Let's start with your first question: "Is it moral for an employer to fire an employee for publicly voicing a hateful, immoral, or ignorant opinion unrelated to the employee’s work?"
Set the stage, did they do this at work, or off the clock?
Businesses rely on their reputations and on their customer bases for their livelihoods. And the Vienna/Austrian Business School - a totally amoral system which runs everything today - says that profits are King. Profits are degraded by loss of customer base. However, it also says that any publicity is good publicity. (see also amoral).
Therefore, retaining an employee who expresses hateful, immoral, ignorant opinions may affect the bottom line, in that, it will create a condition whereby your customer base self-selects itself. If the customer base you have, have lots of disposable income, and they leave, and the customer base who like the opinion of the employee come to shop, but, they have less disposable income, you are kinda up a creek without a paddle and your employee has just become an even bigger cost-center (under the business theory all employees are strictly cost-centers). And, employees are the face of your business - they, their appearance and their behaviour at work, are part of your brand.
What's an early 21st Century capitalist to do? Well, owning your own business is a lot like being the king of your castle at home - you get to make your own rules. You get to serve the customers you want and you get to remove people from your premises if you don't want them there. People do not have to trade with you with if they don't like your product or if you wear your politics on your sleeve, of if it's Tuesday and you have purple hair and they don't like that. That's their prerogative and the market will speak. On the other hand, people say they hate Jeff Bazos but I don't see them cancelling their Amazon subscriptions, so, there's that.
No business decision today is made base on morality. None. Should they be? Sure. But - they aren't. Mostly. There are some sterling exceptions, but they are few and far between. People start their own businesses to be captains of their own fates and to have command of their own little corners of their own little worlds - to build their own little fiefdoms. Their own security. They like to have independence and to make their own rules. That's why they're entrepreneurs and business owners. Morality does not enter in to it. It used to. Back in the 1980s you had to elucidate on your incorporation papers what social good your company served. That has been systematically eliminated by every State Secretary of State in the forms.
On the other hand, we all live in a society, such as it is today. And social pressure has always been brought to make people straighten up and fly right. Always. It's not cancel culture - it's the way it's always been. In our colonial period, if you failed to show for Court Day (quarterly) with your musket and bullets and cleaning kit, and drill with all the other members of the local militia which the county land-owners called up by direction of the legislature (no militia just self-constructed itself) , you faced being cancelled. Nobody would trade with you, you were shunned in church, nobody would sit on a jury if you had a case to be heard. You. Were. Cancelled. Until you straightened up and flew right. Sure, social media makes that more immediate - but it's the same system we've always had, and always, the malefactors have cried about how unfair it is. Which is why people moved to the frontier - they got peace and quiet and got left alone to do their own thing.... until they got killed because they found out staying alive is a little easier with other people than without them. It's a delicate and dynamic balance. And in the early days we had lots of room to spread out and find people we wanted to be around. We are now crowded into cities and remaking our "tribes" in fraught times. Generally, the more cheek-to-jowl people have to live with each other - the worse they behave toward each other. This has always been true. There's an argument to be made that social media brings us all too close to each other in all the wrong ways and pushes us too far apart from each other in all the wrong ways.
Also, while the First Amendment protects you from the government, it does not and never did protect you from your fellow Americans, nor from the logical results of your words and actions - that is - personal responsibility. You can say whatever you like, and other may respond in whatever way they like, as well. You are not protected from that. Nor should you be.
Social media fueled cancel culture is just the modern version of The Scarlet Letter. We've been doing this to each other from before the beginning. And, I'll argue, the same Puritanical shaming-culture roots feed it, regardless of the modern political or cultural-trending veneers that are slapped on it.
As to your second question: "Is it moral for an employer to fire an employee for privately voicing a hateful, immoral, or ignorant opinion unrelated to the employee’s work, if that private expression becomes public in some way?"
