Graduating from HS is a good goal, but what those statistics don't show is the quality of that HS education. It's especially important to know after the disruptions caused by covid, and our over-reaction to it. Inner city kids from poor neighborhoods might be graduating at a similar rate, but I highly doubt the quality of their education is on par. It's especially alarming that in order to boost graduation rates, instead of providing a better education, the schools just lower the standards.
Meanwhile, we're throwing more and more money at the problem, and things either are getting worse, or not improving at all.
Moving on to college, we've placed such a huge emphasis on going to college that a simple bachelors degree isn't going to improve your life as much as it used to. When everyone has a bachelors degree, what is going to make you stand out amongst your peers? Not that degree in gender studies with a minor in anthropology.
As far as the "widows and orphans" goes, we see more concern and care for the widows. Since the state has stepped in and created a whole infrastructure around foster care, it's much more difficult to be involved, especially when the court systems dictate everything. Chances are, for kids that young, they are placed with relatives before anything else.
But, there is a difference between a child given up for adoption/foster care and a mason's orphan. For the former, I'm not really thinking it's my duty to take over the raising of someone else's mistake. If a mason dies and leaves behind a widow with a kid, of course the lodge (and other masonic resources) can step in to help.
I don't think that we have a responsibility to every orphan, but I do think we have a very specific and weighty responsibility towards the orphans of Masons. If a child of a Mason loses both his or her parents, then I think we must do what we can to ensure that he or she has every chance in life.
I won't argue with your points here. There is a reason Mrs. Bailey and I are helping our granddaughter's parents pay for her private school.
And of course much of this is based on zip code. The potential quality of a public school education varies radically from place to place I imagine.
I'm also with you on the declining economic value of a college degree, especially when offset by massive student loan debt. For many, a trade school would be a much better choice.
But, all that said, it is still, I believe, still possible to get a really good job in this country with just a High School diploma. But, I don't believe it is possible to get one without. Quality of education or not, I think that employers want to see that HS diploma.
Perhaps at one time Lodge dues allowed for substantive support for widows and orphans. It’s also likely that members were more active in their Lodges, so that the brethren may know the man, and his family, prior to any unfortunate situation.
If we are not able to financially support the growth and well-being of our own Lodge, how likely is it that ‘our ability permits’ the lofty goal of supporting a widow or orphan? Also, would a brother’s involvement in the Lodge bear any weight in determining the worthiness of a widow or orphan? It becomes imperative to temper our expectations and align them with the realities of our Lodge.
The Craft has the superstructure to support the highest ideals that a society of good men can produce, but it requires time and money to build upon that structure. Both of which are given in exchange for value. Therefore, if one wishes to increase the charitable capacity of a Lodge, there should be a greater emphasis on the value of participating in that building process to its actual members. Sustained Masonic insight, growth, and enjoyment form the foundation for continuous improvement in Masonry. By prioritizing the well-being of our members, we inspire them to fulfill their duties with dedication.
I guess to my mind, I don't see this as a Lodge responsibility. And, I don't think it should be placed as a responsibility of the Lodge.
To my mind, it is a personal responsibility, incumbent upon every member of the Mason's Lodge.
Our ritual doesn't say (paraphrasing here as it is not Monitorial):
'That we [meaning our Lodge] might be better enabled... and orphans.'
It says:
'That I might be... orphans.'
It seems to me that if tragedy were to strike a young family, whose father was one of our Lodge Brothers, that tragedy leaving the children without parents, it becomes the men of the Lodge's responsibility to take care of those children. Not to raise them of course, as Glenn points out, there's a whole government scheme for that, but to ensure that they had stable mentors throughout their childhood, ample financial resources to meet their needs, and importantly, strong advocates so that they didn't get chewed up by the very system that is supposed to help them.
I think that Masons could provide those three things on their own, or could provide them in concert with others, but I don't think we escape the personal responsibility to do so. For if we can't do this for the orphan children of a Brother, then I don't think we are entitled to use that title.
The problem is orphanages falling out of fashion. They provide far more stability than fostering. It's a horrible system, as well-intentioned as some are.
I say bring them back in a carefully planned way. And remove the stigma about it.
It does seem that as a society we now have a knee jerk adverse reaction to institutions of all kinds. But clearly the current system is failing far too often, so perhaps we should as you suggest, look as a society to what may have worked better in the past.
Perhaps this is about the obsession with the "nuclear family", something that proved unsustainable or at least not all that. I'm not a huge collectivist, but "taking a village" may have its merits.
