Freemasonry's Prohibition On Atheism Still Ridiculous

Last night I read an article in which it was argued that Freemasons should continue their practice of unjustly refusing to admit atheists into their fraternity. In 'For No Atheist May Be Made a Freemason', by Bro. Joshua L. Rubin, the case is made for maintaining the ban. The author tries to update the case to give a more reasonable basis than is more often put forward.

You can read his argument here: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/atheism-freemasonry.html

And here is why he's wrong:

I think this paper certainly had some positive points and the intention of updating the position is to be commended. The recognition of the flaws in the main arguments against atheism in Freemasonry was a positive step forward for example. However, the author ultimately failed to make a good case for his final position. His argument was circular. I suggest that there is still no clear argument that stands up to scrutiny for maintaining the discrimination against atheists who would otherwise give every bit as much of themselves for the Freemasonry.

Briefly adding to his critique of the standard discriminatory and prejudicial arguments put forward in the Masons regarding atheism, I feel that it should also be pointed out that not only are those who apply reason capable of high morals, it has very frequently been the case that those with faith, motivated by faith, or acting in the name of faith, have shown themselves to behave appallingly towards their fellow man. Let us not sweep under the rug the violence and oppression perpetrated by religious groups of all sizes throughout history. Faith in a supreme being of any kind does not make you more likely to be more moral. The argument fails logically and empirically and should be dismissed by all. The argument gets worse when you consider the nature of a divine moral code. Whose code? Where does it come from? If it comes from scripture, which parts do you use? If it comes from past Masons, how did they derive it? No matter which way you slice it, you are left with the reality that morals are cherry picked. If that is the case, and it is by necessity, then there must be an independent source of morality external of that code in order to achieve said code. That means all theists have done is add a middleman, which is perfectly fine, but it doesn't improve their moral status.

It should also be noted that the question of moral soundness opens up Freemasonry to a charge of hypocrisy. If someone is motivated by the prospect of reward or punishment in the afterlife, they are not acting from a particularly virtuous position when they help their fellow man. By contrast, someone who does the same action but motivated by the conviction that it is right or just, without the coercion inherent in a belief a Deity, can reasonably be seen as more moral. Masonry, which is supposed to be about the relationship of man to man, and is supposed to promote brotherhood, instead casts out the man who is naturally good or has reasoned to virtue, in favour of the man who acts because he believes he has been told to or through divine fear. These virtuous men if given the chance could prove themselves to be every bit the Brother a theist might be. Why so cruelly abandon potential Brethren? It seems the policy in these terms is to the detriment of those good men and to Freemasonry.

I suspect part of the problem is the precarious nature of faith in the supernatural in the face of reason. Not one known human has to this date managed to present a sound argument for the existence of God, and there is no evidence that has ever been presented to support the hypothesis. These facts cause difficulty to those who decide to make faith the foundation of their conceived world. It means that when their faith is challenged, their world is challenged. This is probably why religious people tend to become violent more readily when their views are questioned. Someone who bases his views in science will not face those problems because it is a self-correcting mechanism. The base can be replaced without a house of cards collapsing. This typically means that theists will go to great lengths to minimise their contact with anything they may perceive as a threat. Hence the tendency to claim to be offended and shut down debate as soon as someone says something difficult. I fear that the Masons have done just this. To be clear, I am not suggesting that Freemasonry is inherently irrational, but because only theists are permitted, there is unlikely to be a body of thought within the fraternity that favours reason over belief. In other words, members, with their theist hats on, are engaging in self-preservation as theists, not preservation of the Craft as Masons. This is clearly a betrayal of their moral cause.