Again, firing anyone is a business decision, and that's not made based on morality, usually. It should be, but, it isn't. Would I do it? Maybe - depending on a lot of other factors. It seems to me, I have a better chance of bringing them around if I keep them on the payroll because then I have influence and leverage over them. On the other hand, if I find out they're prancing around in the woods wearing white sheets and hoods, that's probably gonna be a hard "Nah dawg" from me, and a frog-march down to the FBI for them. There's a spectrum there.
It is legal for an employer to fire an employee for opinions they may express, at work or elsewhere, such as social media. There is two sides to the coin no matter how you feel about it. We should all be able to voice our opinions under the Freedom of Speech act. But even more valuable and greater is the golden rule of Silence, and it's friend contemplation.
Oct 31, 2023·edited Oct 31, 2023Liked by Cameron M. Bailey
The real problem is the debate over what is hateful. To say a group of people are bad or must be hurt in some way is hateful. To say the actions of an individual or country is wrong is not. Bigots hide behind claims of personal morality and conscience, while political propogandists frame criticism as bigotry.
Some people are being cancelled for literally being nothing more than being Palestinian. Even asking for peace is being attacked as supporting terrorism! There is a terrible fear that if you support or defend the rights of some human beings, you are somehow attacking the group at odds with them. This isn't the place to debate geopolitics, but we need to stop "taking sides" and defend each other as human beings, regardless of labels.
That's why White people fight for Civil Rights and straight people fly an ally flag. And that's why so many Jews in America and even Israel are siding with the Palestinian people. But the rhetoric has always been that if you challenge whatever a particular nation does, you're an anti-Semite. It's like having a perpetual get-out-of-jail card. It's not sane, not right, and needs to stop.
Freedom of speech is a rule protecting you from government action related to fines jail or other criminal consequences. It does not affect the private sector. And there are consequences to using your freedom in any way. I agree with Kathleen's comments about business operations. It's about profit. Contrary to popular belief, discrimination is not really a problem in most businesses. They want to hire the most effective employees and serve the most lucrative customers. And the race/sex/religion etc of those individuals really isn't important. In my own business, physical strength and agility and mental creativity and problem solving ability is important and as such I legally and actively discriminate against the physically and mentally disabled among my employees simply by posting the physical and mental tasks expected of employees on the job listing. Lift 100lbs , balance on truss beams, crawl through narrow holes, engineer a solution to a structural design flaw in a historic building, guess the next likely failure and prevent it before it happens. Yet the very things I require in my employees are often lacking in my clients. All this has nothing to do with hate or politics or even morality. It's about being a successful business. If a n employee is making statements that hurt a business's profits, that employee is a liability. They can find another job. They aren't being killed, imprisoned, or fined. This is a lesson both left and right should learn.
MWB, I would, shooting from the lip/keyboard, advocate that we need to be judicious. Are we a Minneapolis-based business, and my employee just bought a billboard near USBank Stadium, emblazoned with the words "The Vikings suck, Go Green Bay Packers!" with his name and company affiliation on it? Am I now deluged with a lot of people in purple and white outside my business's door, looking very unhappy? Am I facing my phones and email inbox lit up with order cancellations?
Did the employee post this in a private social media group, known to a handful? What was said? Do I, or any of my other employees belong to the religious/ethnic/nationality that was targeted? Do I do business with everyone, or am I, for whatever reason, focused on a customer base that would agree with that employee's biases and prejudices? Did the employee say something like "Hitler had it right, he should have killed all the Freemasons"?
But we are, as practicing members of the Craft, dedicated to the aim of promoting the subduing of our passions, and being known for having a mouth of good report. We should, by exemplar and arguably advocate actively, promotion of that goal within all with whom we come into contact. But, there's also something we should all consider, for good or ill: If someone comes to your metaphorical door and tell you they're going to kill you, you should take them at their word.
