Write To:
THE EDITOR, FREEMASONRY TODAY, FREEMASONS’ HALL, GREAT QUEEN STREET, LONDON WC2B 5AZ

THE SUPREME BEING

Sir,
     One of the characteristics a mason should have is that of being a man of honour. This is made explicit in the First Degree Charge and a major point for me of the secrets is that of the keeping of them, for trivial though they be they provide a mason with a private test of honour. A part of anyone’s code of honour must surely be a respect for truth. What is the point of Mr. Smith seeking membership of an outfit that prizes honour and virtue by telling a lie to get in (Freemasonry Today, Issue 41)?
     What’s the point? And how can he claim to live by masonic tenets being a self-proclaimed liar? And if you keep the ritual whilst believing its foundation to be false, do you not condemn the unsuspecting candidate to a whole evening of falsehood and lies?
     For me, the principle benefit of being a Freemason is to be with people, some of whom, like me, are attracted by the unitarian view that the underlying existence of a Supreme Being transcends the local colour provided by the various sects and one is born into Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and others only by accident.
     There may, of course, be merit in a male-only secular dining club that does charity and all that; and such outfits do exist (although many lack a thespian dimension). Indeed, is not the Grand Orient just such an Order? Why doesn’t Mr. Smith join one of them? One joins an organisation on its own terms, presumably knowing what it stands for. If one subsequently finds that one has made a mistake, one should resign.
     Tony Ayres,
     Winchester, Hampshire.

Sir,
     The recent letters in your columns on the subject of a belief in a Supreme Being as a primary requirement for membership of the Craft, and the unequivocal statement to that effect in the Book of Constitutions raises a number of profound questions relating to the future of Freemasonry.
     To take an oath on a sacred volume is a time-honoured method of ensuring, so far as one can, that a person intends to keep his word, but it is dependant upon the teaching and acceptance of a faith by the individual, most specifically in this case, the Christian religion, as it relates to the Holy Bible. For the sake of being all-embracing, Freemasonry accepts other religious doctrines but the same basic principle applied.
     In a society where children, some 40 percent of whom are born out of wedlock, are taught no explicit religion, it becomes increasingly difficult to focus upon one specific in their lives which can take the place of the honour and integrity of one’s word given on the Holy Bible and this is an issue to which the masonic high and mighty might profitably devote some attention, for if they fail, it will come back to haunt them.
     Peter J. Curtis (Capt. RE. rtd.),
     Colchester, Essex.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Sir,
     Am I the only one to have been dismayed by the realisation that, despite the presence of both our own Grand Master and the Grand Master of Mark Master Masons of England (in their Royal capacities), the Craft was not represented at one of the most important events in the British Calendar; I am referring to the Parade and March-by at the Cenotaph to mark Remembrance Day.
     As an organisation that boasts as its headquarters one of the largest memorials to the Fallen of the First War and is fighting to regain its original standing in the ‘public eye’ I would have thought that the Grand Secretary, Board of General Purposes and our own ‘External Relations’ people would have been knocking down the doors of the Royal British Legion for involvement. Even Rotary International and the Round Table managed to have contingents there and by doing so got mentioned (and seen) on the BBC’s coverage.
     At present we seem to rely on ‘local’ lodges making the effort in a ‘local’ way, why are we not doing so on a ‘national’ level? Can we expect a request for volunteers to attend next year?
     Mike Martin,
     Mersey Lodge, No. 5434,
     London.

MQ AND FREEMASONRY TODAY

Sir,
     I could never understand why Grand Lodge produced MQ when Freemasonry Today was already established. There are already too many lifestyle magazines being published by many different companies and organisations so whereas I have always enjoyed articles in Freemasonry Today when it comes to MQ I only read the items specifically relating to masonic business. I therefore welcome the merger provided that the format is essentially that of Freemasonry Today with the addition of Grand Lodge business.
     W.J. Whittall,
     Hampton-in-Arden, Solihull.

Sir,
     Thank you very much for Symbols and Mysteries (Freemasonry Today: The Best of Ten Years). Your anthology will become a reference book for the next decades among all masonic scholars on the Continent and in the United States. I do hope that the new Freemasonry Today will plan an international conference in London with the same pattern as that organised by our Scottish brothers.
     Pierre Besses
     (Professor of Anglo-Saxon Studies)
     University of Toulouse Mirail, France.

Sir,
     Over the years I have enjoyed reading every issue of Freemasonry Today which I have received. I hope that the high standard will not be lost in this merger and that the many varied articles of interest, amusement and instruction will be included in the new magazine, whatever its name may be.
     S.H. Binns,
     Bradley, Nr. Skipton.

Sir,
     I am concerned that it should be thought a source of pleasure that the “Independent Voice of Freemasonry” is about to be lost. While, as a Grand Officer in the Craft and the Royal Arch, I may be considered as part of the masonic establishment, I have nonetheless greatly valued the independence as well as the quality of Freemasonry Today, an important factor that, with no disrespect to Grand Lodge generally and MQ in particular, will be missing.
     Why has this come about? If the reason is financial, I’m sure most, if not all, of the readership would have been pleased to respond to any plea for help had we been asked. If it is one of overlapping, surely the overlap doesn’t extend to the point of virtual duplication? Whatever the reasons, why is there silence about them?
     I feel very sad about this and I do hope at least that an explanation will be given to Freemasonry Today subscribers.
     Malcom C. Leaf,
     Ruislip, Middlesex.

Sir,
     I have subscribed for some years now to Freemasonry Today and have always enjoyed its informative and independent coverage of matters masonic.
     It was with deep sadness indeed that I read that from January 2008 Freemasonry Today is to merge with United Grand Lodge of England’s ‘In- Flight’ magazine, MQ. As has been said by the Pro Grand Master, Lord Northampton, Freemasonry Today will become ‘UGLE’s House Magazine.’ It will ipso facto lose its independent stance and toe the party line from Great Queen Street, especially in any matter of controversy.
     Not being a UGLE Freemason I am really not that interested in reading that it has sanctioned that its Brethren can wear a new and probably hideous tie to Craft Lodge meetings, to say nothing of accounts of Ladies Nights or ‘masonic’ clay pigeon shoots.
     I have enjoyed reading Freemasonry Today over the years and regret this change.
     Stephen J. Foley (Co-Mason),
     Reading.

Sir,
     My thoughts are that a merging is a pity because I have always felt that Freemasonry Today was truly independent.
     This is not being disrespectful of Grand Lodge but because I believe it to be healthy to encourage debate. Certainly some letters in Freemasonry Today have expressed views which, in my opinion, may not have been viewed with favour by the ‘Establishment.’ I would prefer that Freemasonry Today remained independent and therefore completely free to publish new ideas or doubts expressed by members about the official policy.
     Is there not a danger that by merging with MQ, laudable as that magazine is, the new magazine will be a vehicle for those who wish to keep all power in our London Headquarters and may not publish the opinions of those who may have other views.
     C.N. Burkett,
     Hereford.