Cartoons
This is the place for cartoons
If this means party politics, the answer is: none. In the lodges it is even expressly frowned upon to discuss current party politics. If, however, it means something like social policy or policy in principle, then we would point to our principles: liberty, equality, fraternity, tolerance and humanity. We know these are weighty words that require patience, and that in real life—even in the best case—they can only ever be approximated and, to make matters worse, often also lead to contradictions. But responsible politics finds the right balance in dealing with this in the interests of all those affected. Politically active Freemasons, or brethren in leadership positions, have the unspoken mandate to orient themselves by these principles.
Strictly speaking, you would have to put this question to the Catholic Church. But we are also happy to answer it to the best of our knowledge and conscience: Until a few decades ago, the Catholic Church had a so-called Freemasons clause in its constitution, which threatened excommunication. This stemmed from a time when the Church still claimed a monopoly on questions of life’s meaning. That is as much a thing of the past as the clause itself. In our lodges there are religious people of various denominations as well as agnostics with their own personal understanding of the world. Freemasonry is non-denominational. It is not a religion or a church; it does not prescribe any particular religious worldview or concept of God. What does not harmonise with its principles, however, is a fundamentalist, militant religiosity—or an atheism of the same stripe: in other words, the extremes.
The term “service clubs” already contains part of the answer: unlike Freemasons, networking is also part of these organisations’ purpose. In a systematic comparison, what stands out most is this: service clubs do not have a developed ritual like the Freemasons. And: Freemasons place particular emphasis on the personal self-improvement and humanitarian conduct of each individual member, whereas service clubs, through charitable campaigns associated with their name, have a stronger outward impact as institutions. Tolerance and humanity, sociability and friendship are just as important as they are among Freemasons; however, the sense of fraternity that immediately meets every Freemason upon his admission to the lodge is not emphasised to the same extent. From our point of view, service clubs are just as honourable associations as the lodges, and there are brethren who are members of both systems. Incidentally, the founders of the well-known service clubs Rotary and Lions a century ago were also Freemasons.
The “Magic Flute” was composed by the committed Freemason Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and the libretto was written by Emanuel Schikaneder, also a lodge member. In its very confusing course, the opera also plays with certain Masonic ritual elements, and the music contains chords that could be interpreted as typically Masonic. Above all, however, the plot increasingly develops from a magical farce into a proclamation of Masonic ideals such as tolerance and humanity. Many music-loving Freemasons therefore have a very personal relationship with this opera.
First of all: we are pleased that what is most important about Freemasonry—namely our values such as humanity and tolerance—is no longer questioned today but has become common property; that was not always the case. And our ritual forms of expression, which the question refers to? Well, rituals always take some getting used to for outsiders. We do not find ours antiquated, but rather time-honoured—indeed venerable. And we believe there is nothing wrong with that, especially not in times that change so quickly that many people feel overwhelmed and, as a form of compensation, seek refuge in renewed ties to time-tested traditions from very different cultures. Everyone knows this. By the way, we do not say “die Schürze” or “die Schürzen”, but “der Schurz”, and in the plural “Schurze”. This ritual accessory symbolically recalls the work clothing of the old cathedral master builders, the forerunners of the Freemasons. Or the title “Stuhlmeister”, or more precisely “Meister vom Stuhl”: this image of the chair is also found in “Vor-Sitzender” or in the English “chairman”; we are simply used to it there. More important than the old word itself, however, is the binding rule that the Master of the Chair is chosen by the brethren in a democratic secret ballot—and that the person changes every few years so that lodge democracy remains alive.
Not at all. Please do not believe the nonsense that is repeatedly spread. Unlike, for example, a sports club, membership is indeed intended to be long-term—ideally for life—which is entirely logical if one understands Freemasonry. But of course anyone can also leave his lodge again. This does happen occasionally. A very small percentage do so. We bear them no ill will. They will have their well-considered reasons. It is also rare for a member to be expelled against his will, for example if he grossly violates Masonic principles. However, this must be preceded internally by a strictly regulated legal procedure.
Yes, of course—on two levels: on the one hand, the Grand Lodge and individual lodges repeatedly donate money to large and small charitable organisations. On the other hand, many Freemasons, or Masonic circles, are involved in a wide variety of social projects—not only financially, but also with advice and practical help. Freemasons, however, understand their charitable activity as classic patronage. That is to say, in their external communication they do not associate it with Freemasonry, the Grand Lodge or their lodge. They simply do it.
First of all: many people are susceptible to conspiracy theories. They provide simple answers to complex questions; a villain is quickly identified; and because they are emotionally held beliefs, they cannot be refuted in a fact-based discussion—at least not in conversation with people who are convinced of them. No strong belief can be shaken by arguments, however sound they may be. And why the Freemasons? Because in pre-democratic times, powerful church and state figures and their followers felt threatened by Masonic-humanitarian ideas and their international character. And so they incited hostility against the Freemasons and other imagined “perpetrators” such as the Jews, the Jesuits or even the Illuminati, although that order existed for barely twenty years more than two centuries ago. In recent decades, the list of “suspects” has changed: the American NASA, the Bilderberg Group and others—whether they exist or not—are now the preferred targets of current conspiracy theories. The Freemasons are less often in the firing line. Perhaps because a better-informed public would hardly take that seriously nowadays.
From the English “freemason”: a so-called loan translation, i.e. the rendering of a compound word from the 18th century into German. At first it was still “Freymaurer” and in the plural “Freymäurer”, but soon it became simply “Freimaurer”. Admittedly, it is not a particularly fortunate translation, because the word “Maurer” conjures up the incongruous image of a man stacking brick upon brick: a bricklayer. The more fitting image would be that of a sculptor who artistically works a stone with various tools. The English word “mason” can mean one or the other depending on the context: stonemason/sculptor or bricklayer. And where does the element “free” come from? Some historians say it comes from “free stone”. This is a soft sandstone that was used in England, but also here, in the construction of Gothic cathedrals, especially for the creation of sculptural elements. Others trace the “free” back to the fact that the work of the old cathedral builders was not strictly regulated but was a kind of free craft. In any case, both explanations indicate that it was not about a mason in today’s sense, but about the stonemason or stone artist. So there would have been better translations. But we are called Freemasons now and have lived with it for three centuries.