A wise historian, it may have been on of the Durant's, once said "All revolutions eventually eat themselves." The most recent demand* to shun, forcibly silence or in other ways deny a voice to those in disagreement can arguably be said to have started in the political/philosophic community from one side of the balance. They were perceived by many of those who disagreed with them to be effective in their efforts. Now others are pointing out what many others see as their own hypocrisies and are being called to "accountability." Gander, meet goose.
Small or large businesses, it could be suggested, should make it clear that they respect individual freedom of speech, but if that speech negatively affects the business, then it arguably crosses the line from "private" speech to having a negative affect on everyone who works for that business. Unless the customer base is fully captive and forced to do business with me, then the matter needs to be addressed.
As a former business owner I would fire someone that effected my bottom line. That being said, it would be after it did.
To many of us think whatever we say has an impact on the world around us.
War is one of mankind’s worst instruments and never fixes everything. When Israel was formed after WW II and land was taken and given over to Israel resulted in the problems in the Middle East to this day. Both sides are equally to blame. Our government is in that same situation now when the Party is
number one and what’s best for the
country is second or third, depending if it’s election time. Compromise has become a lost concept and nobody benefits.
Knee- jerk reaction today is the norm but has the wrong outcome more often than not. We all would be better to recall our childhood versus “ sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”. Yes, feelings can be hurt but we get over that.
Have we become our Brothers keep and only our opinions count?
This is so hard, and a razors edge kinda thing. If you are an employee of a company or institution and you publicly contradict the purpose of that company, maybe. If you speak as an employee, officially, definitely your employer has cause. I think one thing that is important to remember is that the American Freedom of Speech is a limitation on Government, not private entities. Philosophically, I would apply it to every situation, but legally I don't think it will hold up. Let's imagine a brother who speaks out about Masonry, and his belief that we are Satanic and conspiratorial. How would we react? I think most of us would agree that he is wrong, and if he is eloquent he might actually do the Craft great harm. That harm could reduce our charitable efforts and cost children their lives as we might to ne able to support things like the Shriner's Hospitals. Would that constitute unMasonic behavior and warrant expulsion? He might argue he was exercising his first amendment right, and that we were practicing cancel culture. Should we allow him access to meetings, membership, and Lodges? What if a person is simply lying for personal gain or to cause harm to innocents? I want to live in a world where everyone is free to speak their ideas and beliefs anytime any where. As I see the morals and ethics of the world decay, and especially in the era of social media, I am not so sure. Clearly, in my opinion, the Government is, and should be, very limited in its ability to curtail speech. Private entities and individuals, well maybe not. I'm not sure, maybe that is a check and balance. We often talk of our Freedoms, we also need to talk about the responsibilities that come with it. That balance in a good person would limit destructive and slanderous speech. If I sound like I have this figured out, that is a failing of my ability to communicate my uncertainty. I will say this, if someone comes in my home, and espouses racist, antisemitic, or another of a number of prejudicial attitudes they will be politely as possible shown the door. My willingness to support free speech and belief is limited to the survival of those I love. As my high school social studies teacher said, " You right to extend your fist ends at my nose."
I confess to being quite perplexed by all of this. Both before I started the discussion, and after reading and thinking about all of these well thought out comments.
I guess that my greatest takeaway is that we should contemplate before we try to communicate. I've always thought that the best plan, but more especially when it comes to developing and highly controversial topics. Indeed a great many things are never able to be fully understood until some time has passed and a broader perspective has been achieved.
But... It seems that our world lives on 'hot takes' not reasoned discourse. Headlines, not the story. Hot Takes are the way the media makes money, and politicians rake in votes.
And these headlines can be misleading. I read one today about a historical figure.
The headline of an essay about the writer Ernest Hemingway declared him a War Criminal. Shocking stuff indeed, and the brief story didn't do anything to refute the image conjured of murder under guise of war.
