A Brief Defense of Masonry

By Robert Fischer | Published: September 2, 2007

So, I was reading a post over at the Burning Taper blog, and I noticed the blog it referred to as anti-masonic got a bug up its shorts:

I have and will continue to treat the topic of Freemasonry with fairness by allowing rebuttals to my claims, but I wont pretend that the organization is benevolent in any way.

Holy crap, I can’t believe they said that! Beyond these links, there are numerous quiet — often anonymous — acts of community support which will never get publicity or a web page. The Valley of the Scottish Rite that I belong to has a volunteer position — Almoner — devoted especially to giving aid in just such a manner.

That quote is so incredibly bigoted that it blows my mind. Sure, you can argue that Freemasonry has negative traits which outweigh the incredible amount of work that it does. You can argue that the role of a fraternal organization in recapturing the mature masculine is moot. You can even argue that Masonry is incompatible with the Christian faith. I happen to think you’re wrong on all of these points, but you’re welcome to argue them.

But to say that Freemasonry is not beneficial in any way is just flat out wrong. It’s not truthful, nor is it loving, nor is it tolerant. It’s just wrong.

Related posts:

  1. I Think I’m in Love
  2. Thoughts
  3. Albert Pike and the Scottish Rite
  4. Once More Into the Breach
  5. A Defense of Prototypes, or, Why Does Tom Christiansen Hate Perl?
This entry was posted in Freemasonry and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
  • http://www.truthlovefreedom.org Karl

    Freemasonry has been around for over two hundred years, what philanthropic works were they doing back in the 1700-1800′s?

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/robertfischer Robert Fischer

    You mean, aside from providing the guiding principles and morality for the United States? Our concepts of religious tolerance, personal empowerment, and State’s rights, and public education can be traced back to the ideals expressed in Freemasonry. Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were both Freemasons, and were probably the two figures most key to providing our modern American concept. Thomas Jefferson, the third member of the founding fathers trinity, was certainly guided by principles born from Enlightenment-era leaders, many of them Freemasons, although probably not a Freemason himself.

    Well, aside from that, we don’t have a lot of documentation about the beneficent acts being done. There were certainly public universities funded by masonic institutions (cite), and there was no doubt widow and orphan work being done, as well as Almoner work (like I described in my post). But beyond that, the acts of freemasons have been largely lost to time, at least partially because persistent record-keeping, publicity seeking (or even allowing), and public Masonic-associated organizations (like the Shriner’s Hospitals) are relatively recent advents to Freemasonry.

    At least you’re not arguing the point that “…I won’t pretend that the organization is benevolent in any way.” is anything other than a bigoted statement, and is false to fact.

  • http://www.truthlovefreedom.org Karl

    Well, you already expressed your opinion of my “bigotry” twice. Your opinion but let me continue.

    So there is no record of freemasonry doing philanthropic works in the past but you can imagine they may have. You also stated that Freemasonry is “providing the guiding principles and morality for the United States” and “Our concepts of religious tolerance, personal empowerment, and State’s rights, and public education”. Ok, here is my response to those.

    Freemasonry cannot claim that it had any profound effect on guiding principles and morality of our citizens any more than the churches of the day. Unless you know something I don’t, Freemasonry has no record of activity beyond merely existing as to spread morality. I agree that freemasonry confesses religious tolerance but as we discussed in the podcast, it rarely exhibits it once you get to know one past a surface conversation. The behavior of many masons is elitist and disrespectful to other religions so I really don’t care what is confessed. Personal empowerment is not philanthropic, it is personal. I don’t see any place Freemasonry provides that for non-members (or members alike) so I wouldn’t consider that a benevolent activity for any non-mason. Using States rights confuses me a bit, because Freemasonry does not and never has had any interest in politics. Well, at least that is what I hear all the time from Freemasons. I would like to hear how exactly you gather that notion. Finally, you used public education. Another interesting one that I am curious to hear what makes you think that is true.

    My comment was based upon my opinion that Freemasonry has made much effort to seem like an organization that is primarily for charitable works but that is not their history. The institutions PURPOSE is something other than all the great things you hear masons espouse regarding the institution. To pretend that is all there is and that the “positives outweigh the negatives” is foolish and is besides the point of my podcast. I can show many instances of questionably with Freemasonic activity and it is up to the individual to decide rather it is good or bad. That is why I will treat it fairly but it seems that there are a few of you that cannot handle the criticism. Too bad for you.

