Do people have a better opinion on Masons ....

[Khephra]

Knowing I'm one or do you have a worse opinion?

[DustMolecule]

1. "Do people have a better opinion on Masons"

...better than what???? :shrug:

edit: spelling

[Khephra]

3. Good question

[DustMolecule]

5. ehm, YOU asked the question....

....so the re-phrased answer is????

[Khephra]

11. Well, the group seems to be hated by a lot of people

But I've also been a part of DU for three years. I've only been a Mason for a year or so now, but I've never hid the fact. I'm just wondering if the fact that I've been involved has changed anyone's mind on the group.

[DustMolecule]

20. Ehm, I want to know what the group stands for

what does it do, what does it support, .... what does it denounce. There is lots of stuff out there about the Masons, but which of it is true? Hard to tell. It's only through members sharing there experience that one can make a good decision about the group. The fact that there seems to be so much secrecy around the group sends a bad signal that 'there's things to hide that most good people wouldn't approve of. That's why I asked you about YOUR experience. Heck, a person could naively b/c a member of the KKK, for example, get in...take a look around, and say NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO way! A year isn't very long. I suspect you don't know all that much about it yourself - not possible after only a year. But, still, I would be interested to know some of your experiences.

[Khephra]

23. Read the links supplied in post 17

Please

[DustMolecule]

30. Oki - briefly looked at the link

will read it at-length tomorrow (I'm off to bed now), but it doesn't really answer the question I asked of you....what has been YOUR experience so far?

[Khephra]

34. My experience

Has that when I was down, I always had someone to call who would help me, whether it was just listening or trying to collect money for my hardships. I've never been asked to do anything at all....

Think of AA. It's a support group for modern men who miss the tribal ritualss that make one a man.

[MrSlayer]

2. Do you do the silly handshake?

I love that Monty Python bit.

[Khephra]

4. Yes, we do

and silly steps too.

[MrSlayer]

7. Haha! The Ministry of Silly Walks is another favorite.

John Cleese is brilliant.

[Khephra]

6. I am interested in knowing who the people who won't trust me are

I've been honest enough about my connections, so why not tell me why you don't trust me anymore.

[DustMolecule]

10. Well, I would like to know

what/who exactly are the masons? In your experience, telll me/educate me about the masons please.

[Khephra]

17. Read this and the rest of the links...especially the anti-Masonry stuff

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/Writings/MasonicOverview.html

[5thGenDemocrat]

115. Hell, kheph -- I'm a third degree member of the Knights of Columbus

Does that change your opinion of me? You're still invited to FUNDAY in June -- if that answers your question. In fact, Polly and I will be crushed if you don't make it.
John
We KofCers have some funny rituals, too. I could tell you what they are but then, of course, I'd have to kill you.
See you in June.

[Book Lover]

8. I had to vote "other"

As you know, I have "Mason envy" as my uterus precludes my joining up... Not that I have or ever had a negative opinion of Masonry. I just hope the organization loosens up and let's me in before I die :-)

[Khephra]

13. So do I, so do I...

It's hard pushing groups that depend upon tradition to give into changes in society...I can just tell you this : the new generation of Masons are mostly Liberal and interested in equality.








;

[Rabrrrrrr]

33. And, Washington and a bunch of other founders of the US were masons

all liberals, all excellent people.

Go Masons!

[mykpart]

37. Isn't there "Eastern Star"?

[Rabrrrrrr]

40. Yep, the women's branch of Masons, though it is not equal

It's a way for the wives and daughters of Masons to be involved, but has nothing of the import and delving into the secret nature of the Masons.

(and I am neither criticizing nor applauding, only offering the truth)

[Book Lover]

45. You replied before I could

What Rabrrrrrr said... I am not interested in joining a Ladies' Auxiliary.

[5thGenDemocrat]

117. Glad you brought that up

Grandpa H (a Lutheran) was a Mason and Grandma (an Episcopalian) was the Big She-Bear of the Eastern Star chapter in Bay City for a while in the late 60s. We, her Catholic grandchildren, were quite mystified by the whole thing but thought it was cool, nevertheless.
Catholics, theoretically, aren't supposed to be Masons -- if I remember correctly. The ban isn't on the part of the Masons, it's on the part of the RCC. And I'm not sure it officially applies any more -- kind of like no beef jerky on Fridays.
John
Except during Lent.

[Rick Myers]

9. Kef, my brother...

How are you, my friend? Hope you are well... Just got back from a fundraiser for my county recorder candidate, great turnout, including the leader's in 2 county commissioners races and the sherriffs race!

Made just enough money to buy the last 3 days of radio ads before elction day! We're having a big event with Dennis Kucinich a week from Monday, night before Super Tuesday!

Sorry about Howard Dean, you know I was an early advocate, but I only now think I can make a serious choice, and that's Edwards. We are supporting Dennis because our Repuke Governor is term-limited and Dennis would be a GREAT governor... After that, who knows???

Dean energized the party, and you can be proud to have been an intergral part of that!!!

Take care, and all the best...

rick

[Khephra]

14. My Brother?

You're not "one of us" are you?

[Rick Myers]

16. Hail Eris!

My first cat was named eris...

[Khephra]

19. That's Discordianism

I'm also a Master Mason...thinking about becoming a Scotish Rite 32 degree soon.

[Rick Myers]

24. Yes

I do have a family Masonic sword... Very special item.

You know, I first read RAW when stationed at Ft. Ben in 1975-6!!!

Just picked up RAW's Quantum Psychology at a garage sale!!! Perfect condition.

Never got into the Masonic Order, but it's facinating...

[Wonk]

28. Did you ever read that Master's Thesis I showed you before?

Fascinating stuff, imho, re: Discordianism, Church of the Subgenius, and various cults of Cthulhu (the latter being the reason I sent it to you before).

Neophilic Irreligions:Audience Cults and the World Wide Web

[Fleshdancer]

12. Can't trust you!

just kidding. To be completely honest, I'm ignorant on stuff like this so what do I know? I voted "can't trust you" because I thought it was the funniest answer. ;)

[Ysabel]

15. i am the sole yes voter...

so far...

hello...

[Khephra]

29. Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're great!

[Rabrrrrrr]

18. Most of the males in my family are masons

They still drink and smoke and shoot deer and drive tractors and treat people like human beings and would kill anyone who evilly harassed someone else and they (mostly) vote democrat, so to me, Masons are way cool.

I also had the wonderful opportunity to befriend the Chief of Staff of a Shriner's Hospital, who was also a Shriner, and after that experience, and spending time in that hospital, I have near infinite respect for what the masons and shriners do.

I don't know that I've ever been as amazed as I was every goddamn time I was in that Shrinier's hospital, talking about patients with that man, and him showing me X-Rays, and talking about how much money Shriners were spending to fix up otherwise utterly disposable children from Fiji and Tonga and Tuvalu and Samoa, etc.