A bit of quick research online pointed me to some scholarly papers illuminating the subject. It amounted to:
During WWII, just prior to the liberation of Paris, Hemingway was working as a news reporter, based in a hotel in a small town outside of Paris. A number of French resistance fighters spent a lot of time in his hotel room, and driving around the area with him, all while drinking lots of Scotch and Champagne. During these ongoing, probably drunken, gatherings, they were armed. As news reporters during time of war aren't supposed to be armed, Hemingway broke rules of war.
But that is a far cry from the image of a War Criminal, a murderer operating under the guise of war.
I guess that a takeaway from all of this, is that as Masons we do very well to not give into the desire to throw out inflammatory 'hot takes' of our own.
And perhaps equally important, we should avoid falling for the simplicity offered by these spur of the moment takes, and certainly not amplify their attention.
I am a Jew but was raised by parents (dad was a mason) who taught their kids to respect other religions and people of all colors. I’m a member of a hate group that hates hate groups. I also hate cancer! Masonry teaches us to love our fellow man. Palestinian people are not all Hamas. Hamas is a hate group whose soul purpose is to eradicate the Jewish people off of this planet! It was the Grand Imam of Palistine who Hitler consulted with to try and activate his “Final Solution” for dealing with the Jews of Europe! So this hatred of Jews is nothing new to the Palestinian Muslim people. But not all Palistinians hate Jews or actively pursue their eradication! It disappoints me that in Canada & the USA there are pro Hamas protests that openly display antisemitism! It tells me as a Jew to be cautious in my own country. I truly believe that immigrants should be properly vetted prior to being allowed into our countries. If they hate all Jews they should live in countries where there are no Jewish people. A lot of the Arab countries have decimated their Jewish population so go there or stay there. They have no place bringing their sick values to Canada or the USA, where all people are free to practice their religious beliefs and it’s guaranteed in our Charters & Constitution! Pro Hamas rallies belong in the same place as anti Black marches of the 50’s they violate our rights as citizens of our respective countries, and those people do not belong here!
Let's start with your first question: "Is it moral for an employer to fire an employee for publicly voicing a hateful, immoral, or ignorant opinion unrelated to the employee’s work?"
Set the stage, did they do this at work, or off the clock?
Businesses rely on their reputations and on their customer bases for their livelihoods. And the Vienna/Austrian Business School - a totally amoral system which runs everything today - says that profits are King. Profits are degraded by loss of customer base. However, it also says that any publicity is good publicity. (see also amoral).
Therefore, retaining an employee who expresses hateful, immoral, ignorant opinions may affect the bottom line, in that, it will create a condition whereby your customer base self-selects itself. If the customer base you have, have lots of disposable income, and they leave, and the customer base who like the opinion of the employee come to shop, but, they have less disposable income, you are kinda up a creek without a paddle and your employee has just become an even bigger cost-center (under the business theory all employees are strictly cost-centers). And, employees are the face of your business - they, their appearance and their behaviour at work, are part of your brand.
What's an early 21st Century capitalist to do? Well, owning your own business is a lot like being the king of your castle at home - you get to make your own rules. You get to serve the customers you want and you get to remove people from your premises if you don't want them there. People do not have to trade with you with if they don't like your product or if you wear your politics on your sleeve, of if it's Tuesday and you have purple hair and they don't like that. That's their prerogative and the market will speak. On the other hand, people say they hate Jeff Bazos but I don't see them cancelling their Amazon subscriptions, so, there's that.
No business decision today is made base on morality. None. Should they be? Sure. But - they aren't. Mostly. There are some sterling exceptions, but they are few and far between. People start their own businesses to be captains of their own fates and to have command of their own little corners of their own little worlds - to build their own little fiefdoms. Their own security. They like to have independence and to make their own rules. That's why they're entrepreneurs and business owners. Morality does not enter in to it. It used to. Back in the 1980s you had to elucidate on your incorporation papers what social good your company served. That has been systematically eliminated by every State Secretary of State in the forms.
