“As a citizen, you are enjoined to be exemplary in the discharge of your civil duties, by never proposing or countenancing any act which may have a tendency to subvert the peace and good order of society; by paying due obedience to the laws under whose protection you live…”
-EA Charge
“You agree to be a peaceable citizen, and cheerfully to conform to the laws of the country in which you reside? You promise not to be concerned in plots and conspiracies against the government, but patiently submit to the law and the constituted authorities? You agree to pay a proper respect to the civil magistrates…?”
-Installation of the Worshipful Master
These charges are taken from Washington’s Work. I presume that most Jurisdictions have quite similar work.
How do we properly interpret these charges?
How do we interpret them in the United States for example, given that our greatest Masonic hero took up arms in the cause of the violent overthrow of the then legitimate government?
How do we interpret them in nations in which the government itself murders Freemasons, such as Spain under Franco?
Let’s chat about it…
We will have a Live Open Thread for those with a paid subscription to Emeth today. The email opening the thread should hit your inbox at 8:00AM, and the thread will remain open until 6:00PM.
I would say just with US history that a legitimate government doesn't mean the elected or appointed government. In 1770's, the English government was tyrannical in the taxing and lack of representation in the Parliament. So it may not be considered as legitimate by John Adams, George Washington, and Paul Revere.
Look at the 1860s, many Masons, including Albert Pike, took up arms against what they believed to be a tyrannical government. Masonic courtesy extended across the battfields and even throughout POW camps during this war. This almost seems that the Northern Masons didn't hold any animosity to their Southern Brethern for starting the war. Read Bro Robert Allen's, "House Undivided" for some really good encounters between our predecessors.
Following their examples, it would seem that it is up to each Brother to use his own conscience to decide the truth as he understands and lives it. And possibly it is not up to us to determine if he is correct in following his conscience.
If you look at what was unfolding at the time, I believe Washington him self kept to the oath. He fought for the local government. I think the phrase was very much an American invention following the Revolution. If you remember up until the 1820s Masonry was seen as the "keeper of the republic." Its influence in society waned with the rise of the Antimanic party until the 1840s. That said, This paragraph was meant to serve as a guide post to any new mason to be a upright citizen, contributing to their local government. I take “As a citizen, you are enjoined to be exemplary in the discharge of your civil duties, by never proposing or countenancing any act which may have a tendency to subvert the peace and good order of society; by paying due obedience to the laws under whose protection you live…”as: Do what you must to protect your self, but do it on your own accord, don't do it in the name of Masonry. The masters oath is in reference to being a master, leader. Don't use your position as a bully pulpit. Build, don't tear down. IMHO
I don’t for a second think that those sections of the charge existed before the anti-masonic movement. They were added in response to current sentiments at the time.
As already noted, one could hardly consider the tyrannical taxation without representation attempts to impose colonial rule on the colonists can be considered a legitimate government and implying that Washington rose against a legitimate government is not a fair portrayal of his actions against the Crown and King George.
As far as patiently submitting to the laws of the government, this one could go on forever into schematics and word definition. In the current situation in Oregon the governors use of
" executive orders", "mandates" and " guidelines" and the use of state agencies to enforce such nonsense is not considered "law" under most current definitions. Laws have status as ordinances, with criminal code numbers that allow proper enforcement and are properly prepared and enacted either by the Legislature and / or the ballot and referendum process by the people So calling or assuming that the governors actions are " law" and applying a Masonic reference to obedience of such is way too literal for me when such government has subverted the legal process in a successful and ongoing control of the people and their free movements in society.
Each of us wrestles with an organizing principle for our actions so that we can get along in society.
Over the millennia, we call part of this “justice.” If we’re lucky, we live in a time and place where our sense of justice, and the next man’s, and the law, largely overlap. At the same time, we know our lawmakers are imperfect (“The law is a ass.”).
We know law can be perverted to protect injustice: cartelism, influence peddling, slavery, Holocaust.
At some point each of us will decide whether we will tolerate injustice, ignore it, flee it, reform it, or overthrow it.