Anyone criticizes the masons, they can face the Rabrrrrrr Mighty Hand of Death.

[Khephra]

21. I want to vistit you now more than ever!

:loveya:

A long time ago, I decided that I would never be a part of any group that didn't reflect Democratic values...and the Masons DO. NOW things are a bit different in other countries, but in the US we can't talk about religion or politics in the Lodge (French Lodges have always been a bit ...different.)

I've made friends with conservatives who would have normally never shaken my hands, but they've gone out of their way since I was a brother. There are reasons in today's modern society to form "tribal" connections, and that's what today's American Masonry is doing.

[Rabrrrrrr]

26. That Chief of Staff I knew, and worked with in youth ministry,

is one of the most amazing human beings I've ever known.

My insurance guy is also a Shriner. And he's a Seal. :-)

One of my uncles was made a Shriner a couple years ago (the rest of my family are all 32nd degree, so one step away from Shriner). Amazing man. He spent two days sitting in a river in Vietnam, hiding from the "enemy", after his idiot Lieutenant got the rest of the platoon wiped out, even after a number of the "idiot non-commissioned filth" told him the far side of the river was filled viet cong. Incredible story. And I will never believe that any of these three people are part of some conspiratorial banker guild striving to establish a new world order.

And if they are, at least I'm related to a lot of them, so I won't be purged. :-)

[Liberal Christian]

51. I agree that they do good work

At the last church I served, lots of Masons were members. The truth for many of them seemed to be that the Masons were their primary spiritual community, which meant that most of them, while very involved in the Masons, were only marginally involved in the church. The theology expressed in the rituals that were available to the public was sort of pseudo-Christian mingled with other stuff.

This would have been all right by itself, but most of the Masons/Eastern Star/Job's Daughters/Demolay I've known have claimed to be Christian. Yet, as members of Masonic orders, they have their own funeral rites, which I as pastor was simply expected to incorporate as part of the rite of Christian burial. In other communities I'd been part of, the Masons would have their funeral rites at the funeral home the night before the church service, but they wouldn't even consider it where I was.

I also have a problem with secret and exclusive societies. The college I went to didn't even allow fraternities and sororities. I have been told that Masons also have a policy of giving each other preferential treatment in business -- awarding contracts, choosing one supplier over another because he is a Mason, etc. I don't know whether that is true, but it is a very common conception.

As I said, I know that the Masonic societies do a lot of good work and provide for good fellowship. And, to be perfectly honest, the Eastern Star also gave me a small scholarship every year that I was in seminary.

However, when I put it all together in my mind, there are too many practices that I disagree with to allow me to give them my full support.

[Ohio Dem]

22. I simply don't know enough about Masons to have a real opinion.

Part of it is the secret thing. It's hard to learn about a secret organization. The secrecy doesn't bother my in and of itself (I was in a Fraternity in college), but it doesn't help others learn about these societies.

I know I'm not supposed to like Masons, but nobody can (or more relevantly, did when I was growing up) tell me exactly why. I have friends that are Masons. I have friends that are convinced Masons are the scourge of the Earth. I've seen the movie From Hell, and I'm pretty sure that you, Kef, aren't Jack the Ripper.

Kef, knowing that you're a Mason helps the Masons in my opinion. I was offered once, by the way. I had enough secrecy, though, in college with my Fraternity. I'm not comparing the two, because I think college Fraternities (silly) aren't like real adults in a secret society (all grown up). Ever read The DaVinci Code? Lots of secrets in there, and the implication is that secrets are sometimes necessary. (And the Masons are mentioned. If you can elaborate, a PM would be cool.)

Anyway, to each his own. If Kef's a Mason, then Mason's probably aren't the evil, secretive bastards I was taught they were.

[Khephra]

25. Do a google search

and you'll find all the Masonic rituals. Trust me.

And then get back to me. I've actuallly become more of a Christian since I became a Mason, contrary to many RW's.

(Although, it might be of a more Gnostic variety...but that's just me..)

[Ohio Dem]

27. Now, if you were a Stone Cutter from The Simpsons,

then I'd ask you to fix the 2004 election for the Dem nominee. (I think they were called Stone Cutters in that episode.)

That's what most people think when they think (Mason). I doubt it's accurate.

[Khephra]

31. Now to clear the level about a few things

Just because I'm a Mason...

I don't know a THING about Skull and Bones... there ARE groups that use a Masonic format to push their own opinions upon people. They're called "Dark Masons" by many within the Order.

I'm actually pro-Kucinich, previously pro-Dean. Kerry ...puts me to sleep.

[madrchsod]

32. my grand father

was a mason, i remember when i was a kid my grand mother would show me his really cool sword, it had alot of scenes on it but i had no idea what they were. she gave it back to the lodge a few years after his death.didn`t realize my grand father was part of a "grand design".....

[Chovexani]

35. I never had an opinion either way about Masons

But I think you are so cool it makes me have a better view of them. :)

Seriously dude you are one of my favorite DUers. :loveya:

[HamstersFromHell]

36. My dad was a Mason...

Master of his Blue Lodge (where I was DeMolay years later, but I digress)
32nd degree Scottish Rite, Knights Templar, PGHP of the Grand Lodge of Tenn., KYCH, Red Cross of Constantine. It was his life.

I respect you sir, as I respected my father. If anyone would ask me of him: "He was a good man. He was a Mason." There isn't any difference.

[mykpart]

38. I was raised Catholic, and

when I was a kid, Catholics were forbidden to join the Masons. (So they came up with the Knights of Columbus!) Actually, I think Catholics were even forbidden to join the YMCA, so go figure. It was because of the secret oaths. Funny, because nowadays lots of Catholics are Masons, but it seems that the fundamentalists have all decided that Masons are evil! At one time every Baptist I knew was a Mason. Go figure. I think all those lodges, (Elks, Masons, Moose, K of C, etc.) are a little silly, but I'm a woman. The Masons and Shriners do a lot of good things for their communities, so how could that be a bad thing?

[Rabrrrrrr]

41. Please don't lump Masons with lesser groups like Elks and Moose, etc.

Masons have a real and true purpose.

Elks club is some weird-ass conglomeration of psuedo-businessmen and something else I could never quite define.

Moose lodge (or Moose club) is nothing more than a collective of alcoholics who have figured out a way to have their own private club with cheap booze and mediocre, but cheap, food, and some bullshit "public service" in the form of shit-for-nothing occasional scholarships for college students whose (alcoholic) parents are member of the Moose (Alcoholic) Lodge.

I'm not very keen on Knights of Columbus, either, since they're sort of odd and out of the real mainstream and more a "club" than any real societally beneficial organization, other than providing cheap banquet halls for Catholics to have their (alcoholic) wedding receoptions at, but since I don't want the wrath of Catholics to be upon me, I won't say any more.

[mykpart]

42. Didn't mean to offend, Rabrrrr.

(I started another thread for being offensive!) Chalk it up to ignorance about the subject.