On the other hand, we all live in a society, such as it is today. And social pressure has always been brought to make people straighten up and fly right. Always. It's not cancel culture - it's the way it's always been. In our colonial period, if you failed to show for Court Day (quarterly) with your musket and bullets and cleaning kit, and drill with all the other members of the local militia which the county land-owners called up by direction of the legislature (no militia just self-constructed itself) , you faced being cancelled. Nobody would trade with you, you were shunned in church, nobody would sit on a jury if you had a case to be heard. You. Were. Cancelled. Until you straightened up and flew right. Sure, social media makes that more immediate - but it's the same system we've always had, and always, the malefactors have cried about how unfair it is. Which is why people moved to the frontier - they got peace and quiet and got left alone to do their own thing.... until they got killed because they found out staying alive is a little easier with other people than without them. It's a delicate and dynamic balance. And in the early days we had lots of room to spread out and find people we wanted to be around. We are now crowded into cities and remaking our "tribes" in fraught times. Generally, the more cheek-to-jowl people have to live with each other - the worse they behave toward each other. This has always been true. There's an argument to be made that social media brings us all too close to each other in all the wrong ways and pushes us too far apart from each other in all the wrong ways.
Also, while the First Amendment protects you from the government, it does not and never did protect you from your fellow Americans, nor from the logical results of your words and actions - that is - personal responsibility. You can say whatever you like, and other may respond in whatever way they like, as well. You are not protected from that. Nor should you be.
Social media fueled cancel culture is just the modern version of The Scarlet Letter. We've been doing this to each other from before the beginning. And, I'll argue, the same Puritanical shaming-culture roots feed it, regardless of the modern political or cultural-trending veneers that are slapped on it.
As to your second question: "Is it moral for an employer to fire an employee for privately voicing a hateful, immoral, or ignorant opinion unrelated to the employee’s work, if that private expression becomes public in some way?"
Again, firing anyone is a business decision, and that's not made based on morality, usually. It should be, but, it isn't. Would I do it? Maybe - depending on a lot of other factors. It seems to me, I have a better chance of bringing them around if I keep them on the payroll because then I have influence and leverage over them. On the other hand, if I find out they're prancing around in the woods wearing white sheets and hoods, that's probably gonna be a hard "Nah dawg" from me, and a frog-march down to the FBI for them. There's a spectrum there.
It is legal for an employer to fire an employee for opinions they may express, at work or elsewhere, such as social media. There is two sides to the coin no matter how you feel about it. We should all be able to voice our opinions under the Freedom of Speech act. But even more valuable and greater is the golden rule of Silence, and it's friend contemplation.
The real problem is the debate over what is hateful. To say a group of people are bad or must be hurt in some way is hateful. To say the actions of an individual or country is wrong is not. Bigots hide behind claims of personal morality and conscience, while political propogandists frame criticism as bigotry.
Some people are being cancelled for literally being nothing more than being Palestinian. Even asking for peace is being attacked as supporting terrorism! There is a terrible fear that if you support or defend the rights of some human beings, you are somehow attacking the group at odds with them. This isn't the place to debate geopolitics, but we need to stop "taking sides" and defend each other as human beings, regardless of labels.
That's why White people fight for Civil Rights and straight people fly an ally flag. And that's why so many Jews in America and even Israel are siding with the Palestinian people. But the rhetoric has always been that if you challenge whatever a particular nation does, you're an anti-Semite. It's like having a perpetual get-out-of-jail card. It's not sane, not right, and needs to stop.