What are our Civil duties? I think we’re called upon to discharge our right to vote and our duty to pay taxes. The first is certainly something we should all strive to participate in, the second can be burdensome and at times difficult but necessary.
I think as a fraternity, because one of our tenets is to not talk politics in lodge, we fail to work as a group on certain issues that would benefit us or conversely, those that might harm us. We seem to be much happier to impose rules and regulations on ourselves. We in-fight over ridiculous issues such as the shape of an apron or the color of its border. I haven’t seen brothers on social media call for open revolution but close. I have seen brothers assign derogatory names to members of opposing parties or ideas. To what end? To promote brotherly love? To promote unity. Do we need to work on subduing our passions?
Yesterday we talked about myths. I don’t think much of what we may call “news”, whether on social media, network television, podcasts or blogs is really anything more than myths sprinkled with bits of facts. Talking heads are not news, they are, at best an opinion but usually a slant on their take of the news. We would all be better if, before we jumped on a keyboard about an issue, we we’re reminded that all the “news” outlets/sources only survive by selling advertising. We’re losing our civility. Maybe we would be better served if we turned our smart phones, computers and televisions off and read a good book or two.
Getting back to the question. We are, I believe, truly called upon to work within the system we have in order to effect change. To speak out, peacefully and civilly, when governments overstep. Whether that government is the civil authority, or our own GL “government”. We are all men of differing backgrounds and differing opinions but we are also taught “that the cement which unites us into one sacred band or society of friends and Brothers, among whom no contention should ever exist, but that noble contention, or rather emulation, of who best can work and best agree”.
We all have members ho speak loudly against current government. To you and on social media. As Master of my Lodge, I avoid this behavior and good counsel to keep their passion in due bounds. Personal beliefs are important, but and it's a big but, has no place in a Lodge meeting. It does nothing to help Masonry and if you boast you're a Mason on your social media and spout political messages that could lead people to see Masons in a bad light. Yes I have very strong opinions about our current government, but I don't bring them to work or Lodge. Others, unfortunately, including Lodge Officers, don't see beyond their opinions. Enough said.
Unquestionably, by the laws, standards, and practices of the time, by all the then accepted measures, the British Government was the legal and legitimate government when our Founding Fathers took up the arms of rebellion.
But in the long course of reaching that decision, they did something that I believe to be unique in human history. They defined what a legitimate government was, not using the standards of man, but using the standards of something much greater than man.
They said that men had unalienable rights, granted by God, and that the only legitimate purpose of government was to defend those rights. That government had no right to exist without the consent of the people.
They went on to declare that if a government overstepped those bounds, the people had an absolute right to overthrow that government.
This was, up until that time, perfectly unique in the world. I would contend that it still is.
That to my mind, clears the question of legitimacy. The existing British government was the legitimate government under the then current definition. The Founding Fathers gave us a new definition of legitimacy, and under that new definition, the British government failed the test.
>>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by >>their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of >>Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their >>just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government >>becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"
This is I think precisely why the United States revolution worked. It attained the goals for which it was started. Because it had an intellectual underpinning. Because it was not an armed mob, fighting without truly knowing why, destroying for the sake of destruction, but it was rather a group of dedicated men fighting for ideals much greater than even they themselves.
This is also why I think virtually all other violent revolutions around the world have failed. The Russians did not envision the horror of Stalin when they revolted against the Czar. Our Brothers in Cuba did not envision dictatorial rule when they helped Castro. The French did not expect The Terror when they deposed their king. All of these revolutions, and countless more just like them turned to tyranny because there was no intellectual underpinning, no ideals greater than any man underpinning them. They were subject to the weaknesses of man, because they were about man, they weren't about principals greater than man.
Did Washington, assuming that he was obligated by a charge similar to what we are now, violate that charge by taking up arms against his legitimate government? Not in my opinion, because Washington, along with his other Founders, first created a new definition of legitimacy, and under that definition the existing government no longer qualified.
