Religious Tolerance in Freemasonry

Sir,
    I refer to your comments concerning diversity and religious tolerance. I thought readers might be interested in our experiences in a particular lodge. I am a founder member and, until recently, secretary of St. Luke in Essex Lodge No. 8714. The members of this Lodge are drawn from the medical and dental professions. We have members from wide cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds. On our pedestal we have six Volumes of Sacred Law. They are (in no particular order):
    The Hindu Gita,
    The Jewish Torah,
    The Sikh Guru Granth Sahib,
    The Christian Bible,
    The Buddhist sayings of the Buddha,
    The Muslim Quran.
    It is our custom to only open one at any one time. That is, no opened volume is placed on top of another.
    The Volume of Sacred Law to be opened is either in rotation or that appropriate to the brother who is taking an obligation. All the Volumes of Sacred Law are in their original language except the Bible which is the St James version.
    We have members of all these faiths and think that this is a visible and tangible example of the spirit of religious tolerance exemplified by Freemasonry and which the present troubled world is so in need of today.
    Donald Woodgate, St. Luke in Essex Lodge, No. 8714 King’s Lynn.

Obscure, or Meaningful?

Sir,
    Having only recently subscribed to Freemasonry Today, I would like to congratulate you on the excellent content and quality of the articles. I rarely read a magazine from cover to cover, but Freemasonry Today is an exception. I must say that I was rather puzzled by Bro. Riley’s comments in the last edition, concerning his fears that the magazine might become "a vehicle for strange and obscure writings which really are of value mainly to historians but of little value to the young mason" ("Hope for the Future", p.53).
    I am not sure which articles Bro. Riley sees as "strange and obscure" as he does not say. I can only say that in my opinion, all the articles I have read so far have been of value and interest to myself (a relatively young mason of forty-nine).
    If by "strange and obscure" Bro. Riley really means "deep and meaningful" then I think this is to be applauded as it gives the "young mason" a good grounding in the esoteric philosophies which underpin masonic ritual as well as acting as a valuable revision tool for the more mature adept.
    Concerning the subject matter of the book reviews, again, I am baffled how any brother involved in masonic research can dismiss the subject matter with an "ugh", as in his case. Admittedly, I have only read the last two issues, but if they are representative of the reviews in the previous issues then I would have thought that any researcher would have welcomed the opportunity to read critical appraisals of highly relevant books by leading academics in the field.
    Graham Ollerenshaw Cheadle Lodge, No. 3731 Stockport

Masonic Rank

Sir,
    As a member of a County Constabulary for thirty-two years, prior to my retirement, I was fortunate enough to attain "senior" rank. Unfortunately, in too many cases, the pursuit and acquisition of rank was clearly morally corrupting, encouraging sycophants and producing bullies. Of course, in the Police Service, rank is necessary for the purposes of administration, discipline and operational efficiency, and any deficiencies are accepted as part of the system.
    But why do we need rank in Freemasonry? Who introduced it into our system and for what purpose? According to our ritual "the level teaches equality"; so why did we depart from that precept and set one Brother above another, graded by rank? We have even adopted the military custom of saluting senior ranks even though we cannot hide behind the excuse that it is the Queen’s Commission which is being so honoured and not the individual holding it.
    How many brethren can honestly say that they haven’t witnessed the jealousy, back-biting, petty squabbling and open dissatisfaction with their "recognition" exhibited by some brethren when the year’s honours are published?
    I do not suggest for one moment that we should abolish our rank structure, but has it got out of hand?
    Freemasonry has never been about self-aggrandisement or pompous posturing. In so many ways our rituals point us in the right direction but, although we listen to them so often, do we really get the message? As Julian Rees so eloquently put it, "There is still work to be done on our own rough ashlars", but how many of us ever pause to consider that our imperfections can, and should, be improved. Humility in each…or does rank really get in the way?
    Congratulations to Julian Rees (and the Grand Secretary) for directing attention to this subject.
    Neville J. C. Smith, Emergency Services Lodge, No. 9676, Birchington, East Kent.