[Rabrrrrrr]

44. No offense taken

Just wanted to clarify the difference between the legitimate ones and the alcoholic-based ones. :-)

I'll have to find your other so-called offensive thread...

(and Rabrrrrrr has 6 "r"s, not 4)

[DemBones DemBones]

96. Knights of Columbus do charity work and if

you think they're "odd" and "out of the mainstream," I suspect you may not have very positive images of Catholics in general. You seem to have a problem with alcohol being served at wedding receptions, but not many people share that attitude, certainly it's not an attitude you find among Catholics. Around here, it's said that you can always tell Catholics from Baptists because Catholics will speak to you at the liquor store. ;-)

An original purpose for the Knights of Columbus was to provide inexpensive life insurance for Catholic working men, which was in itself a charitable initiative at the time. Knights still provide life insurance but now it's organized through their own company with agents and policies much like any insurance company. I'm sure there was also an aspect of giving Catholic men a special, secret society of their own, at a time when most Protestant men were Masons or belonged to the business clubs like Rotary that didn't welcome Catholics.

The K of C's main charitable giving goes to support children and adults with mental retardation and they do a variety of fundraisers to support this effort. They are also a pro-life organization and they are often involved in building projects in their parish, including building monuments to victims of abortion. Not a popular practice at DU, I realize, but while the Democrats are ignoring Catholic concerns, Karl Rove is targeting Catholics to convert them to GOP voters. That's a real shame because the Catholic vote always belonged to the Democrats until the Dems became the abortion party, basically telling Catholics "Who cares what you think?" Knights are also likely to do work at the parish school, like fixing playground equipment, and the church, like helping decorate at Christmas.

The Knights also go out and help people in the parish who need it. Once when another parishioner and I took dinner to a woman whose leg had just been amputated due to diabetes, some of the Knights had been there to build ramps up to the doors of her house. They also make sure that the widows of Knights are getting along OK, see if they need any chores done,etc. And the 4th degree Knights (who get to wear tuxedos with plumed hats and swords) participate in processions at special Masses, including funerals of brother Knights. They have some secret rituals and a secret handshake and password but it doesn't sound (from what my husband's told me) as involved as the Masons, basing that on my experience in the Order of the Rainbow, the Masonic organization for Mason's daughters.

[Rabrrrrrr]

97. You are right to chastise me on that one

I was rather unfair to the Knights of Columbus, a group who DO do some good works.

and you are very right here: {i]Around here, it's said that you can always tell Catholics from Baptists because Catholics will speak to you at the liquor store.

I know some other similar jokes about baptists and drinking... heh heh.

Thank you for challenging me on that, and I apologize. I should have not, in any way, been so against the Knights of Columbus. And my phrase about offering a cheap place for Catholic alcoholics to have their wedding receptions was meant to read "provide a place for cheap alcoholics to have their wedding receptions". I didn't mean to single out Catholics on that one, and I apologize for the typo.

Though no, I don't object to alcohol served at wedding receptions.

[DemBones DemBones]

101. Thanks for acknowledging that. All these groups

vary from place to place and no doubt you can find people you wouldn't want to know in any of them. My father would never join a veterans' group because he claimed they were just about having a place to drink cheap booze. While there may be some truth there, I doubt that is the entire story.

[Rabrrrrrr]

103. Though I stand by my opinion on the Moose club

and the Elks club (though the Elks Club in my hometown always had a wonderful wild game feast, and my school orchestra often played for their year-end-award banquet thing, both of those groups really seemed to do nothing more than provide private places for getting inebriated, without offering anything of any real or relevant value to the community except some occasional bones tossed out, like pathetic little scholarships and an award for the City Manager eveyr year for "doing a great job" and picking one businessman to award a "Great Contributor to Our Fair City" award.)

[DemBones DemBones]

105. Don't know much about them -- what about the

Knights of Pythias? Kind of a cool name.

[Rabrrrrrr]

112. That is a cool name! But I've never heard of them,

so have no opnion, other than perhaps one of the coolest-named societies. :-)

[ScreamingMeemie]

113. Hey!!! My husband's a Moose!! Okay, I tease him about it all the time.

His uncle sponsored him and he shows up there about once a year because otherwise he would never see him.

The whole deal with MooseHaven...give us your income old folks and we'll give you a home...gives me the heebies.

:hi:

[afraid_of_the_dark]

54. My mother has friends who became Masons...

who were previously Catholic. It's really sad - they're the sweetest people, and she refuses to talk to them anymore because "Masons are evil." What I thought was really funny was just what you had said about the parallels with the Knights of Columbus thing, where joining that is acceptable but Masons are not. :shrug:

I don't care one way or another - your life, your beliefs, your choice.

[A HERETIC I AM]

39. My Father was a Member of the Masonic order most of his adult life......

He was a 32nd degree for as long as a can remember and he"Attained"(?..Acheived?) the position/title of "Worshipful Master" for, if i am not mistaken, the State of Florida before he passed away almost 5 years ago.

He was an Episcopalian, albeit a somewhat skeptical one with a Deistic bent, a hard worker and a man of high ethics and morals. Both my brothers were in DeMolay when they were younger and my older brother joined a lodge in S.W. Fla a few years back (he has subsequently dropped out for personal reasons).

I have nothing but respect for members of the Masonic Order. An ancient society of men dedicated to all that is good and decent.

Most of the founding fathers of this country were Masons and Members of the order have been involved in governments around the world.

[PVnRT]

43. Neither

I never had a bad opinion of them in the first place, frankly. I just saw them as another group that people joined.

[BrotherBuzz]

46. I'm easily confused..

You ask if we have a better or worse opinion on Masons in the same question. What part should I to respond to? Shouldn't your poll have a Better or worse opinion instead of the simple yes and no? Am I just making this harder then it really is? Like I said, I'm easily confused.

For what it's worth, I've met far more good Masons then bad ones and I put you in the good category.

