Right; in some countries it meant overthrowing the monarchy and declaring a republic; in others, in meant transitioning from an absolute to a constitutional monarchy. There is nothing wrong with either one. There are things to be said in favor of a constitutional monarchy, in that it separates the ceremonial and the operational functions of government. That is, even if you don’t like the current prime minister, you can still revere the king/queen; we have seen in the US both Republican and Democratic presidents whose opponents’ opposition to their policies have spilled over from disagreement with the current president to contempt of the presidency. (I name no names!)

Back when the first Speculative Lodges and Grand Lodges were formed, the main divisions in society were Religion and Class. The nobilty and gentry had little to do with the mercantile classes, who had little to do with the ‘hoi polloi’. Catholics didn’t associate with Protestants, and within Protestantism the Established Church had little to do with the Dissenters. And of course–as Tom Leher put it many years later–”everybody hates the Jews.” Freemasonry did great things then in breaking down barriers of religion and social class, allowing good men of every class and sect a place where they could interact as equals.

Today it is Race. Outside of North America, Freemasonry never considered race; China, Japan, India, etc. all have Grand Lodges that are generally recognized. The Home Islands’ Grand Lodges have lodges in Africa and the Caribbean, and some African countries have their own generally-recognized Grand Lodges now. The Brazilian Grand Lodges are generally recognized. But for some strange reason we have trouble extending the hand of fraternal fellowship to our African-American brothers. And it seems we have no trouble with other races; we recognize the Mexican Grand Lodges, and we have a long history of admitting Native Americans to Freemasonry (when I lived in Oklahoma, I belonged to a lodge that was mostly Native American; I was one of the few members who was not.)

Nobody has ever given me a coherent reason for NOT recognizing Prince Hall. I have known many Prince Hall Masons socially, and without exception they were fine men to whom I gladly would have, had it not been for my Grand Lodge’s prohibition, extended the right hand of fellowship. I once worked with an African American lady who was Past Grand Matron of Prince Hall Eastern Star for that state, and she was a most gracious and classy lady, whom I would have loved to call ‘sister.’

“It is the internal and not the external qualities of a man that Freemasonry considers.” That statement is in all our rituals, with minor variants. Do we believe it? Then why do we not live it?

It also just isn’t true that all questions of politics and religion are off limits.

Being for peace is like being for honesty. And supporting racial integration is like being for justice.

You could make a case that Temperance, Fortitude, Prudence and Justice are political or religious off limit areas. You could, I wouldn’t.

Being for something doesn’t mean that you are setting policy, making laws or barking commands. Our ancient Brothers coming out of the Enlightenment in the age of Monarchs were promoting democracy. They weren’t telling people how to implement the democracy, just that it was a good thing.

It means you support something by using your bloody pulpit and encouraging the peace and racial harmony process. You are not telling people what to do, you are stating what is noble and right and supported by every major religion in the world.

Name me a religion that is against peace.

Now I don’t want Freemasonry to tell people how to make peace happen. What I do want to do is keep the thought that this is what the world needs on the tip of everybody’s tongue.

You believe that Freemasonry should take the lead in certain world affairs. In what way? Who would decide the policy to be followed. For example, if the Grand Lodge decided to enter the peace process in the Middle East it would undoubtly end up offending both Jewish and Muslim brethren. To believe that Freemasonry would not do this where highly trained civil servants and diplomats have is a little bit more than optimistic.

“As one of the only institutions worldwide to actually live peaceful, cooperative brotherhood among people of different races, religions, cultures and economic circumstances, American Freemasonry was in a unique position to encourage and promote world peace.”

And the only reason Freemasonry is a place of peace between all men is because of its refusal to engage in polital and religious discussion. This is not political correctness as you assert but protecting the very institution we hold so dear. No Grand Lodge can speak for all of its members on political question, and neither should they try.

You do have a good point, but it should be seen on a different level. Freemasonry as a whole should not enter the fray as it would do nothing but cause damage to the fraternity and the bond between brethen. We should however enjoin or members to become involved in pulic life, whatever their political or religious persuasion, and work with those masonic principles in their public life. Their achievements then reflect well upon the craft when the connection between their morality and Fremasonry is made.

We in American seem to be dropping our standards so as not to offend any anyone, well, I am offended by this and am watching the decline of MANY things… our Lodges included.

Thank you for having the Moral fiber to write this article, hope it wakes some Grands up…. no, I PRAY it wakes some Grand Lodges up…

My penny’s worth.