>>"How do we interpret them in nations in which the government itself murders Freemasons, such >>as Spain under Franco?"
In my view it is unquestionably evil for a government to murder its own citizens. It is the duty of all men and Masons, charged by God, to fight evil. I believe that a man of faith, as all Regular Freemasons must be, when confronted by so obvious of evil as murder, must act in opposition to that evil. To stand idly by, watching as another is murdered is itself an evil act.
Yet the horrors of violent tyranny survive, because men who know that the horror is wrong, do nothing.
This topic ought to be interesting.
I would say just with US history that a legitimate government doesn't mean the elected or appointed government. In 1770's, the English government was tyrannical in the taxing and lack of representation in the Parliament. So it may not be considered as legitimate by John Adams, George Washington, and Paul Revere.
Look at the 1860s, many Masons, including Albert Pike, took up arms against what they believed to be a tyrannical government. Masonic courtesy extended across the battfields and even throughout POW camps during this war. This almost seems that the Northern Masons didn't hold any animosity to their Southern Brethern for starting the war. Read Bro Robert Allen's, "House Undivided" for some really good encounters between our predecessors.
Following their examples, it would seem that it is up to each Brother to use his own conscience to decide the truth as he understands and lives it. And possibly it is not up to us to determine if he is correct in following his conscience.
If you look at what was unfolding at the time, I believe Washington him self kept to the oath. He fought for the local government. I think the phrase was very much an American invention following the Revolution. If you remember up until the 1820s Masonry was seen as the "keeper of the republic." Its influence in society waned with the rise of the Antimanic party until the 1840s. That said, This paragraph was meant to serve as a guide post to any new mason to be a upright citizen, contributing to their local government. I take “As a citizen, you are enjoined to be exemplary in the discharge of your civil duties, by never proposing or countenancing any act which may have a tendency to subvert the peace and good order of society; by paying due obedience to the laws under whose protection you live…”as: Do what you must to protect your self, but do it on your own accord, don't do it in the name of Masonry. The masters oath is in reference to being a master, leader. Don't use your position as a bully pulpit. Build, don't tear down. IMHO
I don’t for a second think that those sections of the charge existed before the anti-masonic movement. They were added in response to current sentiments at the time.
As already noted, one could hardly consider the tyrannical taxation without representation attempts to impose colonial rule on the colonists can be considered a legitimate government and implying that Washington rose against a legitimate government is not a fair portrayal of his actions against the Crown and King George.
As far as patiently submitting to the laws of the government, this one could go on forever into schematics and word definition. In the current situation in Oregon the governors use of
" executive orders", "mandates" and " guidelines" and the use of state agencies to enforce such nonsense is not considered "law" under most current definitions. Laws have status as ordinances, with criminal code numbers that allow proper enforcement and are properly prepared and enacted either by the Legislature and / or the ballot and referendum process by the people So calling or assuming that the governors actions are " law" and applying a Masonic reference to obedience of such is way too literal for me when such government has subverted the legal process in a successful and ongoing control of the people and their free movements in society.
Each of us wrestles with an organizing principle for our actions so that we can get along in society.
Over the millennia, we call part of this “justice.” If we’re lucky, we live in a time and place where our sense of justice, and the next man’s, and the law, largely overlap. At the same time, we know our lawmakers are imperfect (“The law is a ass.”).
We know law can be perverted to protect injustice: cartelism, influence peddling, slavery, Holocaust.
At some point each of us will decide whether we will tolerate injustice, ignore it, flee it, reform it, or overthrow it.
What are our Civil duties? I think we’re called upon to discharge our right to vote and our duty to pay taxes. The first is certainly something we should all strive to participate in, the second can be burdensome and at times difficult but necessary.
I think as a fraternity, because one of our tenets is to not talk politics in lodge, we fail to work as a group on certain issues that would benefit us or conversely, those that might harm us. We seem to be much happier to impose rules and regulations on ourselves. We in-fight over ridiculous issues such as the shape of an apron or the color of its border. I haven’t seen brothers on social media call for open revolution but close. I have seen brothers assign derogatory names to members of opposing parties or ideas. To what end? To promote brotherly love? To promote unity. Do we need to work on subduing our passions?