[joyautumn]

47. nothing personal

after reading "The Second Messiah", written by masons about the origins of masonry, in conjunction with stuff I've read about the origin and influence of Zoroastrianism, I'd say that masonry shares the same basic problem that other Zoroastrian-infused religions like Christianity, Islam and Buddhism -- namely, that it focuses on the mutual support of good people trying to be good, against forces of nature and bad people trying to get them to be bad. seems non-threatening at first blush, but ultimately it leads to a conformatism and collegialism that results in the demonization of groups of people, forces of nature, and the unknown in general.

the rationale for masonic and illuminati secrecy centuries ago was fear of persecution by the Catholic Church. that rationale is long obsolete, but so much secrecy remains -- not just because it's a habit, but because it's a very useful habit for people who do business. businesses succeed better if they operate in secrecy, in collusion with one another rather than in competition against each other, and with influence over market behavior rather than simply in response to it. if you're not in the club, your business will be left out in the cold and won't succeed as well.

so the exclusion of women is a SERIOUS problem because it means women-owned or women-run businesses are severely disadvantaged. this is a basic civil rights issue, and it sounds like the standard line of Dixiecrat racists you saying that things are changing, and in a generation or two there will be equality because the membership currently benefiting from the discrimination will eventually decide to let women in. The Civil Rights Movement was specifically against this "gradualist" approach to integration. Virtually no one in the south in the fifties was saying, "Never will blacks be equal." They were saying, "Sure, but it's too early, but don't worry things are changing, the young people are different."

to call yourself a Democrat in the tradition of JKF and RFK, but then say that you refuse to violate the rules of masonry as they stand and FORCE the issue of women's equality in masonry NOW is sheer hypocrisy. Yes, you enjoy the helping hand, the support on the phone, and every time you are helped by that, you are STEALING from women who are being DENIED the equivalent.

right now Gavin Newsom the mayor of SF is FORCING the issue of equality for gays and lesbians, and breaking the law to do it (explicitly violating a proposition passed by the voters recently declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman in California).

so please do not make your membership in a civil-rights-violating mutual support society for males-only into a question of people being tolerant of your associational and religious exercise of freedom. you are free to exercise beliefs and associations so long doing so does not disadvantage any traditionally oppressed group, such as women, in their livelihoods. the question is not whether others should tolerate your freedoms, but whether you or anyone should tolerate, much less participate in, the way masonic practice violates women's civil rights.

a further point is that any mutual-support group among people involved in commerce or political influence, when that support group is not run democratically and when membership or advancement is by invitation or evaluation by an inner hierarchy rather than through an open accountable system of merit, creates a collusional anti-competitive business and political climate in general. this is why there was an anti-Mason political party in the early nineteenth century. women joined in that movement back then, and convinced their husbands to quit in droves. membership dropped about tenfold in a decade or two.

so any organization that got slammed that hard for its exclusion of women and its skewing of business and politics, but still has not corrected these basic flaws nearly two centuries later, MUST be forced to change by its members immediately, or dissolved or abandoned by its members immediately. what would JFK, RFK, MLK, Fanny Lou Hammer or Ruth Bader Ginsburg do?

[HamstersFromHell]

74. I'll have to disagree...

Now you done went and said:

so please do not make your membership in a civil-rights-violating mutual support society for males-only into a question of people being tolerant of your associational and religious exercise of freedom. you are free to exercise beliefs and associations so long doing so does not disadvantage any traditionally oppressed group, such as women, in their livelihoods. the question is not whether others should tolerate your freedoms, but whether you or anyone should tolerate, much less participate in, the way masonic practice violates women's civil rights.

Being a Mason doesn't present specific advantages nor disadvantages. You make the association that it presents members with business advantages. Perhaps it does, but not by design. During meetings, Lodge "business" (dues in, bills paid, as in any organization) is conducted, but it does not exist as a meeting place for businessmen to conduct business out of the public eye or to the exclusion of others.

Business "deals" are conducted in many places, from the local bar to the executive suite. To take your argument to the absurd extreme, a lot of business deals are made on the golf course, so therefore we should force all country clubs to offer free or low cost membership to anyone, as well as free golf lessons from childhood so we all won't somehow be "disadvantaged" in our inability to participate in some potential business deal which may go down over the course of 18 holes.

Just my 2 cents.

Hammies

[joyautumn]

75. nothing absurd about civil rights

excluding women from golf clubs is illegal, unconstitutional discrimination:

http://archive.aclu.org/news/n072695c.html

you say it's absurd to suggest that golf clubs where "informal" business deals are made (are the verbal contracts not binding in a court of law?) should be forced by law to admit everyone. they certainly should, or it should not be a place where contracts are made.

this is what all these years of DLC have done to the Democratic Party. People don't even understand the fundamentals of Civil Rights anymore!

if this is your view, you should really register Republican and vote your conscience.

[HamstersFromHell]

78. Now you're grasping at straws.

To quote an old lawyer friend: "Verbal contracts are worth the paper they're written on." Courts don't deal in "he said, she said", they deal in facts and documentation.

Civil rights should have nothing to do with membership requirements for private organizations. If someone decides to make a "private club" for left-handed, red-headed women who are named Cybil, then they're free to do so. Don't complain it's discrimiation because you're a male, brunette named Charles.

Civil rights to me means equal access for all, to all public facilities, organizations, or clubs. If it's funded by profits of sales to the public, is publicaly owned or stock thereof traded in public, then it should apply. If it's private and funded entirely so, then it should remain private. (An exception to that is the Shrine Paper "Sales". While it is a public fund raiser, you're donating for the paper...it's not a sale and your willfully donating money doesn't entitle you to membership rights or priveleges.)

If you think what they do is somehow good or cool, but for whatever reason you don't meet their rules or requirements for membership, then there's no law stopping you from creating your own similar organization, but don't try to tear down institutions because you're jealous of what you merely think goes on that might exclude you.

I understand civil rights quite well, thank you. I resent your comment regarding me registering repuke. Perhaps you should take a look at your bile spewing...you're sounding more GOP than I am, since you're you're now saying if I don't see things your way, I'm "one of them". Want to question my patriotism next?

The Democratic party is supposed to be inclusive, but I don't think it's but a small radical minority that agress with everything some "Democrats" have espoused.

I'm environmentally aware, but I'm not giving up my car. I reserve the right to abhor SUVs. To some, if I'm not foaming at the mouth at all vehicles and riding a bicycle, I'm "not" a Democrat. To me, there are limits to everything, and you can't toss around blanket statements nor paint with such a broad brush.

I could go on, but I think you get my point. You may disagree. That's a liberty as well.

[Rabrrrrrr]

88. HamstersFromHell, you are RIGHT ON

People bitchin' about others who give preferential treatment to other people because of "association" pisses me off.

We all do it - whether we're Masons, or from Alabama.

Fact of the matter is, if I'm looking for a business deal, I want to do it with someone with whom I'm comfortable. My first choice is a friend - should having friends then be made illegal, since non-friends don't get a shot?

If not a friend, then let's say I have ten applicants in front of me to help with the business deal I want. Let's say all our equally qualified, so the decision is a toss up. I'm gonna pick someone from my fraternity, because I know the quality of people my fraternity produces; or if not that, someone from my college; if not that, someone from my home state; or if not that, someone who shares my love for Frank Zappa music; if not that, someone who volunteers for the Red Cross.

All of everything we do - almost every decision we make about who to trust and not to trust, or who trust more than someone else - is based on Associations.

If I were a Mason, would I prefer to do business with a Mason? Proabbly, yeah, because we share a common ideological bond. It's really no different than professional organizations: if I'm looking to do something (since I'm a church guy) for, say, a weekend retreat about liturgy and worship, I'm going to give preference to people who are in the North American Academy of Liturgy. If I were starting a manufacturing company, and needed a plant supervisor, I'm gonna give preference to a person who's a Professional Engineer (which is a certified designation).