https://mailchi.mp/279598545246/tfs-wednesday-report-gaza-and-cancel-culture-bright-side-dog-parade-411572
Freedom of speech is a rule protecting you from government action related to fines jail or other criminal consequences. It does not affect the private sector. And there are consequences to using your freedom in any way. I agree with Kathleen's comments about business operations. It's about profit. Contrary to popular belief, discrimination is not really a problem in most businesses. They want to hire the most effective employees and serve the most lucrative customers. And the race/sex/religion etc of those individuals really isn't important. In my own business, physical strength and agility and mental creativity and problem solving ability is important and as such I legally and actively discriminate against the physically and mentally disabled among my employees simply by posting the physical and mental tasks expected of employees on the job listing. Lift 100lbs , balance on truss beams, crawl through narrow holes, engineer a solution to a structural design flaw in a historic building, guess the next likely failure and prevent it before it happens. Yet the very things I require in my employees are often lacking in my clients. All this has nothing to do with hate or politics or even morality. It's about being a successful business. If a n employee is making statements that hurt a business's profits, that employee is a liability. They can find another job. They aren't being killed, imprisoned, or fined. This is a lesson both left and right should learn.
MWB, I would, shooting from the lip/keyboard, advocate that we need to be judicious. Are we a Minneapolis-based business, and my employee just bought a billboard near USBank Stadium, emblazoned with the words "The Vikings suck, Go Green Bay Packers!" with his name and company affiliation on it? Am I now deluged with a lot of people in purple and white outside my business's door, looking very unhappy? Am I facing my phones and email inbox lit up with order cancellations?
Did the employee post this in a private social media group, known to a handful? What was said? Do I, or any of my other employees belong to the religious/ethnic/nationality that was targeted? Do I do business with everyone, or am I, for whatever reason, focused on a customer base that would agree with that employee's biases and prejudices? Did the employee say something like "Hitler had it right, he should have killed all the Freemasons"?
But we are, as practicing members of the Craft, dedicated to the aim of promoting the subduing of our passions, and being known for having a mouth of good report. We should, by exemplar and arguably advocate actively, promotion of that goal within all with whom we come into contact. But, there's also something we should all consider, for good or ill: If someone comes to your metaphorical door and tell you they're going to kill you, you should take them at their word.
A wise historian, it may have been on of the Durant's, once said "All revolutions eventually eat themselves." The most recent demand* to shun, forcibly silence or in other ways deny a voice to those in disagreement can arguably be said to have started in the political/philosophic community from one side of the balance. They were perceived by many of those who disagreed with them to be effective in their efforts. Now others are pointing out what many others see as their own hypocrisies and are being called to "accountability." Gander, meet goose.
Small or large businesses, it could be suggested, should make it clear that they respect individual freedom of speech, but if that speech negatively affects the business, then it arguably crosses the line from "private" speech to having a negative affect on everyone who works for that business. Unless the customer base is fully captive and forced to do business with me, then the matter needs to be addressed.
As a former business owner I would fire someone that effected my bottom line. That being said, it would be after it did.
To many of us think whatever we say has an impact on the world around us.
War is one of mankind’s worst instruments and never fixes everything. When Israel was formed after WW II and land was taken and given over to Israel resulted in the problems in the Middle East to this day. Both sides are equally to blame. Our government is in that same situation now when the Party is
number one and what’s best for the
country is second or third, depending if it’s election time. Compromise has become a lost concept and nobody benefits.
Knee- jerk reaction today is the norm but has the wrong outcome more often than not. We all would be better to recall our childhood versus “ sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”. Yes, feelings can be hurt but we get over that.
Have we become our Brothers keep and only our opinions count?
