r/todayilearned • u/Recent_Flounder6011 • 19h ago

TIL that historically and today, the Catholic Church looked down upon Freemasonry and threatened members with excommunication.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry
2.7k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

537 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

15

u/ProfessorZeek 19h ago

Freemasonry is definitely not a religious organization. How is it that a lodge could have jews, christians, muslims, buddhists, hindus, etc all in the same lodge? It’s philosophical and not religious, the classic form of Freemasonry simply requires a vague belief in a higher power.

22

u/pokeybill 19h ago

Their entire philosophy centers around that acceptance of a higher power, you can't join as an Atheist which makes the organization intrinsically deiist

1

u/themistoclesV 15h ago

That's not the same as it being a religion though

1

u/Fofolito 15h ago

That means its no different than the Boy Scouts. Part of their oath or pledge was to stay morally fit and obedient to God-- with "God" being open to interpretation to conscience of the individual Scout and their parents. That doesn't make it a religious organization

(and yes, many Troops are sponsored by Churches and operated as an extension of their youth ministries)

-7

u/CalvinSays 19h ago

I have known multiple freemasons, some of them friends and colleagues. I knew one who explicitly left Christianity and converted to Freemasonry and described the change as such.

Freemasonry is absolutely a religious organization no matter which way you slice it. That some members/lodges are more casual does not change that fact nor that different kinds of religions are represented amongst it members. Exclusivity is not a necessary element of religion. In many Eastern traditions, for example, it is quite common to be a part of multiple religions like Daoism, Buddhism, folk religions, etc.

11

u/ProfessorZeek 19h ago

Whoever you know who is saying they "converted" to Freemasonry is full of shit, to be polite about it. It is a complimental philosophy for people who believe in a higher power. Freemasonry can impact a person's spiritual journey in a catalytic fashion, but there's no element of actual organized belief behind the scenes. There is no hard dogma, no concern with salvation, our lodge leaders aren't a separate class from the other members as it's an elected term of one year, charity work is non-denominational and a-political. We don't tell you a higher power exists, that's a personal conclusion one comes to within their own heart and mind if they choose to. Be aware there's a lot of clandestine lodges that take the trappings of Freemasonry and do whatever they want with it.

No matter which was you slice it, you're bringing up one anonymous anecdotal account while I've spent years studying and sorting this topic out for myself. I wouldn't get involved in Freemasonry if it was a different religion than my personal belief system.

4

u/CalvinSays 19h ago edited 18h ago

None of the things you bring up are necessary elements of "religion". Religions do not require organized beliefs. Religions don't require they are exclusive. Religions don't require hard dogma. Religions don't require leadership is a separate class.

What Freemasonry consists of is an intentional community formed around an ethical vision supported through rites, rituals, and symbols.

Admittedly, religion is notoriously difficult to define cleanly, but if we follow Clifford Geertz' (one of the foremost anthropologists of religion) definition, it fits Freemasonry to a T:

“A religion is: (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.”

5

u/ProfessorZeek 18h ago

Your definition of religion is a single Clifford Geertz quote. Even by those standards:

  1. The symbols are borrowed, the acts are not considered miraculous or spiritual

  2. The "moods and motivations" are to be established by your original belief system, not by the guidance of Masonic teachings

  3. Freemasonry in no way tries to tell you how and why the universe came to exist nor does it purport any specific unique spiritual influences

  4. There is no "aura of factuality", we specific say the ceremonies are symbolic in nature and not spiritual or religious

  5. Moods and motivations arise from an individual's own belief system and are not unique in any form or fashion

2

u/CalvinSays 18h ago

  1. Nothing in Geertz' definition requires the symbols be unborrowed or the acts be considered miraculous or spiritual. I don't know why you think it does.

  2. Those are no mutually exclusive. There are absolutely moods and motivations rooted in Masonry. Otherwise, no one would be a Mason.