Is that wrong or evil?

Not at all.

Absolutely not at all. Does it mean some people are going to be excluded? You know what? Yeah, it does. It is inherently exclusionary. Do I care? Does it matter? No, it doesn't. If someone has a beef with not being able to compete on some aspects, then i say, "Go find your own niche. If you aren't creative enough to find your own path in and do your own thing, maybe you shouldn't be in business."

It's not like Masons have a 100% monopoly on all business. How much of business is mason-run - 1%?

It's so much not an issue, I can't stand it.

[joyautumn]

93. complexities

right, preferring fellow club-members per se is not a civil rights violation. But since the Masons exclude women, this does become a problem. I fully understand and appreciate the concern that civil rights can encroach horribly on individual rights / civil liberties. but where is the right balance, and are there ways to make it not a zero-sum game?

in fact, even if Masons didn't exclude women, but were significantly disproportianately male, it would still be a civil rights problem if you tend to choose fellow Masons over non-Masons. Because over time, and over the aggregate among other Masons doing the same, this results in a broad differential impact discriminating against women who are just trying to business on an even playing field like everyone else. why should the fact that there aren't many women in the Masons end up having a discriminatory impact on all women who have potential business dealings with any Masons? they might all think very highly of Mason members, and Mason members might think highly of them, but if there's a preference for fellow Masons, the unintentional result over the aggregate will be that women are punished simply for being women.

if you understand the problem here, and can hold that in your mind in tension with your own concern that you not have the government overly interfering in your private life, then you're where i am on this issue -- trying to figure out how to get the balance right. I happen to believe, though, that ultimately we must find a solution that does not have an aggregate impact of punishing women for being women, so when push comes to shove I will always come down on the side of civil rights over individual rights. but i'm open to discussion of the issue with anyone who understands the basic conundrum.

[Rabrrrrrr]

94. I guess I'm of two thoughts here

1) People have the right to associate with whoever they want, and do business with whoever they want

2) People who feel "pushed out" because of that can go ahead and start their own thing and stop bitching and whining about it

and, I guess I'm of three thoughts:

3) The amount of business that any woman might not be able to do because she isn't a Mason is infinitessimal. There just aren't that many Masons around to be able to say that it is unlikely that any woman can ever, possibly, have business dealings.

Innovation and success comes from within, not from tearing down other people's rights to association.

Oh, and fourthly,

4) The right of people to associate with those they want to associate with FAR FAR FAR outweighs any argument that it "might reduce the business potential of someone else". What kind of argument is that? Who cares?

Get a grip, people, and face the truth - whether our societies are formalized with names and rituals or not, WE ALL MAKE SECRET SOCIETIES OF EXCLUSION. Some do it, and call themselves Masons. Some do it, and call themselves graduates of Harvard. It's a TOTAL non-issue to me.

If the government came down and said that you can't be in business unless you're a mason, than we'd have a problem. But to say that NO ONE can form a "group" that doesn't include every living human being, is a totally ignorant argument. And if one is against allowing the rights of people to congregate with whoever they want to, then the ONLY logical conclusion to that is that ALL groups MUST BY LAW include all living human beings.

[HamstersFromHell]

109. Thank you, Rabrrrrrr

At least I'd make your cut on my love of Zappa's music. :)

And you are 100% correct yourself. My list of friends isn't all inclusive. It's based upon actually liking the person for some reason., whatever it may be. One of my prime considerations for "friendship" is being able to carry on an intelligent conversation, whether I agree with your viewpoint or not. In that case, both you and joyautumn are highly recommended.

If I were to narrow that to the limits of the subject of this conversation, then you get the nod over joy because our viewpoints coincide. Either way, I'd still buy you both a drink.

[joyautumn]

92. no offense intended -- read the case I cited

http://archive.aclu.org/news/n072695c.html

the ruling says that private country clubs in California cannot exclude women because it unfairly limits them from business opportunities.

so you disagree with this ruling? right now, the Democratic Party is in favor of this law, not opposed to it. The Republican Party, particularly its libertarian wing, champions individual rights over civil rights, so it would work to oppose this ruling, pass legislation to overturn it, get judges appointed who would overturn it, etc. On this particular issue, Bush's appointees would be more helpful to your view than any Dem appointments. Again, not an insult, just a fact. I happen to prefer all of Nixon's, Reagan's and Daddy Bush's appointments to one of Clinton's (Breyer), so I'm not tossing you into a cart I'm not already in.

by advising you to register Republican, I mean no insult, because as you said, in some ways I might well be more GOP than you -- I have no doubt that in some ways I am. We are all politically complex.

my point is simply that if you really believe that individual rights outweigh civil rights, particularly where it comes to encroaching this public/private line, then at this time the Republican Party is the place to be.

No, I'm sure that there are other Dems who agree with you and the Republicans that civil rights have gone too far, so I'm not trying to say you're all alone among Dems or must get out. I apologize for seeming like I meant to exclude your viewpoint -- since I'm not a Democrat, it would hardly be my place to exclude you. But the Dems aren't going to go to bat for you on this issue, whereas the Repubs certainly would. So we weigh our options, hold our noses, and decide which party best fits our views.

[HamstersFromHell]

111. We'll agree to disagree then?

While the GOP may be closer to my thoughts on admission policies to private clubs, their other policies are far more intrusive to citizen's rights to privacy in their own homes and their own bodies. I'll pass on joining them, thanks.

Unfortunately, we seem to live in a "sound bite" world where spineless politicians make hasty decisions merely to be able to say "I voted for..." withtout consideration for the repercussions of the said vote.

Here, someone once planned a rock festival that was alleged to be "as big as Woodstock", which got all our narrowminded state congresscritters all in an uproar. The quickest way they could think of to kill it from happening was to pass a law stating in effect that "...all public events lasting more than one day shall have 1 portable toilet for each 100 expected patrons." This very effectively killed off the proposed concert they didn't want, but it came back to bite them in the ass for their lack of foresight when some months later it was noted that the State Fair violated that very law, and therefore couldn't be held. needless to saw, the law was changed as quickly as it was originally passed.

I agree civil rights do leave something to be desired, but I don't think pounding at the doors of private clubs will accomplish much, if anything. The law may change and force them to admit formerly excuded people, but to what avail? While you can legislate inclusion in membershp requirements, you cannot legislate yourself into the foursome teeing off at 10:15am Sunday. In effect, you're still excluded, but now it's akin to being ostracized. To wit, you're now there, but for all the wrong reasons.

Forcing the issue is going to do just exactly what many fear will happen if the fundies get their way and manage to get abortion outlawed. Legislation won't stop it from happening, look at the miserable failure we call a "drug war". Or look at prohibition for good examples. It just forces it underground, and that merely endangers more innocent people who desire something now outlawed.

Blocking the door open to the country club won't make anyone formally excluded any more "acceptable" to the membership, and in fact, "business as usual" will continure to go on. You'll just never see it because it'll move somewhere where you can't observe it...like the locker room.

