|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: On the Square
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Whatever Shriners are, I don't think we have them here.
Shhhh, don't tell these blokes.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
What's that with the funny 'ats? Are they a version of an apron that one can wear on one's head, and if so, why?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What's that with the funny 'ats? Are they a version of an apron that one can wear on one's head, and if so, why?
Wikipedia says their trappings are Orientalist. I suppose the founders thought it was "fun".
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
except that Masons often claim a much wider distribution than is actually the case.
Do you mean they give false numbers about where the money is distributed? Or if they just sort of leave people with the impression that more of the money goes to public benefit?
If the Masons are using money donated by the non-Masonic public to fund things mason-specific charities(eg. seniors' homes for old Masons), I can see why that would be a problem, especially if donors are under the impression that the money was going to help the general public. But is that what's happening?
The impression is that more of the money goes to public benefit - or at the very least they don't reveal that substantial amounts goes to charities which only benefit masons or their families
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What's that with the funny 'ats? Are they a version of an apron that one can wear on one's head, and if so, why?
Wikipedia says their trappings are Orientalist. I suppose the founders thought it was "fun".
I read somewhere(probably also wikipedia) that the Shrine was founded during an era when Ottoman imagery was enjoying a vogue(likely with a heavy overlay of kitsch). So, you had Ottoman-style movie theatres(probably comparable to the "Chinese" theatres in Hollywood and elsewhere) and whatnot.
I am surprised to see that the Shrine has made it over the Atlantic. In the popular imagination, I think they're sort of seen as embodying the goofier aspects of Americanism.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
except that Masons often claim a much wider distribution than is actually the case.
Do you mean they give false numbers about where the money is distributed? Or if they just sort of leave people with the impression that more of the money goes to public benefit?
If the Masons are using money donated by the non-Masonic public to fund things mason-specific charities(eg. seniors' homes for old Masons), I can see why that would be a problem, especially if donors are under the impression that the money was going to help the general public. But is that what's happening?
The impression is that more of the money goes to public benefit - or at the very least they don't reveal that substantial amounts goes to charities which only benefit masons or their families
But do they solicit funds from the general(ie. non-Masonic) public, that are then spent on Mason-specific endeavours?
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas Aus
Shipmate
# 15869
|
Posted
I am an Australian Freemason. Most of the lodges in our region are predominantly working-class in nature. At a higher level, the state Grand Lodge is multi-faith and multicultural. Senior officers in recent years have been Anglo-Saxon Christian, Jewish, Lebanese Christian, Lebanese Muslim, Filipino, Sri Lankan among others.
While the degree rituals are restricted to active members of the lodge, let me highlight a number of differences from operations in the UK and US as detailed above. These observations pertain to the Craft or blue Lodge, which is the basic level of Masonic membership beyond which many members do not proceed.
- To join a craft lodge in our state, the applicant must now submit his details to a National Police Check before his application can be considered. Like other large institutions, we have been touched by the scourge of child sexual abuse by members through their involvement in other groups such as Scouts, and this strategy seeks to ensure the integrity of membership.
- The charitable operations of the Lodge are subject to the oversight of the Australian Charities and Non-Profits Commission which has extensive powers up to deregistration of the charity.
- Charitable support for members and their families is only raised through specific internal fundraising programs, never from the general public.
- Other charitable support in the millions of dollars annually, is provided to organisations supporting people with disabilities, homeless services, domestic violence support services, emergency services, medical charities among others. Under ACNC rules fundraising programs must clearly state the beneficiaries.
- Some of the nepotistic operations outlined above are clearly designated as unmasonic conduct, and there are regular notifications of members who have been expelled from membership on these and other similar grounds.
It seems to me that Australian Freemasonry, by being open and truthful about their operations, has overcome many of the antagonistic coverage. The Lodge was subject to an attack by the immediate past Archbishop of Sydney some years ago, but the openness to public view defused that campaign, and it disappeared from the media as quickly as it had appeared.
While overall the Lodge has an ageing membership, in our region there has been a resurgence of young men seeking membership. I put this down to the lack of snobbery and class consciousness which is so much a feature of these local lodges. Maybe that's part of our Australian character.
My parish and my local community are well aware of my masonic involvement. There has been no negative response from either quarter.
Posts: 375 | From: Hunter Valley NSW | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Thing is I can tell you some ghastly stories about Freemasonry, of which I am not a member. I can also tell you some ghastly stories about the C of E, of which I am.
On the other hand there is only one of those organisations which is a secret society and which excludes women. I think, on balance, Freemasons are a good thing but realistically, whilst the men only secret thing goes they are going to get a certain amount of jiip.It's in their hands to address this.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Callan said:
quote:
Thing is I can tell you some ghastly stories about Freemasonry, of which I am not a member. I can also tell you some ghastly stories about the C of E, of which I am.
On the other hand there is only one of those organisations which is a secret society and which excludes women. I think, on balance, Freemasons are a good thing but realistically, whilst the men only secret thing goes they are going to get a certain amount of jiip.It's in their hands to address this
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10149 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Thanks for the extensive commentary, Barnabas.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas Aus:
- Charitable support for members and their families is only raised through specific internal fundraising programs, never from the general public.
That's what I would assume it's like in most places. One thing...
You stated your comments were outlining "differences from operations in the UK and US as detailed above", but I don't think it was shown on this thread that the Masons in the US or the UK(or anywhere else, for that matter) solicit from the general public to fund private endeavours. So that wouldn't neccessarily be a difference.
[ 11. February 2018, 14:37: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Callan wrote:
quote:
On the other hand there is only one of those organisations which is a secret society and which excludes women.
Well, the C Of E obviously doesn't exclude women, but the Anglican Communion, which the C Of E implicitly endorses via being a member, does tolerate some pretty unequal treatment of women in regards to ordination and whatnot.
I'm sure some would argue that there is a difference between a general ban on female membership(as in the Masons) and a "mere" double-standard for who can and can't be ordained. But if we were talking about secular businesses(eg. one restaurant won't serve women; the other serves them, but won't allow them to become chefs), I don't think we'd see much datlight in terms of the offense against egalitarianism.
[ 11. February 2018, 14:48: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
The Brotherhood Of The Bell
Campy, made-for-TV conspiracy fun from the late 60s. Lots of overwrought close-ups and expressionistic camera angles.
If nothing else, William Conrad's race-baiting talk-show(starts at about 1:13:35) is a hoot.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
