Re: The Arizona Incident
- From: Doug Freyburger <dfreybur@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:32:21 CST
Torence wrote:
The two Grand Masters attending were M. W. Bro. Martin E. Warren,
Grand Master of Masons from the Grand Lodge, F&AM of Arkansas, and M.
W. Lewis R. Brent, Grand Master of Masons from the Prince Hall Grand
Lodge of Arizona. They were conspicuously not seated at the same
table.
Letter of the law versus spirit of the law -
Arkansas does recognize Arizona F&AM so there is sense in sending a
deligate. Arkansas does not recognize any of the PHA jurisdictions so
the Arkansas GM was not supposed to sit in open lodge (GL in this case)
with a PHA representative. There was no technical legal reason to avoid
attending a social event with PHA members present. That might be the
letter of the law issue depending on the wording in the Arkansas rules.
A lot of jurisdictions have an "act like the locals" rule for foreign
visitations. Since Arizona recognizes PHA while in Arizona brothers
with that type of rule can sit together in tyled lodge even if they
could not in their own territory.
When the Grand Lodge opened in Due Form in the 3rd Degree on
Thursday morning the MW Lewis R. Brent from Prince Hall was present,
but the MW Martin E. Warren was conspicuously absent. He was not seen
in any of the subsequent tiled lodge meetings all day Friday or on
Saturday.
Not that it helps in this situation but I suspect MW Bro Warren of
Arkansas may have been following the letter of the law of his own
jurisdiction. Or at best he thought he was.
In this case, the gesture was a political one whereby some members
of the Arizona jurisdiction who have moved to Arizona from one of the
10 states that do not recognize Prince Hall have complained about
having to sit in a lodge with a Master Mason of a differing culture.
Whether the action was directed towards the Grand Master of Arkansas,
only R.W. Bro. Cunningbrook could attest.
Given the events in various jurisdictions in the last couple of years I
am not adverse to rubbing noses over racial bigotry in those GLs that
still do not recognize PHA. I'm very biased on this point - When I
petitioned two 50 year PHA Masons signed as character witnesses for me
because they couldn't sign as members of the lodge I was petitioning to.
Do we have any need for showmanship when the truth is self-evident?
Or is the time honored Landmark condition of the sacred ballot enough
to ensure that our Lodges reflect our hope that we be exclusively made
up of the type of man who will serve and adore God and whose zeal for
Masonry will outweigh any other temporal consideration?
Jurisdictions have limited ability to pressure each other. One way is
to pull recognition. Some of the southern US GLs did that for a while
when PHA recognition started and they were laughed at. Is it time that
the majority of GLs in the US pull recognition for the 10 hold outs? It
would be their turn to laugh perhaps. And so I see rubbing noses as a
form of social pressure that is no less likely to work.
Get them to waste their money to get their noses rubbed in their own
rules. It's nothing a vote in favor of recognition couldn't fix.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Arizona Incident
- From: Torence
- Re: The Arizona Incident
- References:
- The Arizona Incident
- From: Torence
- The Arizona Incident
- Prev by Date: The Arizona Incident
- Next by Date: Re: The Arizona Incident
- Previous by thread: The Arizona Incident
- Next by thread: Re: The Arizona Incident
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|