We may disagree, but I'll still buy you a drink. :toast:

[Nikia]

116. I disagree with you also even as a feminist

I joined a sorority in college and barring quitting, I wll always be a member of my sorority. My sorority was founded by a group of women which included a woman who tried to join a male fraternity. Her response, with her friends, was to start her own organization. My sorority as are most college Greek organizations is a secret society. We have secret rituals and secret knowledge. We don't think of it as a religion, but yes, it is a Zoroastarian infused religion.
I appreciate the chance to belong to an all female secret society. I have benefitted from that aspect. I think that men should be able to have all male fraternal societies also.
I don't know if there are secret societies for adult women who did not join a college organization that are nonreligious (in the traditional sense anyway)and mainstream like Masons. Perhaps, we should start one.
I don't think that Masons are a huge power elite, at least in most communities. There are usually as powerful, if not more powerful organizations open to people regardless of gender in most areas. If there were not, I would see your point.
Yes, people do often prefer those who they associate with or share a common association. It does seem unfair, but we cannot legislate that. Living in a small town in a state where I did not live until college, I face barriers of association since these people favor people who have lived in this town their whole life and went to high school with them. Aren't my civil rights being violated in this way too?

[Whitacre D_WI]

48. Oh, no!

Chick says you're going to HELL! :o

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0093/0093_01.asp

[Screaming Lord Byron]

49. My dad's involved with the Knights Templar

so I have a different perspective than most on freemasonry et al.

On edit - just to be clear, the Masons are cool with me.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

50. Also - It does explain your little Egyptian sig a bit more clearly.

[Pale Blue Dot]

52. Oh PLEASE let me be a Mason!

I'd stand in the back, and I wouldn't cause any trouble....

[CanuckAmok]

63. "THANK you-u-u-u..."

n/t

[YellowRubberDuckie]

53. My cousin's granddad is a mason...

(on the other side of the family)He's the sweetest old guy. We love him to death, but I'm still a little leery about him. I don't know. The masons are such a strange group of guys. And From Hell is a real hypothesis about who committed the Jack the Ripper murders, sorta as in the Masons had it done to protect the royal family. So, I don't know if I trust them. But individually, that's another story.
Duckie

[Screaming Lord Byron]

56. The masonic theory on Jack the Ripper has been seriously debunked.

From Hell is a good fictional movie. Nothing more.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

57. I just said it was an hypothesis. Jeez.

I wasn't looking for a history lesson.
Duckie

[Screaming Lord Byron]

59. Well, it isn't a real hypothesis.

If you do bring up history, people will comment on it, you know.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

61. Yes, I know...and it WAS a hypothesis...

Who debunked it? Who called it false?
Duckie

[Screaming Lord Byron]

62. Take a look at this and decide for yourself.

http://www.casebook.org

[Kamika]

55. I still don't get what a mason does

Aren't the masons the guys who decide who gets to be president and stuff? so why the heck did you pick Bush!!!??

You suck omg

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

58. I like them. They're discreet.

Now, if you said you're Pentecostal... :scared:

[Ramsey]

60. I have a better opinion

Of anything you choose to be involved in, oh Great Khephra!!

:loveya:

[MichaelHarris]

64. Mason family

Most of the men in my family are Masons. I'm not but I've always found everyone one of them to be honorable. I would never judge a person by his or her affiliations, unless they we're republican.

[cedahlia]

65. Well...

I only know you from reading your posts here, from which you have my utmost respect. You seem like a very intelligent, compassionate person, so you actually have made my view of the Masons more favorable.

However, I must admit that the Masons (and secret societies in general) have always bothered me. Now, that feeling is based on limited knowledge, though. I have gone by what my father and some friends had told me about Masons, and have never really researched them on my own (which I normally would do.) That said, I have been under the impression that Masons would do anything they could to help each other...even if each other includes rapists, murderers, child molesters, etc. I was also under the impression that Masons would do whatever shady, unethical things it took to get one of their "brothers" out of trouble. Those are the things that really upset me about them, but I recognize they could be untruths. I realize that I probably need some more information before I can have an informed opinion, and I saw that you posted a thread with more in-depth info, which I'll take a look at.

[mdmc]

66. Satan is the great architect of the universe

denouncing the blessing of Jesus by asking to come out of the darkness and into the light of Masonry.

You gotta serve somebody. Join a church to serve God. The devil is beautiful, deceitful in his caring, and proud.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

67. Ah, a nice moderate viewpoint there.

[mdmc]

69. lol

I really don't feel that way. Our local Mason group just recruited a bunch of my friends, and I always tease them about it.

I do believe that there are any paths to enlightenment. Ritualistic secret societies are just one way.

[A HERETIC I AM]

70. self delete....cause of a subsequent post....

n/t

[Coventina]

68. I voted "yes"

Growing up, I always thought of the Masons as some sort of "old men's club".

When I played Tomb Raider III and Lara Croft finds a hidden Masonic Temple I thought it was an extremely cool place.
Does yours look like that Kef?
:D

Anyway, I was startled when you mentioned in a thread awhile back that you had become a Mason, just because of my previous bias about it being an "old man" thing.

But since you and the Davinci Code, I think it's the coolest thing EVER!

:loveya:

[Westegg]

71. We meet on the level...

Which lodge do you hail from, brother?

[Khephra]

77. Broadripple

http://members.aol.com/brlodge/

[Nikia]

72. My mother's family is Masonic

The men are Masons and the women are Eastern Star. My mother, of course, always thought very highly of the Masons and urged her husbands to join. He current husband, her third, finally joined.
I was never involved with that but I was (am) a memeber of a sorority and I think secret societies are kind of cool.

[jmowreader]

73. I voted no because...

I liked the Masons already.

I've heard for years that Masons Are Evil, but I know quite a few Masons and they're good folks.

There are evil Masons, but there are evil Catholics, evil Mormons, evil Baptists, evil Atheists, evil (fill in name here). Not everyone in those groups is evil. And they do some good things in my town, running kids' programs and the like.

And the Shriners! What the Shriners do for crippled and burned children is exceptional, and all Shriners are Masons--very high ranking Masons at that.

If you guys accepted atheists, I'd join.

[CanuckAmok]

76. I never liked Mason Reese. He always cried on the Mike Douglas Show.

Crybaby!

[Khephra]

79. To anser the sexual aspect

Yes, I think the Order is behind the times when it comes to women. I'm part of a movement within Masonry to change that.

HOWEVER, once you go through the Blue Lodge (the first three degrees) you would understand why we don't let women in. Not revealong too much...it involves a little nakedness. And, it has to be understood, that Masonry came out of the origins of the industrial Age (forget what the tin-foilers think). Mass groups of men from different groups of class were forced together. Groups like the Masons followed.

Right now I can be in a Lodge with a millionaire and a person on the street...yet we all "meet on the level".

