What's Religion and is Freemasonry one?

There has been a recent spike in discussion of religion and Freemasonry in the blogosophere. Having read what's been posted, it seemed to me a topic I wished to weigh in on. While all the posts were interesting to read, I found myself agreeing with most of them, in part. I also found points on which I disagreed with my colleagues. That's fine with me. As the old Quaker aphorism states, "As hard as it may be to believe, I may be wrong and thou may be right." Even if I believe that to be a long shot, it's still a possibility.

First of all, while part of the Masonic World currently has a "religious test" as part of its entry requirements, it wasn't always so. In fact, the very phrase used to justify this religious imposition speaks against there being a requirement. That of course, only goes to show that when Masons want to establish a restrictive rule, they don't let a little thing like the truth get in their way.

In fact, Anderson's famous statement states quite clearly that

"A Mason is obliged by his Tenure, to obey the Moral Law, and if he rightly understand the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist nor an irreligious Libertine. But though in ancient times Masons were charged in every country to be of the Religion of that Country or Nation, whatever it was, yet ‘tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular opinions to themselves, that is, to be good Men and true, or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatsoever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguished."

Let's go back and engage in a simple lesson in English. It would seem that Freemasons, at least in the English speaking world have some trouble understanding that language. When Anderson says that "if he rightly understand the Art," that is a clear expression of opinion. It was never meant to be either proscriptive or prescriptive. He stated that Masons expect that all will maintain that upon which all religions agree, and further, to avoid a further expansion of that (perhaps he also practiced the oracular arts and knew someone was going to bullox it up) that this was no more than being good, true, and honest. End of story. What is more, he also said that they should leave their opinions to themselves, which in my reading at least, suggests not only that institutional Freemasonry should keep its nose out of the question entirely, but that Freemasons themselves should keep their mouths shut about the matter. That's not to say Freemasons are not free to share their interests and beliefs with likeminded individuals, but it would seem to me that it parallels the idea that one doesn't seek to proselytize, which where ever you find it is a particularly odious practice.

Now that seems totally reasonable to me. While we are at it, while I am no atheist, no epicurian, to use an older term, it seems to me that Anderson, while he may not have actually been thinking of this (though perhaps he was) left the door wide open to admitting atheists  into Freemasonry. After all, no matter how attached anyone may be to religion, and a belief in God (of some sort), can not atheists also be good, true, and honest people? Therefore, they meet Anderson's original criteria. So, it would seem that the Grand Orient of France, in removing a requirement of a belief in God, was more accurately reflecting the words of Anderson than those who require a declaration of faith. In any case, as it has played out it is more about gatekeeping and politics than it is about faith. I have often suspected that the entire subject became important to the UGLE only as a reason to object to the French. 

Having settled the question of whether or not Freemasonry was intended to have a religious requirement, we can turn to whether Freemasonry is a religion or not.

The biggest disagreement I had with most of the remarks in the blogosphere, is not so much their intentions, although their conclusions are, in my opinion, somewhat compromised by their initial understandings, but is rather in the definitions they apply to the term "religion." Most all of them espoused a definition that was conveniently close to, and doubtless crafted from, a Christian definition of religion; one which mirrors the institutions and understandings of a Christian worldview. Therein lies a significant problem.  You see, not all religions fit those forms, and there is not one universal definition that reflects accurately what a religion is, or what its focus may be.

For example, if Freemasonry applies the demand to believe in God, that causes a serious problem for Buddhists, Jains, and Taoists, whose religions do not stipulate a belief in deity as any Christian would understand it. Further, some religions are more morally relative than is Christianity. As a social scientist whose doctoral dissertation was focused on religion, I would argue that a more accurate definition of religion is "a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power." That, and nothing more. Each religion has its own sets of specific beliefs, attitudes and practices. Indeed most of them, including especially Christianity, have multiple and often conflicting sets of beliefs, attitudes and practices pertaining to supernatural power.  For those who have particularly narrow views on religion, "supernatural power" can and does refer to 'god' among other things and people.

If "religion" is therefore "a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power," then since Freemasonry does possess sets of beliefs, attitudes, and practices pertaining to supernatural power, whether we are referring to the spiritual perfection of mankind, or the Grand Architect of the Universe, Freemasonry is a religion, whether or not you subscribe to more esoteric practices that interest some Freemasons or not. If one views religion as possessing dogmas and metaphysical teachings, and priests, then Freemasonry may be viewed as either a religion or not, depending on which version of what Freemasonry supposedly is, you either dogmatically accept (like some religions) or believe fervently (also as religions do). I have never met a Freemason who doesn't have (usually strong) opinions on this subject. I often wonder whether all too many of us would be prepared to go into battle and kill for the Masonic principle of Universal Brotherhood if our Grand Lodge dictated that we do so.

My point in this post was not to offend as many different types of Freemasons as possible, although I suspect I may have succeeded in either doing that or confusing them. Rather, I wanted to point out that the entire question is, in my opinion at least, totally irrelevant. It is the wrong question, and that means whatever answers come from the question do nothing really to bring us more light.

Religion is a moving target, and whether some Freemasons, or Freemasonic jurisdictions and obediences would like to claim to possess the one true and correct form of Freemasonry (just like some religions claim about themselves), Freemasonry also has more than one form or version. In short, Freemasonry and religion in general cannot be pinned down to only one thing. After all, the human spirit is multifaceted and too little understood for one size to fit all.

Freemasonry does serve many of the functions of religion for its members, and also, it is very different from what most Christians would consider religion to be. The majority, if not virtually all Freemasons, would argue that it is not a religion. Whether it really matters is probably moot. Religion and Freemasonry is in the eye of the beholder. The bigger question is...