I think we can all agree that civility, and the level of civil discourse in our society is very sorely lacking. Freemasonry though has always very highly prized civility. That is one of the reasons it has historically been viewed as a powerful school for democracy. To use a cliche, men could learn, in the Lodge, how to disagree without being disagreeable.
There has been a strong effort in recent years to try and encourage Freemasons to work to improve the level of civil discourse in our society. Most notably, at least from my perspective, these efforts have been led by MW Russ Charvonia (California) and MW Sam Roberts (Washington.)
In this year of pandemic, with so much of Freemasonry moving online, have you noticed an increase in incivility within your Lodge? Or has your Lodge maintained a very high level of civil discourse?
Civility, even amongst some Masons, on Social Media platforms such as Facebook has never been good. Frankly that is bad for the fraternity, in that it allows the public to see Masons behaving poorly, and contrary to Masonic claims of Brotherhood.
How can we help our Brothers act as Masons while they are using Social Media, especially when their posts have our Square and Compasses right beside whatever incivil thing they may have posted?
Beyond our Lodges, how can we, as Masons, influence our greater society towards valuing civil discourse once again?
Let’s discuss civility.
Sad news:
On April 3, 2021 at the age of 102, MW Bro. Wayne Deming received the last summons from the Grand Warden of Heaven and laid down his working tools. It was 50 years ago when MW Bro. Wayne served the Grand Lodge of Washington as its Grand Master. His smile and wit will always be remembered. He emphasized communication during his year as Grand Master, an attribute we can take to heart today as well. MW Bro. Wayne, rest in peace.
The lack of civility among brothers on social media is certainly a blemish on our gentle craft. Having just been most fortunate to have MW Sam Roberts give our lodge his presentation on Civility, I posed the question about why GL hasn’t taken a stronger position on social media. I’ve been disheartened by some of the things brothers (to include a couple of DDGMs) have “posted”. I understand having passionate views on differing topics but we’re supposed to be subduing our passions. When we as a society and more specifically as Freemasons, refuse to listen to different perspectives, then that becomes the seed of incivility. Our lodge has remained busy during this past year with a couple different projects, which I believe has continued to foster good will among the brothers. It’s important that we, as Masons, when having conversations either within our lodges or with the outer world, to give respect to those who are speaking and truly listen to them and what they are saying and then when responding, to be thoughtful and intelligent in our responses. I fear that our fraternity may lose what influence we may have if we’re unable to be an example of how civility should be modeled.
This is one of the more difficult subjects to write about.
While I agree that people should temper their discussions, especially in this day and age, I think both sides go a bit too far. Just because we are masons doesn't mean we shouldn't have strong opinions about issues we care deeply about. Our founding fathers cared enough to revolt against their own king - something I might add would result in all of them being hanged today. Thomas Jefferson and others repeatedly wrote that it is the right of the people to revolt against tyranny, which was outlawed in 1918 with the Sedition Act.
I'm fairly certain also that the little section within the Master's oath (and elsewhere) about supporting the government wasn't always there either. More than likely was added after the anti-masonic movement(s) in the 1800s. Regardless, you'd have to wonder just what that particular section has to do with freemasonry?
And famously, President Truman publicly and vehemently feuded with Douglas MacArthur, both well known, high ranking and respected Masons. Truman went so far as to tell a reporter that MacArthur was a "dumb son of a bitch".
In today's social context, it is always a good idea to treat others with respect, and to discuss issues with reason and logic. Sadly, today some take reason and logic as personal attacks and respond with venom and hatred, because they are ruled by emotion. This can make otherwise civil discourse appear to be a heated exchange. When it gets to the point of name calling, there is nothing left to discuss.