So far this has nothing at all to do with the interests of Freemasonry. What it boils down to is that theists don’t want atheists threatening their sense of certainty and so atheists are excluded because currently only theists have a say in the matter. Perhaps theists believe that if atheists engage in the same rituals it will undermine what they have come to believe is uniquely for them. This brings us to the history and ceremony side of the argument. In my Great Grandfather’s Masonic Bible – printed in 1947 - there is a section before the Old Testament which explains the history of the Masons and explains how it relates to religion and the Holy Bible. In that section it emphasises that freemasonry is not a religious practice. It says that theology is not to be included. It says that Masonic ideology was based on a collection of ideas in many different forms. Some of these were poems, some were parts of the Bible, some were other religious texts, and there were still further sources. The inclusion of Biblical materials was not to base Freemasonry in religion, but to use it as data as part of an argument that shows freemasonry as having a tradition that stretches back through Biblical times. Maintaining the use of religious forms is symbolic but latching on to them for their theological value is missing the point. From a historical perspective, the inclusion of religious elements in ritual is neither here nor there in terms of what freemasonry claims to be about. It is ritual, and ritual binds people together whether they take the symbols literally or symbolically. Also from a historical perspective, an increasing use of religious rhetoric and language could very easily be a product of the times. There was no choice but to be religious. If freemasonry wanted to exist in an environment that was essentially a theocracy then it would have to present itself as not being in competition with that norm. The author of the paper to which I am responding points out that the argument from history points to a fallacy of relevance, because it is clear that the world in the 21^st century is very different than it was in the 18^th century. What was appropriate and perhaps necessary then, is not appropriate and necessary now. In terms of history, there is no case for excluding atheists now that there is sufficient doubt over the relevance of past norms, especially when you add to that the destruction of the arguments about morality.

It looks far more likely than not, that religion, both in the context of protecting moral codes and in historical perspective, was secondary to the main purpose of freemasonry. The religious elements served to protect freemasonry in a time when the arguments presented were useful. However, it is fair to acknowledge that for much of its history those conditions did exist and have thus gone some way to influencing the nature of the language used in the Craft, not least in ritual. The author was fair to point that out and it is worth looking at. Unfortunately, here he seems to really fall down however. Several times he says that because of the nature of the ceremonies, atheists would probably feel uncomfortable taking part (why atheists shouldn’t be capable of deciding that for themselves I cannot tell), and that the language is not geared towards atheist thinking. The argument becomes Freemasonry shouldn’t admit atheists because freemasonry doesn’t admit atheists. That’s not a very strong argument. The justification would be broken simply by changing the norm. It’s circular. He does make a fair point when he essentially asks, “These are our rituals, why should we change them?” I agree that the rituals should be left largely as they are. Only minor changes would be needed, to the extent the prohibition on atheism is removed. Atheists could easily engage in the same rituals and use the same language. Even those who believe in some creator have no idea what it is. It could be anything. It thus might as well be nature. Perhaps the higher power is entropy. Since the religious elements are symbolic, it really doesn’t matter. The theists can import their theological ideas into it to suit their sensibilities, and the atheists can take it as allegorical or simply poetic. The meaning behind the lines is the important thing, and that is about the Brotherhood, not theology. The language is not prohibitive to atheists. The only thing in the way is the theist desire to maintain a theist monopoly.

A far better way would be to accept atheists and realise that they are not a threat to Freemasonry. One’s own personal relationship with their God or their lack of one should be kept out of meetings, just like politics should. Theists can borrow the ceremonial language to give extra meaning to their own theological ideas if they wish, but the meaning behind in terms of Freemasonry is applicable to all men. There is absolutely no need to exclude atheists in the 21^st century. Within the Craft, theists and atheists can all muck in together. Furthermore, as humans gain more knowledge, the space left for the supernatural decreases substantially. If freemasonry hopes to continue with its primary mission, while the numbers of self-identifying atheists, secularists and humanists increase, and not just be an organisation representing a minority in the future, then it will have to change. It might as well get a head start. I move that the United Grand Lodge of England re-examine this outdated philosophical mode, and put Freemasonry ahead of theism.

