and I cannot back it up with factual literature.)



[edit on 21/11/2008 by Saurus]

I have to disagree with my brothers, and say absolutely yes. Partisan political bickering is not allowed in the Lodge, but what you are describing is different. You are talking about the institution of tyranny.

The American Revolution, in large part, was first discussed in the Lodge rooms for the same reasons.

Would you say that the feelings of the brothers should be unanimous before any such discussion. ie. If a single brother disagreed, would such discussion cease?

If there were two brothers at variance, would they not withdraw from the lodge in order to amicably settle their differences, rather than discuss it in lodge?



[edit on 21/11/2008 by Saurus]

There's a specific policy I remember reading,can't remember where it was, that directly addressed being loyal to your country but not to a tyrannical government, that kind of deals into what you are talking about, Raustin.
However, tyranny that can be subjective, and as such some will be fore, others against.
Masonic Light, while I remember reading about Masons during the Revolution meeting in Lodges, would that have been before, or after the Lodge meetings, or during?
The way you phrased your statement, they may have been meeting at the Lodge, but not at a actual Lodge meeting.
In other words, the members of the Lodge who held a certain point of view towards the Revolution would meet at times other than posted.
Sinc I don't know for sure if lodge meetings were common knowledge at the time, seems they could have met without generating to much suspicion.

Many presidents were masons and so are many high profile figures.But as to whether or not that passes into a lodge,i dont know,maybe have a little chit chat here and there.But i doubt its of greater importance than anything else people gab about in social situations.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by Solomons]

reply to post by Masonic Light

---

Another hypothetical question to Masonic light...

If such a political discussion were for the good of Masonry in general, would it be appropriate to discuss it in lodge - for instance, at the risings?

I have a question for you masonic light. How come I use to see the all seeing eye when I was a child all the time? I don't know if you can answer this one but any input would be greatly appreciated.

If things got as bad as you hypothesize, do you honestly think that the most effective course of action would be "endorsing a political candidate"? I wouldn't put it beyond some lodges to suggest taking more direct measures. But such measures, like all Masonic activity developed in the lodge, would require going through Robert's Rules of Order. "Worshipful Master, I'd like to propose forming a committee to investigate the possibility of dumping a shipment of tea into Boston Harbor." "My Brothers, there is a motion on the floor to form a committee to investigate the possibility of dumping a shipment of tea into Boston Harbor. Do I have a second?" "Second." "Is there any discussion on the matter at hand?' (discussed) "My Brothers, you have heard a motion to form an investigating committee concerning the matters of tea and the possibility of dumping into Boston Harbor. Please vote by the usual sign among man an Masons alike. Those in favor? Those opposed? Brother Secretary please note that the motion has carried. Brothers Hancock, Revere and Crafts, you are now on such a committee and will report your findings to the lodge at the next stated meeting." *gavel*

It IS a curious hypothetical. I know there are a couple million Scottish Rite Masons who have sworn to uphold the separation of church and state, for instance... that the presence of both is beneficial to well regulated society, but that the combination thereof yields too much power over the passions of men and no good has ever come from such intermingling. So yeah, if we had a Roman Catholic president who openly swore to run the United States solely at the will of the Pope, there would probably be some sort of uprising from the Scottish Rite. I doubt they'd be alone, either.

[edit on 11/21/2008 by JoshNorton]

Nice post, Josh.

I love the way you describe proceeding in lodge. So true...

Josh, you have got me thinking:
Do you think the EA charge should be seen as a law/rule, or simply a suggestion? Does it strictly prohibit any political discussion, or is it simply aimed at the candidate as a guideline?

My personal opinion? I think that as Masons we've sworn to be dutiful to our government so long as our government upholds its end of the bargain. The spirit of Masonry is inherently against tyranny. I don't expect to see lodges burning effigies of specific political figures, but wholesale change of policy by such figures would likely warrant discussion and perhaps action. We owe allegiance to the ideal of the country, not necessarily the figureheads currently in power at any given time.

Name 1 time in history when it was absolutely clear to everyone in the world that tyranny was at hand and there was 1 clear side that masonry could get behind.

Even in WW2 Germany, it is quite possible that many of the German people legitimately thought that their government was not tyranny (although later in the war that would be hard to do). I am usually not a relativist on much in life, but politics is definitely one thing where what is "right" is almost wholly relative until time has passed and proper historical and cultural perspective is gained.

This is why Masons have always been found on both sides of the battle line, because without the perspective of history and the cultural context it is impossible to determine which side is the one against tyranny. Each side thinks it is the just side fighting against the other side which represents the "evil" that must be defeated. And that is why I do not think freemasonry as an institution should be involved in such things - although individual masons have and should.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by LowLevelMason]

Thank you for the answers. I realize that there has never been an obvious evil candidate in history, it was hypothetical. Thanks again guys!

reply to post by JoshNorton

---

I guess you're right. I suppose that if a government imposed something which went against the morals of masons, the moral implications would outweigh the duty to government.

Interesting thread, this...

Hey all, just my quick input on this. As a Mason, we pledge to obey the laws of whatever country we reside in, and support the government. However my take, personally is, that in the event of gross mismanagement by the ruling powers, people, including masons, should do what is needed to reclaim control of the ruling class. We never discuss politics directly in the Lodge, but in the event of a tyrannical leader taking control, I am sure the Masonic fraternity would not hold back in discussing, and aiding, in replacing a despot with proper governmental rule.

I have always wondered if my Lodge would ever begin discussing plans about a major event in our country. This is more my imagination running wild though, as my Lodge meetings are pretty dull.