Yesterday we talked about myths. I don’t think much of what we may call “news”, whether on social media, network television, podcasts or blogs is really anything more than myths sprinkled with bits of facts. Talking heads are not news, they are, at best an opinion but usually a slant on their take of the news. We would all be better if, before we jumped on a keyboard about an issue, we we’re reminded that all the “news” outlets/sources only survive by selling advertising. We’re losing our civility. Maybe we would be better served if we turned our smart phones, computers and televisions off and read a good book or two.
Getting back to the question. We are, I believe, truly called upon to work within the system we have in order to effect change. To speak out, peacefully and civilly, when governments overstep. Whether that government is the civil authority, or our own GL “government”. We are all men of differing backgrounds and differing opinions but we are also taught “that the cement which unites us into one sacred band or society of friends and Brothers, among whom no contention should ever exist, but that noble contention, or rather emulation, of who best can work and best agree”.
We all have members ho speak loudly against current government. To you and on social media. As Master of my Lodge, I avoid this behavior and good counsel to keep their passion in due bounds. Personal beliefs are important, but and it's a big but, has no place in a Lodge meeting. It does nothing to help Masonry and if you boast you're a Mason on your social media and spout political messages that could lead people to see Masons in a bad light. Yes I have very strong opinions about our current government, but I don't bring them to work or Lodge. Others, unfortunately, including Lodge Officers, don't see beyond their opinions. Enough said.
For what it is worth, here's my take on it:
Unquestionably, by the laws, standards, and practices of the time, by all the then accepted measures, the British Government was the legal and legitimate government when our Founding Fathers took up the arms of rebellion.
But in the long course of reaching that decision, they did something that I believe to be unique in human history. They defined what a legitimate government was, not using the standards of man, but using the standards of something much greater than man.
They said that men had unalienable rights, granted by God, and that the only legitimate purpose of government was to defend those rights. That government had no right to exist without the consent of the people.
They went on to declare that if a government overstepped those bounds, the people had an absolute right to overthrow that government.
This was, up until that time, perfectly unique in the world. I would contend that it still is.
That to my mind, clears the question of legitimacy. The existing British government was the legitimate government under the then current definition. The Founding Fathers gave us a new definition of legitimacy, and under that new definition, the British government failed the test.
>>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by >>their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of >>Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their >>just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government >>becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"
This is I think precisely why the United States revolution worked. It attained the goals for which it was started. Because it had an intellectual underpinning. Because it was not an armed mob, fighting without truly knowing why, destroying for the sake of destruction, but it was rather a group of dedicated men fighting for ideals much greater than even they themselves.
This is also why I think virtually all other violent revolutions around the world have failed. The Russians did not envision the horror of Stalin when they revolted against the Czar. Our Brothers in Cuba did not envision dictatorial rule when they helped Castro. The French did not expect The Terror when they deposed their king. All of these revolutions, and countless more just like them turned to tyranny because there was no intellectual underpinning, no ideals greater than any man underpinning them. They were subject to the weaknesses of man, because they were about man, they weren't about principals greater than man.
Did Washington, assuming that he was obligated by a charge similar to what we are now, violate that charge by taking up arms against his legitimate government? Not in my opinion, because Washington, along with his other Founders, first created a new definition of legitimacy, and under that definition the existing government no longer qualified.
A very short take on the last question:
>>"How do we interpret them in nations in which the government itself murders Freemasons, such >>as Spain under Franco?"
In my view it is unquestionably evil for a government to murder its own citizens. It is the duty of all men and Masons, charged by God, to fight evil. I believe that a man of faith, as all Regular Freemasons must be, when confronted by so obvious of evil as murder, must act in opposition to that evil. To stand idly by, watching as another is murdered is itself an evil act.
Yet the horrors of violent tyranny survive, because men who know that the horror is wrong, do nothing.