    The bug I got up my shorts is that there are Freemasons that use that term “anti-mason” for anybody who has criticisms of the institution. If I criticize it does it mean that I am against it? Are you implying that there is nothing wrong with Freemasonry? At least Greg was honest enough to admit there were problems. Maybe you should refer to me as Pro-truth because there I was saying truthful things about freemasonry. But the use of ‘anti-mason’ is pretty ridiculous and I think that those who use it are silly. I will continue in my bigotry and I am sure you will continue in your irrational support of the institution.

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/robertfischer Robert Fischer

    Let’s get back to the core, because we’re wandering afar: Are you supporting the assertion that there is no benevolent aspect to Freemasonry? How do you answer the various links to benevolent organizations that I cited?

    If you don’t support that assertion, it’d be nice to see a retraction, if even just a restatement. I assume your “pro-truth” stance includes personal integrity.

    I’ll get to the rest of the post in another comment.

  • http://burningtaper.blogspot.com Widow’s Son

    The philanthropic side of Freemasonry basically began in the 1830′s, as a result of the Christianization of Masonry, led by Dr. Robert Crucefix, George Oliver and Richard Carlisle.

    From my synopsis of Dr. Andrew Prescott’s work

    1834-1855/6

    Relations between the Grand Lodge and other fraternal organizations continued to deteriorate. In 1834, the group called the Tolpuddle Martyrs were arrested and tried under the Unlawful Societies Act. The Grand Lodge gloated over this, noting that Freemasonry was exempt. Members of the Grand Lodge had different ideas on the direction Freemasonry should take in society. Sussex wanted to create his new religion that superseded Christianity. Dr. Robert Crucefix, a devout Christian, wanted Freemasonry to take more direct social action, and promoted a plan to create a home for elderly, poor Freemasons.

    Along with clergyman George Oliver and Richard Carlisle, Crucefix wrote numerous articles for the Freemason’s Quarterly Review, developing a Christian theology of Freemasonry. Their campaign was successful, and this Christianized Freemasonry was influential until the end of the 19th century. The idea of Masonic charity had entered the picture.

    Crucefix wanted to create a Masonry for the respectable middle class. While he promoted the charitable aspects of Masonry, he also purposely created among the brethren a fear that low-lifes were using their Masonic membership to live off the goodheartedness of their brothers.

    While Crucefix was successful in infusing Christianity into Freemasonry, he wasn’t very successful at attracting the respectable middle classes, and Masonry remained divided between the elite and the lower-class.

    Widow’s Son
    BurningTaper.com

  • http://www.truthlovefreedom.org Karl

    hmm. Ok, Well let me say first that I apologize if my statement was offensive because that was not my intent. It is obvious that such a statement is a matter of opinion because I have no right to say that one cannot truly feel benefited from freemasonry nor its works. My intention was to say that the essence of purpose for the institution was not based on merely philanthropic activities. It would have been best put like this. “I wont pretend that Freemasonries only purpose is charity”. So, I do say sorry for the intensity of the remark. It was careless of me to make such a vast exaggeration and it might have been fueled by what I felt was an attack on my character being labeled “anti-mason”. I did not feel upset at the moment but I was throwing down the gauntlet so to speak. I see that what I meant and what it actually said were two different things. Sorry again.

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/robertfischer Robert Fischer

    I really appreciate the apology. That’s very impressive, particularly in the largely anonymous world of the Internet.

    To your point — that Freemasonry has purposes other than charity — you’re certainly right. From my understanding, the charity is actually a side effect of the primary goals of Masonry, which are developing moral character and building communities.

    Because of that understanding, it was extremely aggravating to deny all the benevolence of Freemasons: basically, that’s saying that the organization fails completely at its goals. And it seemed so under-informed that I immediately assumed it was deliberate disinformation — to put it less carefully, I assumed it was slander.

    I still owe you a response to the other stuff. I’ll get it done, but it’s not happening tonight.

    And it looks like we’ve made it onto the Burning Taper with this conversation! We’re famous!

  • http://www.truthlovefreedom.org Karl

    I honestly have no desire to slander the institution nor the members. I have defended claims against Freemasonry as much as I have criticized it, however, the roll Freemasonry plays in molding my world view is very significant so I must share it. Well, that is the stated purpose of my site, simply as an outlet to share my world view. So, as you may hear criticisms about Freemasonry know that I have openly welcomed rebuttals to my claims because I do believe in being fair. It is my opinion that it is also fair that I share my view without being labeled an “anti-mason”, as absurd as my beliefs might be. It is not fair to me for Freemasons to criticize me for being wrong without at least hearing me out and then sharing their views or showing my errors of what I say and if I am in error, I will apologize and adjust my beliefs.

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/robertfischer Robert Fischer

    You’re right. Just criticizing the institution doesn’t make you an anti-Mason. In fact, I wouldn’t label you an anti-Mason given this conversation: you’re not the kind of rabid bigot that label belongs to.