This is so hard, and a razors edge kinda thing. If you are an employee of a company or institution and you publicly contradict the purpose of that company, maybe. If you speak as an employee, officially, definitely your employer has cause. I think one thing that is important to remember is that the American Freedom of Speech is a limitation on Government, not private entities. Philosophically, I would apply it to every situation, but legally I don't think it will hold up. Let's imagine a brother who speaks out about Masonry, and his belief that we are Satanic and conspiratorial. How would we react? I think most of us would agree that he is wrong, and if he is eloquent he might actually do the Craft great harm. That harm could reduce our charitable efforts and cost children their lives as we might to ne able to support things like the Shriner's Hospitals. Would that constitute unMasonic behavior and warrant expulsion? He might argue he was exercising his first amendment right, and that we were practicing cancel culture. Should we allow him access to meetings, membership, and Lodges? What if a person is simply lying for personal gain or to cause harm to innocents? I want to live in a world where everyone is free to speak their ideas and beliefs anytime any where. As I see the morals and ethics of the world decay, and especially in the era of social media, I am not so sure. Clearly, in my opinion, the Government is, and should be, very limited in its ability to curtail speech. Private entities and individuals, well maybe not. I'm not sure, maybe that is a check and balance. We often talk of our Freedoms, we also need to talk about the responsibilities that come with it. That balance in a good person would limit destructive and slanderous speech. If I sound like I have this figured out, that is a failing of my ability to communicate my uncertainty. I will say this, if someone comes in my home, and espouses racist, antisemitic, or another of a number of prejudicial attitudes they will be politely as possible shown the door. My willingness to support free speech and belief is limited to the survival of those I love. As my high school social studies teacher said, " You right to extend your fist ends at my nose."
I confess to being quite perplexed by all of this. Both before I started the discussion, and after reading and thinking about all of these well thought out comments.
I guess that my greatest takeaway is that we should contemplate before we try to communicate. I've always thought that the best plan, but more especially when it comes to developing and highly controversial topics. Indeed a great many things are never able to be fully understood until some time has passed and a broader perspective has been achieved.
But... It seems that our world lives on 'hot takes' not reasoned discourse. Headlines, not the story. Hot Takes are the way the media makes money, and politicians rake in votes.
And these headlines can be misleading. I read one today about a historical figure.
The headline of an essay about the writer Ernest Hemingway declared him a War Criminal. Shocking stuff indeed, and the brief story didn't do anything to refute the image conjured of murder under guise of war.
A bit of quick research online pointed me to some scholarly papers illuminating the subject. It amounted to:
During WWII, just prior to the liberation of Paris, Hemingway was working as a news reporter, based in a hotel in a small town outside of Paris. A number of French resistance fighters spent a lot of time in his hotel room, and driving around the area with him, all while drinking lots of Scotch and Champagne. During these ongoing, probably drunken, gatherings, they were armed. As news reporters during time of war aren't supposed to be armed, Hemingway broke rules of war.
But that is a far cry from the image of a War Criminal, a murderer operating under the guise of war.
I guess that a takeaway from all of this, is that as Masons we do very well to not give into the desire to throw out inflammatory 'hot takes' of our own.
And perhaps equally important, we should avoid falling for the simplicity offered by these spur of the moment takes, and certainly not amplify their attention.
I am a Jew but was raised by parents (dad was a mason) who taught their kids to respect other religions and people of all colors. I’m a member of a hate group that hates hate groups. I also hate cancer! Masonry teaches us to love our fellow man. Palestinian people are not all Hamas. Hamas is a hate group whose soul purpose is to eradicate the Jewish people off of this planet! It was the Grand Imam of Palistine who Hitler consulted with to try and activate his “Final Solution” for dealing with the Jews of Europe! So this hatred of Jews is nothing new to the Palestinian Muslim people. But not all Palistinians hate Jews or actively pursue their eradication! It disappoints me that in Canada & the USA there are pro Hamas protests that openly display antisemitism! It tells me as a Jew to be cautious in my own country. I truly believe that immigrants should be properly vetted prior to being allowed into our countries. If they hate all Jews they should live in countries where there are no Jewish people. A lot of the Arab countries have decimated their Jewish population so go there or stay there. They have no place bringing their sick values to Canada or the USA, where all people are free to practice their religious beliefs and it’s guaranteed in our Charters & Constitution! Pro Hamas rallies belong in the same place as anti Black marches of the 50’s they violate our rights as citizens of our respective countries, and those people do not belong here!