But our Masonic prohibition of discussion of sectarian Religion and partisan Politics in Lodge did come to me in a different context today.
My local newspaper published a small note informing its readers that the Board of Directors of the Senior Center in my town has passed rules prohibiting the discussion of Religion and Politics within the Center.
It was strange to see this rather unique Masonic prohibition being utilized by another organization. But of course, all Masons can understand how the prohibition encourages fellowship and harmony.
I wonder though, while this rule is a fundamental part of Freemasonry, is it appropriate for other groups? For places like Senior Centers that are public, rather than private organizations?
Does the fact that the Senior Center is a quasi governmental agency make the rule improper?
I am opposed to censorship in any form. If it's meeting in a public space the Senior Center doesn't have the power to say what you can or can't say.
We in America don't appreciate what we have and think that we will always have our perceived freedom. I on the other hand see little by little we freely give our freedom away.
After WW II the government's, Federal, State and local impacted our lives for the betterment most would say. That may be true, but at what cost to our individual freedom. Their are two examples that I happen to believe in but don't think should be mandatory are seatbelts and helmets.
Most will say but they save lives, and I may agree, but it should be my choice to do so. The way I see this as a loss of my freedom and a win for the insurance industry. Government may say the individual is uppermost in whatever they do, but give 25 years for murder and life for stealing large sums of money. Sorry I digressed but goes along with my distrust of government these days.
Today freedom of speech is under attack along with woman's rights and I don't see a concerted effort to stop this attack on our daughters and wives. The silent majority better start using it's voice or the inmates will run the nut house.
Typically, new policies are the product of adults being unable to use common sense. Nothing like a couple seniors ending up rolling on the floor and ending up with broken hips because my religion is the best and my political party is the one trying to save us from the other side.
It seems nothing divides more that religion or politics. One would think, it should be the other way round. I going to say the rule came out of precaution and past issues? General rule of conduct if you feel you should whisper or look around before you say something, it probably shouldn't be said. If I was living in a retirement community, I would still be talking about religion or politics, but be aware that all truths in religion and politics are only half truths.
Sounds like a violation of their 1st amendment granted to all Americans under the Constitution as unalienable right gifted by God to all American citizens . Public spaces should be an open forum and if people can't control their emotions enough to debate a topic then shame on them and the need to spend less on social media and more time interacting face to face with pother humans . At what point are they going to tell you discus other topics , like transgender or Bud Lite because someone is emotionally triggered ? Sounds like a slippery slope to me welcome to 1984 and the speech police
I've continued to follow this story as it has developed and find that many of its elements are referenced in the comments here.
Many are arguing that the policy is a violation of the First Amendment. In fact there was a protest at the Senior Center today focused on just that. Ultimately, if the Board of Directors doesn't fold and it ends up in court, I presume that argument will win the day, because it is a government supported program, within a government owned building.
But, the board makes a case that is also reflected here. That apparently the proselytizing for both religious opinion and political opinion had gotten out of hand, to the point that some were no longer coming, and others were seeking intervention.
Adding an interesting wrinkle to this specific situation for me is the fact that one of the members of the Board is a local Freemason, a man I've found to be well grounded and thoughtful, and who is extremely well respected in the community.
I guess that ultimately, I don't know for certain what I think about this specific situation, nor do I have my own solid answer for the questions I asked in this post. I guess that I am forever cautious about such things, partially because I share Brother Baxter's view that: "all truths in religion and politics are only half truths."
While I wasn't able to come up with answers to my own questions, my take away from this is just how extraordinarily wise those who created our Ancient Craft must have been. It is very easy to see how discussions of these topics could tear a Lodge apart. By disallowing them, harmony can be much easier preserved.