Graduating from HS is a good goal, but what those statistics don't show is the quality of that HS education. It's especially important to know after the disruptions caused by covid, and our over-reaction to it. Inner city kids from poor neighborhoods might be graduating at a similar rate, but I highly doubt the quality of their education is on par. It's especially alarming that in order to boost graduation rates, instead of providing a better education, the schools just lower the standards.
Meanwhile, we're throwing more and more money at the problem, and things either are getting worse, or not improving at all.
Moving on to college, we've placed such a huge emphasis on going to college that a simple bachelors degree isn't going to improve your life as much as it used to. When everyone has a bachelors degree, what is going to make you stand out amongst your peers? Not that degree in gender studies with a minor in anthropology.
As far as the "widows and orphans" goes, we see more concern and care for the widows. Since the state has stepped in and created a whole infrastructure around foster care, it's much more difficult to be involved, especially when the court systems dictate everything. Chances are, for kids that young, they are placed with relatives before anything else.
But, there is a difference between a child given up for adoption/foster care and a mason's orphan. For the former, I'm not really thinking it's my duty to take over the raising of someone else's mistake. If a mason dies and leaves behind a widow with a kid, of course the lodge (and other masonic resources) can step in to help.
I don't think that we have a responsibility to every orphan, but I do think we have a very specific and weighty responsibility towards the orphans of Masons. If a child of a Mason loses both his or her parents, then I think we must do what we can to ensure that he or she has every chance in life.
I won't argue with your points here. There is a reason Mrs. Bailey and I are helping our granddaughter's parents pay for her private school.
And of course much of this is based on zip code. The potential quality of a public school education varies radically from place to place I imagine.
I'm also with you on the declining economic value of a college degree, especially when offset by massive student loan debt. For many, a trade school would be a much better choice.
But, all that said, it is still, I believe, still possible to get a really good job in this country with just a High School diploma. But, I don't believe it is possible to get one without. Quality of education or not, I think that employers want to see that HS diploma.
Perhaps at one time Lodge dues allowed for substantive support for widows and orphans. It’s also likely that members were more active in their Lodges, so that the brethren may know the man, and his family, prior to any unfortunate situation.
If we are not able to financially support the growth and well-being of our own Lodge, how likely is it that ‘our ability permits’ the lofty goal of supporting a widow or orphan? Also, would a brother’s involvement in the Lodge bear any weight in determining the worthiness of a widow or orphan? It becomes imperative to temper our expectations and align them with the realities of our Lodge.
The Craft has the superstructure to support the highest ideals that a society of good men can produce, but it requires time and money to build upon that structure. Both of which are given in exchange for value. Therefore, if one wishes to increase the charitable capacity of a Lodge, there should be a greater emphasis on the value of participating in that building process to its actual members. Sustained Masonic insight, growth, and enjoyment form the foundation for continuous improvement in Masonry. By prioritizing the well-being of our members, we inspire them to fulfill their duties with dedication.
I guess to my mind, I don't see this as a Lodge responsibility. And, I don't think it should be placed as a responsibility of the Lodge.
To my mind, it is a personal responsibility, incumbent upon every member of the Mason's Lodge.
Our ritual doesn't say (paraphrasing here as it is not Monitorial):
'That we [meaning our Lodge] might be better enabled... and orphans.'
It says:
'That I might be... orphans.'
It seems to me that if tragedy were to strike a young family, whose father was one of our Lodge Brothers, that tragedy leaving the children without parents, it becomes the men of the Lodge's responsibility to take care of those children. Not to raise them of course, as Glenn points out, there's a whole government scheme for that, but to ensure that they had stable mentors throughout their childhood, ample financial resources to meet their needs, and importantly, strong advocates so that they didn't get chewed up by the very system that is supposed to help them.
I think that Masons could provide those three things on their own, or could provide them in concert with others, but I don't think we escape the personal responsibility to do so. For if we can't do this for the orphan children of a Brother, then I don't think we are entitled to use that title.
The problem is orphanages falling out of fashion. They provide far more stability than fostering. It's a horrible system, as well-intentioned as some are.
I say bring them back in a carefully planned way. And remove the stigma about it.
It does seem that as a society we now have a knee jerk adverse reaction to institutions of all kinds. But clearly the current system is failing far too often, so perhaps we should as you suggest, look as a society to what may have worked better in the past.
Perhaps this is about the obsession with the "nuclear family", something that proved unsustainable or at least not all that. I'm not a huge collectivist, but "taking a village" may have its merits.