09/14/2017 (Thu) 07:08:43
>>55540>Aren't you asked not to discuss politics or religion in lodges? And no lodge was supposed to have official political affiliation?
That is correct. But it's possible for relevant topics to be broached without violating that landmark. Ie. When the rituals emphasize traditional family values, you can watch the liberals shift uncomfortably as they listen to it. Eventually they'll either reflect on their folly or leave.>You will find plenty of Freemasons with republican, even communist political views.
Indeed you shall. One guy here was a teacher and quite a pinko, but after the Mark degree, he actually said how lousy it was for others to steal the efforts of his labour.
Pretty funny to watch the penny drop.>Again, which lodge is a regular one according to you?
Any on this list. h
ww.ugle.org.uk/about/foreign-grand-lodges>Then you have no authority for speaking in the name of any lodge other than the one that you are a member of
Yes and no. Like, yes it varies from state to state, but there are a set of landmarks (like guidelines) which lodges adhere to be recognised as regular. So whilst i couldn't say "All lodges wear white lambskin aprons with a light blue trim." because that's not the case, i could say, "All lodges require members to have a belief in deity", because any which don't are irregular (excommunicated).> but it can be interpreted in a civic nationalist kind of way.
On it's own, perhaps, but when combined with all the other traditionalist and familial teachings, you'd be hard pressed accepting foreigners. Though for example an American would probably not knowingly see it, since they have no ethnic identity.