Finally, I am always worried that there is more concern with public perspective and optics than with the brothers themselves. Not just with this subject, but in general. I don't think we're so big or important to worry about public perception, most people don't know or care who we are. This isn't Youngstown in 1826. I feel sometimes like masonry is desperately trying to stay socially relevant in a day and age where no one cares. In places like the UK, anti-masonry is a thing, and public suspicion of masonic connections is common. That doesn't exist here, except in places where wild conspiracy theories of 90th degree uber masons who secretly control the shadow government along with the ultra rich (and aliens, always has to be aliens).
I don't think I've seen more incivility from Brothers over Social Media as I've seen more comments about be civil. More attention has been drawn to that particular subject as others have become key board commandos and Facebook subject experts.
I have many former Shipmates, most of which are not Masons, from all angles of the political spectrum on FB. I have had discussion between them and try to moderate the more heated threads. They know, mostly from experience, that I will delete any comments when they are belittling, bullying, calling names, etc....... often I remind them to keep it civil. I don't expect anyone to change their mind, but it allows them to express their opinions. Also since most were Navy, they realize that they do have something in common with each other.
Same for our Craft, we have common ground. I like the Closing Charge that we remind a Brother of his fault, but that should only be if he is uncivil and not if it is only a difference in opinion between Brothers.
Uncivil behavior is something that is hard to avoid entirely in today's world. In many cases the best we can do is not to respond in like manner. What we do is something we control, and probably the only thing we really have control of.
Civility is hard in politics when one side is proposing using threats of violence to force the other side to conform to their goals. If an idea is truly a good idea, there is no need for force to get the majority of people to adopt it. Those who refuse to adopt it should be free not to. Seatbelts for example. Anybody with a brain recognizes that it's a good idea to wear a seatbelt. But why does government need to punish those who refuse to adopt a good idea with excessive fines? Same with Tobacco use, drugs, Healthcare, etc. And who is to say that good idea is universally good for everyone? I come from a long line of long lived people. I had a genetic test done that suggests short of an extreme accident, I will live to be at least 82 years old, and will not have any major health problems. Why do I need a prescription drug plan? I don't. Forcing me to buy something I don't want and don't need is tyranny. It should be perfectly acceptable to get uncivil when someone is using the violent force of government on you when you are not harming them in any way. Many of the Freemasons who founded this country used a lot stronger objections than strong words when faced with an oppressive government. When comparing the US government today with the British government of 1776, the US Government today is 20 times MORE oppressive. The problem is that neither of the dominant two parties want to reduce the size, scope, or power of that government, but only want to USE that power to control the other side. Expect the incivility to get worse as government power grows until we have another civil war. The question is, at what point do we recognize that politeness only takes us so far. Martin Luther King Jr is revered for leading a non-violent revolution, but it's also well known among government officials that without Malcolm X, his nonviolence would have fallen flat. Mohatma Gandhi had Subhas Chandra Bose.
The lack of civility among brothers on social media is certainly a blemish on our gentle craft. Having just been most fortunate to have MW Sam Roberts give our lodge his presentation on Civility, I posed the question about why GL hasn’t taken a stronger position on social media. I’ve been disheartened by some of the things brothers (to include a couple of DDGMs) have “posted”. I understand having passionate views on differing topics but we’re supposed to be subduing our passions. When we as a society and more specifically as Freemasons, refuse to listen to different perspectives, then that becomes the seed of incivility. Our lodge has remained busy during this past year with a couple different projects, which I believe has continued to foster good will among the brothers. It’s important that we, as Masons, when having conversations either within our lodges or with the outer world, to give respect to those who are speaking and truly listen to them and what they are saying and then when responding, to be thoughtful and intelligent in our responses. I fear that our fraternity may lose what influence we may have if we’re unable to be an example of how civility should be modeled.
This is one of the more difficult subjects to write about.
While I agree that people should temper their discussions, especially in this day and age, I think both sides go a bit too far. Just because we are masons doesn't mean we shouldn't have strong opinions about issues we care deeply about. Our founding fathers cared enough to revolt against their own king - something I might add would result in all of them being hanged today. Thomas Jefferson and others repeatedly wrote that it is the right of the people to revolt against tyranny, which was outlawed in 1918 with the Sedition Act.
