To become a Freemason, there are three basic criteria that you have to fulfil:
1. Be a man.
2. Be of good character and morality, and be recommended by somebody who is already a Mason.
3. Believe in a supreme being, aka ''Grand Architect of the Universe''.
There may be some other rules that apply from one Lodge to another, but these are the three main boxes that have to ticked before entering mainstream
Rule no. 2 is based upon an assessment of someone's personal actions, and consequently a group or organisation has every right to deny someone
membership based upon these grounds.
Rule no. 3 is based upon personal choice. Everybody has the choice to believe or disbelieve in a supreme being, and once again, an organisation is
well within their rights to deny someone entry, whose personal choice goes against the ethos or philosophy of the said establishment.
Now we get on to rule no.1, which is denying somebody membership based upon a genetic factor that they have no control over; in this case, their
I realise the historic context that may have been relevant when this rule was implemented, but would it not be better to ''tweak'' this rule,
considering how ridiculous it is now ?
It's no different than a group that has a ''no blacks'', ''no Jews'', or ''no gays'' membership requirement.
How would a group with that criteria be considered ?
I don't believe in the conspiracy theory that Freemasonry is some sort of malevolent organisation, or that members hold some esoteric knowledge that
non-Masons are not privy to.
In fact, I consider Freemasonry to be little more than an old boy's club.
Some Masons, in defence against wild accusations against their society, will often state that they are a group whose intent is charitable and worthy;
the furtherance of a man's spirit, if you will.
Yet, this is completely contradictory, as they willingly disenfranchise 50% of the population, solely upon an ''accident of birth''.
Why are Masons comfortable being a part of this demonstrably bigoted organisation, and why do they think that their ''good causes'' mantra can
possibly be taken seriously, considering the prejudice that is outlined in their membership criteria ?
edit on 20-1-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)