When I had my recent breakdown, no one would talk to me about my problems except for my fellow Brothers, who went out of the way to help me.

It sucks that women are involved in Masonry, but would you expect pr want men involved with Girl Scouts?

[CanuckAmok]

80. There's nothing wrong with 'exclusively male' societies...

It's such a double standard that 'women only' organizations are accepted by society, but there is a constant lobby to 'break down the barriers' of male-only societies.

I understand the rationale behind this, basically an attempt to equalise societal power structures, but nobody really addresses the need for male bonding in our society. It's a constant source of ridicule, actually.

It's important for men to socialise with men, particularly as more males were/are raised in families with no father-figure present, than ever before in history.

An exclusively male club doesn't necessarily have to be 'anti-female', just as an all-female organization isn't necessarily anti-male. In fact, I think progressive male orgainizations are a good place to start talking about how to end misogny.

I've been thinking about joinint the Masonic Order (by Grandfather was a Mason), and I would certainly support the continuation of division of genders within the Order.

[DustMolecule]

81. ehm, which women-only societies are you thinking of when you say this?

It's such a double standard that 'women only' organizations are accepted by society,

Which powerful and wealthy 'women only' organizations are you referring to?

[Khephra]

83. Girl Scouts?

Brownies?

There are masonic womens groups, btw. Rainbow, Jobs Daughters, Eastern Star.

[DustMolecule]

84. Girl Scouts & Brownies is the BEST one can come up with

as an example of wealthy and powerful women's only groups?!?!
That is quickly countered with Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts - which, btw, is often staffed and run by volunteer MOTHERS)....I think this proves the point. And disproves the foundation of Canuck's lil rant...there AREN'T any wealthy and powerful women's groups to compare with what men already have! And then men sit there and whine that they need time to 'bond'. :puke:

[Nikia]

85. Maybe sororities

I thought that it was cool belonging to an exclusively female secret society. There was a lot of bonding that wouldn't have occurred in a mixed group. A single sex group also seems to help the group focus more on their common goals rather than members of the other gender and promotes more cooperation rather than competition.
I say this even though I believe in full equality for men and women and that people shouldn't be judged on the basis of gender. That might sound contradictory but single gender organizations can be a good thing as far as developing strong men or strong women. There are plenty of organizations open to all. It would be cool to have female fraternal organizations for adult women as strong as the Masons and some other groups. The only one that I can think of off hand is Junior League, but I don't know if that is really fraternal.

[CanuckAmok]

86. I didn't say anything about wealth or power.

I'm talking about societal approval of organizations which specifically prohibit membership based on gender.

If you're looking for examples, I can cite many. The first one which comes to mind is the YWCA versus the YMCA. Specifically, the Vancouver YWCA, which is the best gym in the city. It has not just areas, but entire floors (and it's not a residential facility) which are female only, while the YMCA is required, by law, to allow access to the entire facility by women and men.

Another example in a similar vein is my own gym, which is a priovate club. The downstairs is co-ed, and the upstairs is women only. Men are not allowed to participate in more than half of the fitness classes which are covered by membership fees. So, male members are forced to subsidise classes they are not aloowed to benefit from. If that were reversed, it would be in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to the extent that they gym would have been prosecuted by now. But, because the 'advantage' is in womens' favour, society allows this discrimination to continue. I understand the argument about women not feeling comfortable exercising in front of men (as if we're all leering...), but the same can be said about mens' comfort, but we're told that's not rational.


I can cite more.


But the point of my post was that, just as it is important for women to socialise in an environment in which men aren't invited, and in which the pressure to behave 'a certain way' around men isn't an issue, men need time to be with men, without feeling a need to behave a certain way.

My post was about social equality on an individual level, and meeting friends/role models who are gender-specific. I'm not bringing wealth or power into it.

on edit: by the way, thanks for dismissing my statement of opinion as a 'little rant'. Would you care to disparage my view any further?

[Rabrrrrrr]

90. Oh, cripes, what log have you been under?

There are women-only societies all over the place, that have no male equivalent.

Society of Women Engineers springs to mind. There is no Society of Men Engineers. And within the business world, in the corproations I've worked at, there are always Women Executive Groups (not necessarily by that name, but they exist in all major corporations I know of), and there are never Men Executive Groups.

Pull your head out from under your rock of "I don't want to see" and envision the world, and you will see.

[CanuckAmok]

91. Forget it, Rabrrrrrr, it's a lost cause.

I've had this discussion innumerable times, and it's always the same mindset: sexism is fine as long as yours is the sex being given the advantage.

I compare it to being in favour of Freedom of Speech, but only for views which match your own.

It also suggests that you and I, as men, have some sort of automatic access to the Secrets of Power, because of the genitalia we have. I don't know about you, but I'm just a wage-slave, and an average guy with precious little power.

[Rabrrrrrr]

95. Yeah

I don't discount the fact that I have certain priveleges just by being a white male - I think that's very much a fact - but I agree with you on the rest. Exclusivity is evil unless one is excluding white males. Or in other cultures, exclusivity is evil unless one is excluding black males. Or gay white women. or whatever.

Screw it. If there can be a society of women engineers, then there should be allowable a society of male engineers. The Society of Black Engineers is a real organization: where's the Society of White Engineers? It can't happen.

And I believe fiormly the societies of the minorities serve essential purposes and help them out immensely, and I don't want them gone, but I WOULD like to see all people appreciate and accept their counterparts: Society of Male Engineers, Society of European-American Engineers, Society of Non-Disabled Engineers. There is probably no need for them, but truth is, if anyone tried to start one, there would be a huge outcry - and sadly, that outcry would come from liberals.

[DemBones DemBones]

98. Groups like Women Engineers exist for the

same reasons that groups like Black Engineers exist -- because women and blacks are minorities in the field who need to support each other and occasionally talk to someone who is female like them, or black like them, in a heavily male, white profession.

I'm not opposed to male-only groups, but I think you don't understand the politics that gives rise to women's professional societies. The Men Engineers are IN CHARGE, the whole profession is their society!

[Rabrrrrrr]

100. Maybe if you had actually READ my position,

you would realize I already know why the women and black and etc. societies exist, and am in agreement with their existence, and in agreement with you said, except where you said that I don't understand, when it's obvious, if you had actually bothered to discover my position, that I DO understand.

Is it really too much to expect people to read all the posts in a sub-thread before offering commentary? I don't think it is. I read them all before I comment. Seems I should be able to expect others to do so, and it seems that this is happening more often on DU than it used to.

[DemBones DemBones]

102. I DID read it, I'll give it another try and see what I missed.

[DemBones DemBones]

104. Well, you must admit you did talk about

believing that it should be OK to start the Men Engineers' Society. Which is OK with me, but it's a bit like the Women Elementary Schoolteachers" Society; people will ask "Why?"

But, OK, you understand why the Women Engineers' Society exists, you just think it's unfair that you can't have the Men Engineers' Society without people complaining.