I'm fairly certain also that the little section within the Master's oath (and elsewhere) about supporting the government wasn't always there either. More than likely was added after the anti-masonic movement(s) in the 1800s. Regardless, you'd have to wonder just what that particular section has to do with freemasonry?
And famously, President Truman publicly and vehemently feuded with Douglas MacArthur, both well known, high ranking and respected Masons. Truman went so far as to tell a reporter that MacArthur was a "dumb son of a bitch".
In today's social context, it is always a good idea to treat others with respect, and to discuss issues with reason and logic. Sadly, today some take reason and logic as personal attacks and respond with venom and hatred, because they are ruled by emotion. This can make otherwise civil discourse appear to be a heated exchange. When it gets to the point of name calling, there is nothing left to discuss.
Finally, I am always worried that there is more concern with public perspective and optics than with the brothers themselves. Not just with this subject, but in general. I don't think we're so big or important to worry about public perception, most people don't know or care who we are. This isn't Youngstown in 1826. I feel sometimes like masonry is desperately trying to stay socially relevant in a day and age where no one cares. In places like the UK, anti-masonry is a thing, and public suspicion of masonic connections is common. That doesn't exist here, except in places where wild conspiracy theories of 90th degree uber masons who secretly control the shadow government along with the ultra rich (and aliens, always has to be aliens).
Again, with the rambling. Sorry about that.
I don't think I've seen more incivility from Brothers over Social Media as I've seen more comments about be civil. More attention has been drawn to that particular subject as others have become key board commandos and Facebook subject experts.
I have many former Shipmates, most of which are not Masons, from all angles of the political spectrum on FB. I have had discussion between them and try to moderate the more heated threads. They know, mostly from experience, that I will delete any comments when they are belittling, bullying, calling names, etc....... often I remind them to keep it civil. I don't expect anyone to change their mind, but it allows them to express their opinions. Also since most were Navy, they realize that they do have something in common with each other.
Same for our Craft, we have common ground. I like the Closing Charge that we remind a Brother of his fault, but that should only be if he is uncivil and not if it is only a difference in opinion between Brothers.
Uncivil behavior is something that is hard to avoid entirely in today's world. In many cases the best we can do is not to respond in like manner. What we do is something we control, and probably the only thing we really have control of.
Civility is hard in politics when one side is proposing using threats of violence to force the other side to conform to their goals. If an idea is truly a good idea, there is no need for force to get the majority of people to adopt it. Those who refuse to adopt it should be free not to. Seatbelts for example. Anybody with a brain recognizes that it's a good idea to wear a seatbelt. But why does government need to punish those who refuse to adopt a good idea with excessive fines? Same with Tobacco use, drugs, Healthcare, etc. And who is to say that good idea is universally good for everyone? I come from a long line of long lived people. I had a genetic test done that suggests short of an extreme accident, I will live to be at least 82 years old, and will not have any major health problems. Why do I need a prescription drug plan? I don't. Forcing me to buy something I don't want and don't need is tyranny. It should be perfectly acceptable to get uncivil when someone is using the violent force of government on you when you are not harming them in any way. Many of the Freemasons who founded this country used a lot stronger objections than strong words when faced with an oppressive government. When comparing the US government today with the British government of 1776, the US Government today is 20 times MORE oppressive. The problem is that neither of the dominant two parties want to reduce the size, scope, or power of that government, but only want to USE that power to control the other side. Expect the incivility to get worse as government power grows until we have another civil war. The question is, at what point do we recognize that politeness only takes us so far. Martin Luther King Jr is revered for leading a non-violent revolution, but it's also well known among government officials that without Malcolm X, his nonviolence would have fallen flat. Mohatma Gandhi had Subhas Chandra Bose.