Sir,
    Although I consider myself a junior mason, being a member for just over five years, I was recently honoured to be installed in the chair of King Solomon in my Mother Lodge. Bearing my inexperience in mind, I have to say that I completely agree with Julian Rees’ recent column regarding masonic rank.
    I have been extremely careful when proposing anyone as a candidate of our lodge, thus far considering only one of my close friends worthy of my confidence.
    However, I find it increasingly difficult, during our numerous private question and answer periods to reconcile the principles of Freemasonry with the plethora of masonic ranks awarded, and indeed, with the change in attitude of some brethren immediately after these awards have been made.
    I should point out that I have no problem with brethren attaining distinction as a result of outstanding work in operational and charitable matters. I should also mention that in my own lodge, our Director of Ceremonies and Preceptor at the Lodge of Instruction, is an outstanding Freemason whose honours are justified by his unquenchable thirst to serve the lodge and his desire to encourage junior brethren within it.
    I recently commented to masonic friends that I would prefer not to be considered for masonic distinction since I would rather direct my energies to a broadening of my knowledge in additional Degrees and Orders. My opinion was greeted with a mixture of bewilderment and horror.
    I was recently honoured, whilst visiting another lodge, by the company of a Provincial Grand Officer who refuses to sit at the "top" table, would much prefer that he is not saluted during the risings.
    Some time ago, I attended a most memorable festive board where the tables were arranged in a circular pattern, and there was, therefore, no "top" table. I confess that this departure from the norm was due to some confusion with the hotel proprietors rather than by design but nonetheless, the evening was, for me, more enjoyable as a result as I felt truly connected with the other brethren present, regardless of rank.
    My point is that the fact of being a mason should be its own reward; or is Freemasonry really a society of men who prize the internal advantages of rank and fortune above honour and virtue? My comments are not directed at those worthy masons who have been so distinguished, but rather to question whether such distinction is really necessary and perhaps as likely to drive us apart as to bring us together.
    Jerry Livings, London.

Rank; Better Than No System At All

Sir,
    It seems to be increasingly fashionable to denigrate the hierarchical system of Freemasonry. Julian Rees, whose articles are always thought provoking, is at it in the last issue. This time I believe he is wrong. While the politically correct appeal of egalitarianism is always strong, I believe that the hierarchical structure of Freemasonry is not only desirable, but also an intrinsic and essential feature of its appeal.
    Let the denigrators answer these questions: where, in the popular and uninstructed world, where elitism is a rude word and egalitarianism is preached from the rooftops, is there a more truly egalitarian society than Freemasonry? If there were no hierarchy, would there be the same inducement to make a daily advancement in masonic knowledge?
    The hierarchical system gives one something to aim for. It is an added dimension to one’s enjoyment of Freemasonry, and an additional inducement for knowledge. For those who don’t, it is no disgrace – we are still all brothers.
    As for the young, while acknowledging the supreme importance of attracting the right ones into Freemasonry, contrary to Julian Rees’ apparent views I submit that any young man who would be put off Freemasonry because of its hierarchical structure would probably not make a good Freemason. I have detected no resentment from young Freemasons to the hierarchical system; on the contrary, the more usual response is an enthusiastic curiosity and a desire to learn more. There are certainly problems in attracting the young to Freemasonry today but its hierarchical structure is not an important one.
    The system may not be perfect but it is supremely better than no system at all.
    Peter Smith, Oadby, Leicester.

Defibrillators (Easy Use Of)

Sir,
    May I offer a different perspective on Automated External Defibrillators?
    In February I had the pleasure to present one of the Grand Charity AEDs to Humberside St John Ambulance. Over a cup of tea I said to a group of senior St John Officers that I had been surprised at the small size and heavy weight of the implement. "It looks very complicated too", said I.
    "Oh no", said one of my listeners, "the great virtue of these things is that they are idiot proof. In fact, you could use one of these".
    I was depressed. Ageing is a terrible thing. I have usually managed to hide the fact of a low IQ in the past for much longer than he had to make his assessment.
    Donald Davinson, Deputy Provincial Grand Master, Yorkshire, North & East Ridings.

Essex Police

Sir,
    The letter in the last issue from Tim Earl, of Guernsey, has prompted me to write on this matter. Even if I had not been a Freemason for the last twenty-eight years I would fully support the offer of four defibrillators being presented to the police. I am a retired nurse, having worked for over thirty years in cardiothoracic surgery and medicine and for whatever reasons stated against this offer of modern semi-automatic defibrillators (which I am sure are those being offered), the problem of training people to use them and the alleged danger that they can kill, are not two of them.
    Your correspondent states, "Defibrillators kill people to whom thay are applied if the symptoms are not correctly assessed". This could be correct if the heart irregularity was not reversible by defibrillation and a shock was given. However, these modern, semi-automatic machines have a built-in system (the ECG) which recognises the irregularity and will only shock when operated if it recognises the need to do so in order to revert the heart to normal rhythm.
    As for training people to use them, this entails explaining where to put the electrodes on the chest of the patient whose heart has stopped and switching the machine on. The machine will then tell the operator what to do as it has built-in verbal instructions.
    Personally, I would like to see a semi-automatic defibrillator available in all Masonic Halls and other public buildings – they can save a life. I feel that your correspondent should have been sure of his facts before accusing you of "looking for trouble where none exists" and I see no need for you to make any amends to the Essex Police.
    Charles A. Hubbard, MBE Socrates Lodge, No. 373, Huntingdon.