Organizations are always problematic. I quit the American Association of University Women when they changed the rules to allow men to become members, but still restricted the membership to college graduates. Why change one without the other? Especially when there are still older women who had no way to go to college because families only educated sons in their day, older women who are sharp as tacks and have read more than many college grads.

[CanuckAmok]

107. It's more along the lines of...

exactly what was illustrated in an earlier post: That minority-based groups are acceptable/necessary, but if men (who technically are the gendre of minority, worldwide--irony!) suggest that male bonding is necessary, it's 'whining'. That's sexist and insensitive.

Why is is understandable for women to need to bond with women, but not for men to bond with men?

That's crap.

Honestly, if you really want to end the cycle of misogyny, it's not in your best interest to discourage venues in which men can 'let their guard down' and communicate freely without the need to 'posture' around women, as some men feel they need to do.

Not all meetings of men are based upon hatred of women. Not all meetings of men are to design more effective ways to oppress women. Believe it or not, women are not always on the forefront of mens' minds!

I'm not talking about the Secret Corridors of Power, I'm talking about social organizations which acknowledge that men and women *are* distinctly different, despite Harrison Bergeronesque attempts to make us all equal, and celebrate those differences.

Men are expected--no, legislated--to respect womens' right to formal, organizational privacy. Women should be willing to do the same for men.

[DustMolecule]

108. I don't know what the 'answers' are to this issue

but, this is what I was thinking of when I accused you of 'whining' about male only societies.

Through my own experience with women-only groups vs. men-only groups (I can see what goes on in those from my SO)...men already have so much advantage over women in terms of 'connections' with other men that they can use in their business and personal lives, men have a lot more/better/useful 'toys' than women do, they have so much more knowledge that can be used in 'practical' ways. Men are more often business owners than women.

When men get together with other men in these men-only groups they share their knowledge and resources only with other men, who are now, rightfully, their friends Women and other men who aren't in those groups get left out and don't have access to that knowledge and resources.

Practical examples of what I'm referring to:
- Let's say you need a truck to move or to haul something (who's more likely to have that? 'Suzie' or your friend 'Paul' from the club who's got his own printing business.) Paul lets you borrow it, you buy him a beer in return. Anyone not in the 'club' has to go rent one. You're at an advantage b/c you just borrowed one for the price of a beer.

- You want a loan for your small business, your buddy at the 'club' is president of the loan bank - you two know each other, good guy, etc. - he arranges it for you.

- Your daughter's sport team needs team shirts - club buddy has a little printing shop, sells them to you at 'cost'. You're now a 'hero' to your daughter and the team.

- The men's club and the women's club both want to do a community fund-raiser. The men's club sells Christmas Trees to the community for $40-$80/tree. (Bank president member arranges delivery/payment methods tree supplier, print shop owner makes promotional material) Club makes $15,000. Women's club does a craft show and bake sale makes $5,000.

I could go on-and-on with different, real life examples, but hopefully you see my point.

Favors get traded back and forth in both men's and women's groups, but my point is that men have access to and can trade BIGGER AND BETTER favors, just because of the fact that THEY CAN. They have the vehicles, tools, knowledge, expertise in areas that women's groups just pale in comparison.

I'm not against the 'male-bonding' thing, per se. It's the fact that men already have HUGE advantages over women (and women's groups). And when men make friends with only other men, and those 'favors' get traded back and forth between men only - those men get 'stronger' personally and professionally and leave everyone else out.

As I said in my subject line, I really don't know what the answer is to this - maybe that's just how it 'is' and will continue to be. I will stand by my comment to you that you were 'whining' b/c at least you must be honest and admit that it's true what I say about men already having 'bigger and better' favors to trade with each other that women don't.

I apologize for calling your post #80 a 'rant', very poor word choice on my part. I wonder if Rabrrrrrr will apologize to me for asking 'what log I live under?' I think Dem Bones Dem Bones answered him quite nicely with this:

I'm not opposed to male-only groups, but I think you don't understand the politics that gives rise to women's professional societies. The Men Engineers are IN CHARGE, the whole profession is their society!

Thanks Dem Bones :hi:

[Dogmudgeon]

82. Possibly "No"

I've always held the Masons in high esteem. I could have a better opinion only with effort. I had a great-uncle-in-law who was a Mason, a man cool before his time. Every other Mason I've met has been similar.

Really, the only point on which I've ever disagreed with them is their men-only rule. And it's not a big deal with me -- I just never understood sexual segregation in and of itself.

When I started hearing the Masonic conspiracy stories when I was in my late teens, I initially thought they were joking. I had a girl(-)friend at the time who was an ethnic Basque, and I thought the conspiracy stories were right up there with the Basques-are-from-Atlantis stuff I'd also heard.

There's a famous anti-Masonic Chick tract that's a hoot, too. I'm sure you've seen it. Does anybody have a link to it?

--bkl

[pagerbear]

87. What? No mention of

...the Masonic elements in The Magic Flute in all of this ranting?

[onebigbadwulf]

89. Masons stand for secularism

dont they? i confuse them and the illuminati

[Tank in Texas]

99. Also a Brother

I am glad to meet you. Also a Mason, although I have to object to the Texas Grand Lodge policy on Prince Hall Masonry.

[DemBones DemBones]

106. My dad was a Mason, his dad was a Mason,

my father-in-law was a Mason, my mother-in-law's father was a Shriner, so Masons are OK with me. I was a Rainbow in high school, too, and held a couple of offices. (And gained some clues about nudity in the Masons!)

Whenever I've read stuff about Masonic conspiracies, I've thought "WHAT?" and "What a bunch of bullshit!" but the dark secrets could be true for some Masons. It just seems ludicrous to anyone who grew up in the fifties and sixties with Masons in the family. Of course, I never knew all the stuff about Washington, D.C. being laid out according to Masonic design, and that seems to be true.

Anyway, I'm glad you're enjoying being a Mason. That's what belonging to a club or church or secret society is all about, finding a group where you belong because you like the people and can accept the principles of the group. Others may not understand because one size does not fit all.

[Bertha Venation]

110. "other" -- I know nothing about the Masons except that

my grandfather, a loser prick, was one, and Harry Truman, someone I admire greatly, was one. I don't know why anyone would judge the Masons poorly -- except that, being a former fundamentalist evangelical Christian, I know I'm supposed to pray for you because you're in a satanic cult. ;)

[ScreamingMeemie]

114. You are who you are...I have no problem. I also have no opinion of the

Masons in general. So there's nothing to be raised. :hi:

[Clark4Prez]

118. I think they make fine jars

I don't understand what people's problem is.

[LWolf]

119. Interesting question. Other:

I'm neutral. I don't know enough about masons to have a reasonable opinion; hearsay, but not backed up with facts or evidence. And I've never met you except in cyber space!

Feel free to educate me to the degree that you are able. :hi: