Freemasons call for end to 'discrimination' of members.

originally posted by: Painterz
"As an organisation we welcome individuals from all walks of life, of any race, faith, age, class or political persuasion."


So long as you're a man.

Given the current propensity for women to come forward claiming sexual harassment from men that happened even decades ago, I think it's safe to say "male only" fraternities will be more reluctant to change their "safe space" gatherings and associations, now that the "wisdom" of having such uni-sex spaces has become abundantly clear.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Painterz
"As an organisation we welcome individuals from all walks of life, of any race, faith, age, class or political persuasion."


So long as you're a man.

Given the current propensity for women to come forward claiming sexual harassment from men that happened even decades ago, I think it's safe to say "male only" fraternities will be more reluctant to change their "safe space" gatherings and associations, now that the "wisdom" of having such uni-sex spaces has become abundantly clear.

Male only fraternities. As if there are other kinds.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
And the oathes. Constantly with the oathes and the affirmations that you will keep the oathes. That is worth talking about right there.

You do understand why you promised to keep the oaths secret don't you?

a reply to: AMPTAH

From my experiences in the mixed-gender Order, of which I am a member, there are no feelings of sexual desire or tension during meetings, as we view each other as fraternal Brothers and Sisters. We come together in mutual focus for the Glory of T.G.A.O.T.U. and/or to the perfection of humanity. Such work leaves little room for base impulse or the cultivation of carnal desire. I am not saying that instances of attraction or infatuation have not occurred, but I am saying that I have never witnessed, nor have I ever heard of any such indiscretions within our Lodges. Most of us are married people, and some Lodges even have spousal couples as members. Sexual focus is not the culture of mixed-gender Lodges, we meet and part as Brothers and Sisters.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: testingtesting

Ever notice the Google Gmail icon resembles their aprons?

That's the official registered trademark for "METCAL", a maker of electronic soldering equipment.

a reply to: testingtesting

Funny thing: My martial arts school is in a building built specifically as a masonic lodge (which is now defunct). I helped move the school into that building, and wouldn't you know it--not a 90-degree corner anywhere in that building.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Woodcarver
And the oathes. Constantly with the oathes and the affirmations that you will keep the oathes. That is worth talking about right there.

You do understand why you promised to keep the oaths secret don't you?

Because oathes attach you on a psychological level to the group. The oathes themselves are designed to be vague and yet sound very serious at the same time. It is part of the mystery that draws people to it’s doors. “We have secrets”.

It is very anti productive to share the secrets and the oathes because that is the power of the group.

They lure you in with the illusion that they will teach you. Which they will do with some. Others are just there to be used. They get introduced to more mystery.

If you care to explain it in your own words, i’d be happy to hear it.

It is the guardian newspaper who has been exposing the masons in several recent articles , one announcing the fact that they have not one , but two secret lodges , inside of the parliament buildings . Questioning whether this entire on , or not . I think their cross-professional membership means that IICSA are looking very hard at them as well

originally posted by: Woodcarver

If you care to explain it in your own words, i’d be happy to hear it.

that's likely it. I took it completely different. The oaths are not to the group, or to some deity, or our of fear, they are simply to remind yourself that your character, your word, is always available to be tested, and keeping it in good report, is essential to keeping a good value of self worth. Every mason in the room knows them, and most anti-masons know them or could find them, and the rest, don't give a rats ass. So if not for me, who else would really care?

I truly am sorry you felt/feel as you did about your experience. But I certainly respect the decisions and reasons.

It's nice to know you as a brother now.

originally posted by: GeneralMayhem
It is the guardian newspaper who has been exposing the masons in several recent articles , one announcing the fact that they have not one , but two secret lodges , inside of the parliament buildings . Questioning whether this entire on , or not . I think their cross-professional membership means that IICSA are looking very hard at them as well

While I prefer General Disarray, I wonder how far the need to remove any and all secrecy, and or, privacy will go? It could get to be a rather slippery slope.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Woodcarver

If you care to explain it in your own words, i’d be happy to hear it.

that's likely it. I took it completely different. The oaths are not to the group, or to some deity, or our of fear, they are simply to remind yourself that your character, your word, is always available to be tested, and keeping it in good report, is essential to keeping a good value of self worth. Every mason in the room knows them, and most anti-masons know them or could find them, and the rest, don't give a rats ass. So if not for me, who else would really care?

I truly am sorry you felt/feel as you did about your experience. But I certainly respect the decisions and reasons.

It's nice to know you as a brother now.

I always assumed the secrets we are meant to keep are the personal secrets among the members, not the ones in the books that can be easily found in any bookstore. More like the mob, than a group of philanthropists.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
I always assumed the secrets we are meant to keep are the personal secrets among the members, not the ones in the books that can be easily found in any bookstore. More like the mob, than a group of philanthropists.

My understanding is that the real secrets keep themselves.

There's no need for oaths.

When the candidate is ready, the secrets reveal themselves to that person, and to he alone.

originally posted by: network dude

Male only fraternities. As if there are other kinds.

Apparently, there are.

Today, women reside in men's bodies, and visa versa.

It's complicated.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Woodcarver

If you care to explain it in your own words, i’d be happy to hear it.

that's likely it. I took it completely different. The oaths are not to the group, or to some deity, or our of fear, they are simply to remind yourself that your character, your word, is always available to be tested, and keeping it in good report, is essential to keeping a good value of self worth. Every mason in the room knows them, and most anti-masons know them or could find them, and the rest, don't give a rats ass. So if not for me, who else would really care?

I truly am sorry you felt/feel as you did about your experience. But I certainly respect the decisions and reasons.

It's nice to know you as a brother now.

I always assumed the secrets we are meant to keep are the personal secrets among the members, not the ones in the books that can be easily found in any bookstore. More like the mob, than a group of philanthropists.

that's just being a good friend. Not spreading gossip and all. (IMHO)

a reply to: Sahabi

I’d like open and public dialogue to confront, discuss, and debunk the false allegations of Freemasonry endorsing or supporting Satanic worship...

Is that so?

Then you should start by confronting the guy who wrote the statement who said the following...

As an organisation we welcome individuals from all walks of life, of any race, faith, age, class or political persuasion.

No?