What is the stated mission of the senior center? I am sure they have that written somewhere. Having asked that question I know why I go to a senior center. My wife and I travel some and always find the senior center of the city we are in. We look for lunch or dinner and a time to sit with the local folks and learn about the area we are in. We share where we are from. Once in awhile I meet a brother mason at lunch and have been invited to lodge during our stay. It is one thing if the center is supporting a particular political cause, such as funding for the center, etc. But partisian politics will only divide the center, drive some seniors away, and eventually close the doors. Just like no one is allowed to "campaign" in the lobby of the courthouse, a tax payer funded building, political and religious issues should be outside of the space designed to bring people together.
I am opposed to censorship in any form. If it's meeting in a public space the Senior Center doesn't have the power to say what you can or can't say.
We in America don't appreciate what we have and think that we will always have our perceived freedom. I on the other hand see little by little we freely give our freedom away.
After WW II the government's, Federal, State and local impacted our lives for the betterment most would say. That may be true, but at what cost to our individual freedom. Their are two examples that I happen to believe in but don't think should be mandatory are seatbelts and helmets.
Most will say but they save lives, and I may agree, but it should be my choice to do so. The way I see this as a loss of my freedom and a win for the insurance industry. Government may say the individual is uppermost in whatever they do, but give 25 years for murder and life for stealing large sums of money. Sorry I digressed but goes along with my distrust of government these days.
Today freedom of speech is under attack along with woman's rights and I don't see a concerted effort to stop this attack on our daughters and wives. The silent majority better start using it's voice or the inmates will run the nut house.
Typically, new policies are the product of adults being unable to use common sense. Nothing like a couple seniors ending up rolling on the floor and ending up with broken hips because my religion is the best and my political party is the one trying to save us from the other side.
It seems nothing divides more that religion or politics. One would think, it should be the other way round. I going to say the rule came out of precaution and past issues? General rule of conduct if you feel you should whisper or look around before you say something, it probably shouldn't be said. If I was living in a retirement community, I would still be talking about religion or politics, but be aware that all truths in religion and politics are only half truths.
Sounds like a violation of their 1st amendment granted to all Americans under the Constitution as unalienable right gifted by God to all American citizens . Public spaces should be an open forum and if people can't control their emotions enough to debate a topic then shame on them and the need to spend less on social media and more time interacting face to face with pother humans . At what point are they going to tell you discus other topics , like transgender or Bud Lite because someone is emotionally triggered ? Sounds like a slippery slope to me welcome to 1984 and the speech police
I've continued to follow this story as it has developed and find that many of its elements are referenced in the comments here.
Many are arguing that the policy is a violation of the First Amendment. In fact there was a protest at the Senior Center today focused on just that. Ultimately, if the Board of Directors doesn't fold and it ends up in court, I presume that argument will win the day, because it is a government supported program, within a government owned building.
But, the board makes a case that is also reflected here. That apparently the proselytizing for both religious opinion and political opinion had gotten out of hand, to the point that some were no longer coming, and others were seeking intervention.
Adding an interesting wrinkle to this specific situation for me is the fact that one of the members of the Board is a local Freemason, a man I've found to be well grounded and thoughtful, and who is extremely well respected in the community.
I guess that ultimately, I don't know for certain what I think about this specific situation, nor do I have my own solid answer for the questions I asked in this post. I guess that I am forever cautious about such things, partially because I share Brother Baxter's view that: "all truths in religion and politics are only half truths."
While I wasn't able to come up with answers to my own questions, my take away from this is just how extraordinarily wise those who created our Ancient Craft must have been. It is very easy to see how discussions of these topics could tear a Lodge apart. By disallowing them, harmony can be much easier preserved.
What is the stated mission of the senior center? I am sure they have that written somewhere. Having asked that question I know why I go to a senior center. My wife and I travel some and always find the senior center of the city we are in. We look for lunch or dinner and a time to sit with the local folks and learn about the area we are in. We share where we are from. Once in awhile I meet a brother mason at lunch and have been invited to lodge during our stay. It is one thing if the center is supporting a particular political cause, such as funding for the center, etc. But partisian politics will only divide the center, drive some seniors away, and eventually close the doors. Just like no one is allowed to "campaign" in the lobby of the courthouse, a tax payer funded building, political and religious issues should be outside of the space designed to bring people together.