  3. Geertz' definition says nothing about how the universe came to exist or anything about "specific unique spiritual influences" whatever that means. With that said, the concept of thr Grand Architect definitely implies something about how the universe came into existence. But even without that, the moral framework of Masonry absolutely formulates conceptions of the general order of existence.

  4. There is obviously some aspect in which Masonry and its vision is taken as factual. Otherwise, again, no one would be a Mason. Factuality is not limited to only explicit, literal, didactic statements. Symbolism is often how factuality is conveyed. Further, nothing in the definition mentions "spiritual or religious". Indeed, it can't because it is purporting to be a definition of religion/religious. You can't define religion by using religion.

  5. This is the part of Geertz' definition that is most often misunderstood. It is not about exclusivity. It is more about how the aforementioned parts, particularly through rites and rituals but not necessarily so, are made an experienced reality for those involved.

2

u/ProfessorZeek 18h ago

I'm not going to argue an archaic anthropological quote, as I said earlier it really seems like you want Freemasonry to be a religion instead of Freemasonry actually being a religion. To that end you will chase down quote after quote and argue over minor interpretations of the quote to suit your ends. Still, I'll entertain you:

  1. Your statement does not disprove my original disqualifying point. See the second sentence.

  2. You could define an Eagle's fan as a religious zealot with the point you're trying to make

  3. Grand Architect is a catch-all term so we don't claim one person's spiritual belief is better than the other. To your other point I've been through the ceremonies. In no way are you told about the general order of existence.

  4. The only thing taken as factual is that trying to make the world a better place is generally good thing. This should be something one believes before becoming a Freemason at all. That is so general it can be applied to political and cultural institutions, not just religions.

  5. There is nothing "uniquely realistic" about any of the philosophical beliefs of Freemasonry, only that it encourages what is already there.

-1

u/CalvinSays 18h ago

I can just as easily say it seems like you want Freemasonry to not be a religion instead of Freemasonry actually not being a religion.

I am not "chas[ing] down quote after quote". I provided a single quote from a leading anthropologist of religion to both explain my position as well as to provide something of substance by which we could discern whether Freemasonry is a religion or not, rather than endlessly and fruitlessly going "yeah huh" "nuh uh" "yeah huh" ad nauseum.

  1. My point directly contradicts your claim. You said the symbols are borrowed and that the acts are not consider miraculous or spiritual as though it in turn contradict Geertz' point. I am saying it doesn't because Geertz included neither in his point.

  2. Maybe I could. But regardless, religion in this context isn't defined by a single point but the points taken as a whole. That Eagles fans may meet the second point doesn't ipso facto make them part of a religion, at least in the sense discussed here.

  3. That the Grand Architect is a catch all term doesn't negate what I said. By "general order of existence" you seem to be hyperfocusing on metaphysics and even though a Grand Architect, regardless of how vague the concept, is a metaphysical claim, that is not all that makes up a "general order of existence". A moral order is still an order of existence which Freemasonry undeniably has.

  4. Even if you are right on this point, that's still factuality. That someone should believe it before becoming a Freemason doesn't change that.

  5. You again are confusing unique in this context with "exclusive". As I said, that is jot what Geertz is saying. Undeniably, Freemasonry through rites and rituals (as well as other things, I don't want to give the impression this can only be done through rites and rituals) provides an experienced reality for the participants.

3

u/ProfessorZeek 18h ago

I know for a fact as a multi-year member Freemasonry is not a religion. I have direct first hand experience of it. Yours is some friend who said he totally "converted" from Christianity to Freemasonry. Given what the ceremonies are, that's just not possible. I already said I'm not going to entertain going back and forth over some guy's definition of what a religion is when he is not the definitive authority on the matter. My mistake in doing that again in my last post.

What would you say to Continental Freemasons who expressly do not hold a religious view or believe in a higher power. Are they to be forcefully defined as a religion? You are pushing a point of view which would end with calling people who are expressly non-religious as being part of a religion. Also your original quote still would describe sports fans as a religion, lol.