    It was just my knee-jerk reaction to that particular blurb which got me.

  • http://www.truthlovefreedom.org Karl

    Thanks. I really don’t like many of the people who go after freemasonry without any understanding of what it is. The last thing I want is to be put into a group with them. hehe

  • http://burningtaper.blogspot.com Widow’s Son

    I doubt being mentioned on The Burning Taper will make either of you famous, but it does expose both your blogs to an additional 12-14,000 unique readers a month.

    Karl, there are pretty much just two categories, pro-Mason or anti-Mason, but perhaps we can take a cue from the term used for heterosexual women who wonder what it would be like to be with another woman but will probably never actually do so: “bi-curious.”

    So should we call you “Masonically-curious”?

    Widow’s Son
    BurningTaper.com

  • http://www.truthlovefreedom.org Karl

    haha, that is hilarious. Um, I can honestly say that I am more anti-masonic than I am curious, because I have studied Freemasonry for a long time and I am beyond curiosity. I think a fair title would be that I am a “critic of Freemasonry” because I am. I am opposed to certain areas in Freemasonry but not the institution as a whole. Does that seem fair?

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/robertfischer Robert Fischer

    Hey, everyone needs critics. From the Servant’s Prayer: “God, we thank you for our enemies, because our enemies keep us on our knees.”

    Dang it…why aren’t people getting e-mail notices of their updates anymore?

  • http://www.thebluelodge.org D. W. Brown

    It’s great when cooler heads can prevail, like in this instance. Now, hopefully the conversation can be constructive in nature. One thing you have to understand by now, if you do any reading today on Freemasonry, is the schism that is happening again, as it did 200 years ago, within the Masonic ranks. A large portion of the Masons you see on the internet today are the younger generation and quite honestly, they are tired of the current system and it’s complete failure to live up to their expectations.

    Since I have not read all of your opinions on Freemasonry, I will apologize now, incase I say something that is inaccurate. I feel strongly that over the next 10 – 20 years you will see a drastic shift in Freemasonry. I think this shift will be to a smaller leaner fraternity, as it was in Europe before reaching the U.S. shores. You will see more members, active members, who are younger and better educated than what you see today. I know I’m going to take some crap for that statement, but I’m tired of being PC, if the kettle is black then call it black and be done with it. I think the “anti-masonic” (religious in nature) movement will grow, because as the fraternity changes and becomes more esoteric in nature again and the Judeo-Christian overtones are minimized or better yet removed completely, the religious right will have some new targets to aim for. Personally, I welcome the change in the fraternity, because correcting the mistake the Modern Masons* made 250 years ago, is long overdue.

    *To read about the Schisim between the Moderns and Antient Masons, see the essays at http://www.thebluelodge.org

    D. W. Brown, 32°

  • http://www.truthlovefreedom.org Karl

    If your referring to the email you get when someone posts a comment, I got mine.

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/robertfischer Robert Fischer

    Uh, I apparently messed up my e-mail address when I updated my profile a few weeks ago.

    Problem between keyboard and chair.

  • Brian

    I think there is another category of organizations besides just the binary “good” (helps society at large) and “bad” (hurts society at large) categorizations. There are also “neutral” organizations- organizations with no real effect on the society at large. If you want to belong to a performance art troupe with a common parking problem, that really doesn’t affect me.

    I don’t know of any wars Masonics started, or were blamed on Masonics, nor any crimes. You can float conspiracy theorys all you like- but the truth of the matter is that controlling a small group of influential people isn’t sufficient to get a real war going.

    A side note here- the exception which proves the rule is Iraq. Here we have a small number of influential people (the neocons) getting the US into a war. But notice the implicit deal they had with the American people- they could have their war so long as it didn’t cost us (the people) anything. A quick, cheap, victorious war? Sure, no problem. Knock yourself out. Once it started turning into a long, drawn out, expensive war, that’s when you started seeing the real war opposition come out. And note that the apparent cost of the Iraq war hasn’t been that large so far (unless you have family/friends in the military). Also note that we know who the neocons are.

    So, if you’re going to commit a big crime (the sort of crime that still matters 150 years later), you have to be public and, to a certain extent, above board about it.

    The only war I’m aware of that has any Masonic connection at all is the American Revolutionary War, with the Masons on the side of the founding fathers. Which I have a hard time painting as a bad thing.

  • Pingback: Enfranchised Mind » Another Mason for Ron Paul

  • Pingback: Upped The Recent Post/Popular Post Widget Count | Enfranchised Mind

  • Categories