For the sake of openness, I should declare (if you hadn’t guessed) that I am not a Mason. My great grandfather was W.Bro. Chas Dobson, a Worshipful Master of the Coronation Lodge No. 2922. He was also a Knight Templar. I also know several other accomplished Masons. If the rules were changed to permit those like me, I would probably like to contribute to Masonry as I believe it is fundamentally a force for good in the world. 

U.S. ELECTIONS: My vote (by proxy) goes reluctantly to President Obama.

Well.. It is election time in the US! It has actually been surprisingly difficult to decide who I want to win. Both candidates are terrible. What it essentially comes down to is voting against socialism on the one hand or voting against authoritarianism based on a belief in magic on the other. Either way America gets screwed. I have decided that it may be in America's long term interest if Obama were to win a second term, but not because he's a good president; he's not. Obama has managed to grow the national debt from $9 trillion to $16 trillion, lose America's triple A credit rating, oversee a net loss of jobs over his presidency, tighten the links between D.C. and big corporations, increase protectionism, and expand detention without trial of US citizens. If he wins a second term, his socialism will continue to increase poverty (that's all socialism does) and economically damage the US. On the other hand, Mitt 'Magic Pants' Romney, stands for an increase in religious authoritarianism. The GOP promotes an unjustifiable disaster of a social policy full of irrational faith inspired prejudice. Their desire to restrict abortion alone will drive up the crime rates. Their faith based opposition to stem cell research and other science is terrible. A downward slide into their primitive morality could bring long term chaos. In addition to this, Romney too is a corporatist, he will likely spend lots of money and do little to shrink the debt. My hope therefore is that losing to a president as obviously economically destructive as Obama will make the GOP start to wake up and realise if they want to win and make America strong they will need to reverse the Christian Coalition's entryism and start taking libertarianism more seriously. Although I can imagine different scenarios (especially linked to Iran), hopefully a second term from Obama will make the GOP realise the cost of their desire for theocracy, and make the public once again realise the consistently destructive power of socialism. Another four years of Obama increasing the slavery of welfare and debt may be a difficult pill to swallow, but if it can change the political landscape for 2016, it might just be worth it. Either way, it's not likely to be a happy four years for the United States of America. 

Ah Easter...

Easter is here again. A day to remember the lesson taught to us by the Romans; that martyring nutters in the Middle East tends not to work out for the best. Let's hope the Americans did a better job avoiding that with Bin Laden than the Romans did with that lunatic Jesus... Then again in another 2000 years they might start making little chocolate bombs strapped to bunnies, and after all, that's what it's really about.

Christopher Hitchens - A Call to Arms

I did not know Christopher Hitchens personally, much to my eternal disappointment, but he shall always remain a personal hero. He was one of our species' greatest friends. Inspiring millions, he was one of the big guns in the fight for rationality and intellectual honesty. By now there will be hundreds of websites online telling you all about the specific great work he did, so I won't drift too far down that road; just do a Google search. What I will say is how important his place in the world was and what we should do next.