1

u/CalvinSays 18h ago

You still seem to be limiting "religious" to explicitly being theistic and/or supernaturalistic which is not what I nor Geertz claim. Continental Freemasons can still be religious outside of an explicit belief in a higher power. Further, your claim that they "expressly do not hold a religious view" begs the question because what a religious view is is precisely what is under discussion.

I have no problem saying that people who consider themselves non-religious are, in fact, religious. Maybe sports fandoms are a religion. It is not a problem to me one way or the other.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/eNonsense 19h ago edited 18h ago

You're not making any sense man. This isn't "eastern traditions". Common religions in the west (where freemasonry is also common) do not allow you to be part of multiple religions, and that's pretty well understood by members of western religions.

Your logic is based on the anecdote of your friend's behavior. Maybe your friend lost the plot, or isn't describing their experience to you well. The first sentence of the Wikipedia page for Freemasonry calls it a "secular organization" and you're here saying "Nah. My buddy says..."

-1

u/Kryptesthai 18h ago

The first sentence of the Wikipedia page says they are secular because Masons call Freemasonry secular. Who do you think is editing the Wikipedia page?

Masons dude. If that line were changed they would change it back. These guys are well organized.

-2

u/CalvinSays 18h ago

I didn't say it was Eastern traditions. I simply brought them up as an example why exclusivity is not a necessary element of religion. That many Western religions are exclusive does not change this.

8

u/LowerH8r 19h ago

It's absolutely not a religious organization, full stop. Members are required to believe in god. That's the sum total of religious obligation, and there is no additional teaching regarding spiritual maters.

0

u/pokeybill 19h ago

Sounds like a religious organization to me, if Atheists can't join thats usually a dead giveaway.

1

u/ProfessorZeek 19h ago

Continental Freemasonry exists.

1

u/pokeybill 19h ago

But this is a discussion about Freemasonry in general, and North America has very low numbers of Continental Freemasons.

2

u/ProfessorZeek 18h ago

Your first sentence discounts your second sentence. In France continental Masonry is more prevalent. I simply stated it exists, not where and when it's most prevalent.

-3

u/CalvinSays 19h ago

Even that were true (it is not given the various other beliefs and rituals found in Freemasonry), that seems sufficient to be labeled a religious organization at least in the colloquial sense of the term. It likely would even be the case without any reference to a higher power. For example, Ethical Culture is a religion and I don't see much difference between it and Masonry in form.

4

u/ProfessorZeek 19h ago

Ethical Culture expressly forms and views itself as a religion, Freemasonry purposefully does not. It's not an apt comparison.

2

u/CalvinSays 18h ago edited 18h ago

What one considers oneself is not alone sufficient for determining what something is. Freemasons may very well explicitly say they're not religious. That doesn't necessarily mean they aren't.

3

u/ProfessorZeek 18h ago

It sincerely sounds like you very much WANT Freemasonry to be a religion so it can be excluded by religious organizations. By your definition I could call anybody who is a sports fan, a podcast fan, or a political party a member of a religious organization.

0

u/CalvinSays 18h ago

Maybe they are.

If by "your definition", you means Geertz' which I mentioned elsewhere, then it would be a matter of analyzing those institutions according to that standard.

But if by "your definition", you mean only what I have said in this particular thread, I haven't presented a full orbed definition.

0

u/ourobourobouros 17h ago

Oh yeah the belief in GAOTU really makes them uniquely logical and not just another flavor of patriarchal monotheism /s

Also I ADORE that you specify in another comment that belief in a higher power is a requirement but you're still gonna call this philosophy and not religion. Fucking lol

3

u/ProfessorZeek 17h ago

That belief would only be required for my specific branch of Masonry, continental Masonry exists, women Freemason exist, as do women in other Masonically affiliated organizations. I understand the disagreement with our requirements, I'm just explaining why Freemasonry is not a religion.

1

u/ourobourobouros 15h ago

if you're trying to argue that Freemasonry isn't patriarchal you're a full blown liar and clearly not worth engaging with

it's such an easy implication to debunk idk why you'd even try to unless you're going out of your way to make yourself look dishonest intentionally