Not Forced to Relive the Past

by Bro. Greg Henkelman

It has been said that those who do not study the past are destined to relive it. In an ancient and venerable institution such as ours, one might feel that such a fate would be desirable. In fact, it is very sensible for many Brethren to dream of years during which the Masonic institution was in its heyday, with Brethren filling Lodge and new members always at the ready. Of course, a belief in the good ol’ days is also often based upon the recollection that yesterday’s path was safer or more desirable than today’s.

This, as we well know, was not always the case. As we reflect on the 60th anniversary of the end of WWII, one need only look into the eyes of a Veteran during a moment of silence on November 11 to glimpse the horrors of war (I say “glimpse” because many of us will never truly “know” these people’s thoughts). And many of our Brethren from the past struggled against those who did not share Masonic sentiments, either through singular dogmatic religious convictions or lack of knowledge about the true Craft. Using an example from the past, I would like to ask a question about the present and ask fellow Brethren to reflect for a moment on each.

According to the Oct./Nov. 2005 edition of Beaver Magazine, Masons did not always find it easy to open new lodges. In the article, “The Price of Passion” by Alison Longstaff, the struggle of Ludger Larose is described. An artist and art teacher, Larose was the Treasurer of L’Emancipation Lodge, a newly formed group of French-Catholic Freemasons. Though many Anglophones had Lodges in Quebec, of which many Catholics were, of course, members, L’Emancipation Lodge was formed in 1896 by Francophone Freemasons. The choice of Lodge name was revealing: the Freemasons wanted to demonstrate freedom over what they believed were rigid controls by the Catholic Church over Francophones. This “control” was intended to maintain the traditional Francophone lifestyle to prevent assimilation into English Protestantism. Larose, as Treasurer, held a membership list which he was forced to give up at gunpoint during a hold up. This list was then copied and stories of Freemasonry’s “conspiracies” were added. Many members lost their jobs when this “expose” of Freemasons was distributed.

Larose, however, did not back down: he took the hooligans who robbed him at gunpoint (and freely admitted to it!) to court. The trial was by jury. The Judge, Joseph Lavergne, told the jury that the evidence against the culprits was overwhelming. In fact, the Judge went on to say that any religion that had to use violence to impose itself was of no use to call itself Christian and that faith imposed by force was of no value.

On March 28, 1911, after one day’s deliberation, the jury found the muggers “NOT GUILTY”.

I want to be clear that I am not singling out a religion, and I definitely do NOT harbour any resentment to Catholics or our Catholic Brethren, any more than I harbour resentment to our Islamic, Jewish, or Christian Brethren for acts committed by fundamentalist sects in these religious systems. I am simply pointing out that ANY member of ANY belief system who takes things to the extreme and aims to impose THEIR WILL — fundamentalists of any ilk, one might say, often confuse this with “God’s Will” — can lead to a breakdown in true freedom and choice.

A recent case in point is the current anti-evolutionary fervour of Intelligent Design Theorists. Though proponents of this theory claim it to be scientific, it most certainly is not. A theory, yes. But science is capable of being tested and shown to be incorrect. Is Intelligent Design a scientific theory? If so, is it falsifiable? And if it IS falsifiable, is it correct to allow a theological theory (which, we should say, Intelligent Design is) to be tested and disproven by scientific method? I would argue that it most certainly is NOT okay. Science and religion have many areas where they “cross-over”, but I do not feel that one should be chosen at the expense of the other. To think that religious theories be taught in schools as science is surely a violation of church and state.

As a scientist and a Freemason, I think that the terms “Intelligent Design” have been corrupted by a fundamentalist Christian group of Creationists. A belief in God is fundamental for a Mason. We often speak of the Grand Architect of the Universe. But do we prevent God from working through evolution? Is the architect always directly involved in every detail of the actual building of his planned creation? Or are there other ways to arrive at the same product? And if we teach the Christian creation story, what of the other Creation stories of other religions? Are these, too, to take the place of botany and zoology?

I think the language of Masonry has been carefully chosen, by Brethren who were careful not to choose a single way of explaining the world. And I must add that there are, undoubtedly, Freemasons who do not “believe” in evolution, probably even within my own Lodge. However, this is okay. I respect the feelings and individual beliefs of my Brethren. I will not impose my ideas or will on them.

I must also say that I can discuss my ideas with other Brethren and have done so in this very paper. I am free to do so. And I thank the work of all who have provided me with that right, from our Veterans of war to our veterans of free choice, like Ludger Larose.

I am indebted to these great predecessors, for they have not forced me to relive a past of close-mindedness.