Deep down inside we knew this was going to happen. And for one minute do not think that this won

So, when a non-Mason Shriner from AK travels and wishes to visit the Shrine in another jurisdiction, what happens? I think this will lead to some serious tactical problems for the Shrine. July 01, 2013 12:54 PM
So, if a non-Mason shaw webmail joins the Shrine in Arkansas, then some time later moves to Tennessee, will he still be a Shriner in Tennessee? The Imperial Shrine is being incredibly stupid in their battle to enforce "Shrine law" that only requires Masonic membership upon joining the Shrine, but not during later membership years. Making these exceptions for Arkansas shaw webmail will have repercussions in other grand jurisdictions. When the Shrine shaw webmail finally eliminates the requirement of Masonic membership, it will kill the Shrine. I know that several of my friends and I are all in agreement that as soon as the Shrine is no longer a Masonic organization, we will cease paying dues to the Shrine. This is, indeed, sad news. Mark Wright Washington, D.C. July 01, 2013 1:12 PM
I expect a backlash from the respective GL jurisdictions as the requirement is dropped. As Charlie Brown so eloquently stated: "good grief!" Dustin Tarditi, PM James B Green 735 AF&AM Raleigh, NC July 01, 2013 1:13 PM
Deep down inside we knew this was going to happen. And for one minute do not think that this won't spread. The Shrine will ultimately shaw webmail drop the requirement all together. You cannot threaten the Shrine when you do not hold jurisdiction over them. This goes for both Shriners International and PHA Shriners. The Shrine has already dropped the 32 degree and Templar requirement years ago. The Blue House is next up on the chopping block. Grandmasters please be aware that you're ultimately going to make Masons choose sides if you cannot work with the Shrine in harmony shaw webmail and brotherly love. July 01, 2013 1:17 PM
I certainly hope this does not turn into the eventual removal of the Masonic requirement shaw webmail for Shrine membership. But I fear you may be right. I have followed the controversy between Shriners International and the Grand Lodge of Arkansas and - on the one hand - can see this as a narrow response to a particular situation. But I know it may not - perhaps likely will not - end there. How sad. And the day the Masonic membership requirement is dropped I will drop my membership in the Shrine. July 01, 2013 1:31 PM
I think this is going to unfold not in through other shrine jurisdictions, but through the various Grand Lodges. When they decide to retain recognition or withdraw it will be the determination for others to remove the requirement. Personally, I'm not a shriner, and I think the group can stand on it's own, but if they eliminate the requirement then they need to divorce themselves completely. It will put a strain on the GL's, and they will have to compensate by coming out of their shells - an Ad or two on tv seems to work in some jurisdictions. Glenn Lovell, PM WM, Mt Moriah #39 Caldwell ID July 01, 2013 1:54 PM
Speaking shaw webmail as a Shriner, I've never understood what in Shrinedom was intrinsically Masonic. In Massachusetts, the Shrine performs what it calls the "Arch Degree", which purports that the Shrine is the keystone that balances the pillars of York Rite and Scottish Rite Freemasonry. shaw webmail Such a notion is farcical. The Shrine is a club that has restricted itself to Master Masons for historical reasons, but the two creatures are (or could be) entirely independent of each other without either suffering because of this. I see no reason why profanes could not be Shriners, nor even why women could not be Shriners. While I would probably not remain a Shriner if it went down that road, I don't see any intrinsic reason why such a trajectory would be bad for the Shrine, or bad for Freemasonry. I would imagine that roughly the same number shaw webmail of people correctly know that Shriners are Masons as the number of people who erroneously think that Elks or Rotarians shaw webmail are Masons. A categorical independence might be good for both parties. My Grand Lodge doesn't care if I'm an Elk or a Rotarian. I would hope that in future, they'd have the same indifference to the Shrine if it should become completely independent. July 01, 2013 2:29 PM
If the Shrine were to drop the Masonic prerequisite universally, then any man could be a Shriner. If the Shrine were to go that route and market the fraternity effectively, the Shrine could grow by leaps and bounds very quickly. Would that potential for membership stifle the need to perform investigations and background checks? Balloting? What would happen if most Masons were to bail completely shaw webmail in a very short time? What of the hospital network that was established by men who were, at their core, Masons? What about the culture clash between the Masons who remain and the new-school non-Masons? Could the remaining Masons use an open-era Shrine to teach more men about the fraternity that created the Shrine in the first place, shaw webmail thereby boos