Hitchens, along with people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and James Randi (there are of course others – I personally like Tim Minchin!) represent the line in the sand in the battle for reason. For the majority of human history, we have been slaves to the superstitions of others (even of our own) and this has caused suffering on an unbelievable scale. Not only has it led to countless wars and persecutions, the slaughter of innocents, the murder and abuse of women and children, and the theft of property, it has dramatically held back the advancement of knowledge and learning. You don’t even have to look to history for the evidence; the modern day Middle East will serve just as well. Whilst we in the UK have come a long way in comparison to the intellectual, cultural, and technological stagnation of faith based societies, they are not alone in their ambition to drag the rest of the world back to their level.  The United States of America, the most powerful nation in the world, is dominated by superstition and its politicians (like Rick Perry) compete to out-God each other, in an attempt to win over the dangerously irrational majority of voters. Given half a chance, these increasingly fundamentalist characters would waste no time in embarking on an agenda of intellectual regression, much like that of the Middle East. Americans are lucky though, because they have been given protection from their beliefs, by the foresight of the secularist Founding Fathers. The United States, whilst dangerously faith dominated in many ways, is actually not faith based, but derives from the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment was one of humanity’s finer moments in history. It marks the fight back of reason over superstition. This was when the species finally began to wake up. Hard fought intellectual battles took place against religion, but it is still ongoing even today. The simple fact of the matter is that it has taken a high degree of effort on the part of individuals to stand up for the truth and rationality, and every time there is a relaxing of that effort, the enemies of reason take ground (Hitchens was one of these people, and I aspire to eventually be one too). There are more people than ever before, now willing to stand up and admit they do not believe in God and/or do not follow any religion, but far too many of them also say that it is not for us to tell other people what they should or should not think. This is a view that is fundamentally flawed, because by not doing so, they contribute to the potential loss of the freedom to hold and express that view. It is those who do fight faith that have won the degree of freedom we currently have. Those who claim to be an atheist because they have arrived at that conclusion through reason, but who then say those like Hitchens or Dawkins are wrong to push it so forcefully, are like the conscientious objectors to a war who are more than happy to languish in the freedoms and protections that others have worked for, fought for and died for. But make no mistake, without that effort, we would face persecution for free thought, science would halt, women would be enslaved, and children would be abused physically and mentally on a far larger scale.

Christopher Hitchens’ passing then should not result in a day of tweets and then business as usual. A huge gap has been left in rational society, and our task now is to fill it. It is our duty to plug and reinforce humanity’s defences. Rather than simply say how sad it is that we have lost a great man, we need to collectively pick up the flag of reason and charge en masse. What could be a more fitting tribute than to collectively continue his work? We now need a mass movement, to step out from the virtual world and with one voice, ‘Hitch Slap’ every irrational, superstitious, faith-monger in a position of responsibility, be they priests, imams, politicians, or popular personalities. It is up to us to instigate the next Enlightenment, and Christopher Hitchens has showed us the way. This is a call to arms.

The disgustingly selfish public sector strikes of Nov 30

Today's strikes are an exercise in selfishness. Ironically typical of the left to hypocritically put their own material gain ahead of the group. The economy was crippled by debt (exposed through bad banking practice, propped up by social democrats) thanks to the kind of people now trying to bring it to its knees because they want someone else (lower paid private sector workers) to pay for it. Those supporting strike action (which will hurt the poorest the most) should be ashamed of themselves.

On the public sector pension deal put to workers by the coalition government, Ros Altmann, director general of Saga, twice recipient of the Pensions Personality of the Year Award and a governor and non-executive director of the London School of Economics said, "This is a fantastic deal for public sector workers but it is a worse deal for the taxpayer." She finds it astonishing that some public sector workers would considering rejecting the government's offer.

Union barons might talk about the treasury robbing the pension pots of civil servants, but where did the money come from in the first place? Tax payers including those in the private sector who on average are less well paid and have lower pensions are forced to prop up a vast public sector, not designed to give those tax payers quality services with good value for money, but as a charity for union members. Despite the fact that the private sector generates the wealth that fuels increases in living standards, the unions want to have as many people as possible employed in a public sector which rather than generating wealth, squanders it instead. The rich oligarchs which run the unions do so like a church, spreading lies and fear in order to swell their ill-informed congregations so the leaders can get rich in the process (usually to the detriment of their members). If you are unsure what the pay packets of union leaders are like take a look at this TPA report.  


To make matters worse, these strikes have been voted for by a small minority of public sector workers, giving them no legitimacy whatsoever; more people are drawing on their pensions than are paying into them; and public sector workers are drawing far higher pensions than they contribute, with tax payers having to make up the rest whilst cutting back themselves.

