There must have been contributors to this magazine who were tempted to write on political or religious issues but were reluctant to do so. As Freemasons we have an intuitive understanding that these are places where we do not go. We are reticent on the broad plane because discussing contentious issues can spread discord. We are reticent in particular because, as Freemasons, we are explicitly warned to avoid these topics amongst ourselves. The historical reasons for this verbot are not hard to understand. In the early eighteenth century the perceived Jacobite menace had not entirely been put to flight. The Hanoverian monarchy and its attendant Protestant religion were not as secure as they seemed. In those days, abstaining from religious and political discussion was the means of uniting Freemasons in the one grand design where these things played no part. We are no longer so hung up on Hanoverians and Jacobites, but the injunction is still valid, still necessary.
    As regards war however the very nonpolitical stance of Freemasonry makes it possible for us to speak fairly and disinterestedly. And why, peculiarly as Freemasons, do we have a duty to speak? Because as a beacon for the cause of reason and sanity we should not remain silent concerning the deeper, wider malaise of the causes of war. It ought not to be a matter of indifference to us that, every few years, civilisation becomes convulsed by conflict. War may be the policy of states from time to time, but brotherhood and tolerance ought to be the policy of men, and as an international brotherhood, our ultimate aim ought to be a world where wars are no longer possible.
    When men start to wage war, a prelude to it is often the preparation of comprehensive medical and surgical facilities, and this happens on both sides. The paradox is that it happens in the midst of the deployment of state-of-the-art weaponry, the killing machines which are to justify these medical facilities. As fast as the two sides prepare to kill and maim, they prepare also the means to treat those wounded as a result. And having spent such time and effort preparing those means, the enterprise itself, achieving a life of its own, eventually becomes unstoppable. It is like a sort of macabre epic Greek tragedy, a play in which the number of acts has yet to be determined. It is a ritual chaos into which the world sinks every few years, and each time it happens, very little appears to have been learned from the previous act of the drama.
    Of course once all this has escalated to a certain point, it becomes of little importance, from the point of view of the victims, which side is right and which is wrong. The disabled, the wounded and the bereaved of either side, most of them innocent, will warrant our compassion once the conflict is over. Those in pain, sorrow and destitution will be equally deserving of our aid no matter which God they pray to. And the homeless will suffer, the innocent civilians will be as bewildered and distressed, irrespective of whether their ‘side’ was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.
    Unfortunately, some at home take part in this as well, on one channel watching fund-raising for Red Nose Day, funds used wherever need occurs, and on the other channel watching the tanks rumbling into battle to cause the destitution they are collecting money to alleviate. It’s instantaneous, and it’s spectator sport at its worst. Through this brutalism brought to television screens over the evening gin and tonic or whatever, moral instincts can be desensitized to the point of extinction.
    It will not do to say simply that one side or the other does this in the name of selfdefence, however true that may be. Nor will it do to say simply that this side or that was in the right. Any initiation of hostilities confesses a failure to achieve the objective by rational means. Voices enough can be heard on both sides insisting how necessary and inevitable it all is. Sometimes it seems that these are the only voices. It is as if by blind repetition of the mantra, those involved become mesmerised and unable to respond in the way they should, to respond with the calm, light voice of reason, that reason in whose protective cloak the Craft first came into existence.
    One of the banners visible on a recent peace march read ‘Be The Peace You Wish For’. It reminded me of the lines of John Whittier’s famous hymn

Let sense be dumb, let flesh retire;
Speak through the earthquake, wind and fire,
O still small voice of calm!

War comes about through the agency of those who lack peace in themselves. It’s time to listen, not to its clamorous sounds, but to the voices, small but insistent, urged on men by concord, peace, harmony and reason, the most potent forces – if they can be heard – for human good.

jrees@aol.com