28.02.2013 Views

The Universal Language of Freemasonry - ArchiMeD - Johannes ...

The Universal Language of Freemasonry - ArchiMeD - Johannes ...

The Universal Language of Freemasonry - ArchiMeD - Johannes ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

652<br />

Chapter 8 - Categorization <strong>of</strong> Rituals<br />

identiquement ou en d'autres termes Isis, sans relâche, cherchait à<br />

retrouver Osiris... 1607<br />

This proves that the defense <strong>of</strong> widows and orphans is inherent to Masonry<br />

and its symbolism. However, there are also black sheep in Masonry who use<br />

Masonic charity for business reasons, for example too eager brethren who want<br />

to draw members or misunderstand the intentions <strong>of</strong> the Craft. It is true that the<br />

Masonic benefit system enabled the fraternity to compete favorably with<br />

"secular" organizations like sickness and burial societies, or insurance<br />

companies. In history, several Masonic leaders have tried to introduce<br />

compulsory relief systems but met with opposition among the brethren who<br />

thought it un-Masonic: "[...] [T]he fact that the new relief fund idea was similar<br />

to the practices <strong>of</strong> non-Masonic organizations, and promised to make Masonry<br />

more competitive with those organizations, was repulsive to many opponents <strong>of</strong><br />

the plan; innovations in Masonry which resulted from imitation <strong>of</strong> other groups<br />

they considered degrading to the fraternity." 1608<br />

As an example, we would like to mention the actions <strong>of</strong> the black<br />

jurisdictions <strong>of</strong> Alabama and Georgia in the early 1900s. Both jurisdictions<br />

worked out endowment plans which were opposed by members who rightly<br />

claimed that Masonry preached the idea <strong>of</strong> free-will giving with no thought <strong>of</strong><br />

return, and that a compulsory system <strong>of</strong> charity was not a voluntary act <strong>of</strong> giving,<br />

and therefore no charity at all. <strong>The</strong> Masonic jurisdictions <strong>of</strong> Alabama and<br />

Georgia<br />

[...] attempted to run their systems as if they were insurance companies,<br />

with members choosing whatever level <strong>of</strong> benefit they wished and<br />

paying higher or lower dues depending upon the amount they chose.<br />

Alabama Masonry, which was extremely concerned about training<br />

businessmen and acting in a businesslike fashion, succeeded in setting<br />

up a viable plan in a way that Georgia Masonry did not. 1609<br />

In fact, when the Grand Lodge <strong>of</strong> Georgia proposed the idea <strong>of</strong> a Grand<br />

Lodge Relief System in 1906, the committee rejected this proposal as un-<br />

Masonic. Only a year later, when this idea was revived, the proposal was passed,<br />

but the system failed because it was defective. Somehow the actions <strong>of</strong> these<br />

black constitutions can be excused, for - as we have stated in our chapter on<br />

"Negro <strong>Freemasonry</strong>" - there was a deficiency in black charity, institutionalized<br />

philantropy and insurance: "some action was mandatory because during those<br />

early years the Negro in Georgia was totally unable to secure insurance from<br />

1607<br />

Adhuc Stat. 1913-1963. Numéro spécial du Bulletin intérieur de la GLNF pour la commémoration<br />

de son cinquantième anniversaire, p. 23.<br />

1608<br />

Muraskin, p. 136.<br />

1609<br />

Ibid, p. 138.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!