With the public sector being so massively inefficient and full of jobs that don't need doing, the government should take this opportunity to eliminate waste. How hard will the country be hit by the not showing up to work of a "walking co-ordinator", "roller disco coach", "bouncy castle attendant", "cheer-leading development officer", "future shape programme manager" and "Nuclear Free Local Authorities policy officer" or even the hundreds of diversity officers?

"There is a lot of waste," says, Neil O'Brien, director of the Policy Exchange think tank. "But most of that is not in overtly weird jobs but massive increases in pay and staff numbers. The median hourly salary is now 30% higher in the public sector than the private sector."

The public sector workers who are walking out on strike today should count themselves lucky that they have been allowed to get away with this situation for so long and they should come to the realisation that it is going to have to stop. They are not victims, they are the problem, and whilst there are many within the public sector providing vital services that we as a society rely on (albeit with massive inefficiency and waste) they have to cut back and live within their means to the same extent as everyone else.

A lesson in tolerance from the SOAS Student Union

Apparently the racism isn't getting any better - especially not with those evil Tories and their racist policies, so says the SOAS Student Union - so SOAS [whose student union is well known for its promotion of Jew hatred, and support for racist/murderous/homophobic/misogynistic outfits across the Middle East] is going to make a stand by promoting a festival to celebrate the inability (or unwillingness) of some, to reason.

You can be forgiven for thinking that could have been the problem in the first place, but it turns out the real solution is to get all the deluded people together to put aside their minor differences like, "My God is the one God and you, heathen, are going to burn in hell forever", so they can all celebrate the things they have in common; like irrationality, dogma, subjugation of women, hatred of homosexuals, suspicion of personal freedoms, and the never ending quest to keep mankind intellectually locked in the dark ages. To achieve this unified display of 'tolerance' events will be held to promote the fabrications of those who roll with God, whilst excluding of course those who opt for thinking over faith.

In the 2001 census 76.8% of respondents put themselves down as having a religion; a number which is about as reliable as the Pope in charge of a play group. The EU funded European Social Survey, 2009, found only 12% of British people belong to a church. A combination of probably more accurate surveys have found the number of religious to be around 50% in the UK.

So what could be a greater show of unified tolerance than excluding the views of half the population? Oh yeah, having the most intolerant people on the planet do it. Still, as long as we get to hear the UCLU Ahlul-Bayt Islamic Society's opinion on the London riots, that's all that matters really.

'Occupy Wall Street' mentality is the problem with Wall Street

The US political system is massively corrupt and the banks and corporations have far too much power. The problem is that they create monopolies which disrupt the free market. The members of the super committee responsible for oversight of deficit reduction have received more than $41million from the financial sector during their time in Congress and of their aides, at least 27 have been financial services lobbyists. The corporations and their political slaves, including Obama (who in '08 took more money from hedge-fund and bank employees than any other group) deserve to face a revolt. But it is the left in America that supports the "monopolistic capitalism" of Wall Street, propping up failing institutions with hand outs, endless faux-Keynesian contracts, or giving "$3.3 trillion in bailout money to overseas corporations without asking what the cash was for." If the free market was actually allowed to be a free market, then bailouts wouldn't be needed and irresponsibility wouldn't be rewarded. Left wing meddling props the whole system up.

These protesters aren't interested in sound policy; they are the same kind of hypocrites that rioted here over tuition fees. They are summed up well by the photograph of the woman posing next to her "corporate freeloaders" sign for a photo on a flashy new iPad. "Never trust the political rhetoric of young white hippies: it is undermined by their fabulous wealth and their complete detachment from reality. They travel the world from riot to riot – a cause on every continent, a ring in every orifice. They might have the diet of a North African peasant, but these spoiled brats are professional agitators financed by a generous trust fund." (Tim Stanley, Telegraph, 3rd Oct 2011)

The problem wasn't too little regulation; it was the propping up of a corrupt corporate and political system. But what these protesters want is yet more meddling and more splashing of cash. Capitalism works best when it's allowed to get on with it.