Back in July of 2006 I wrote about a website with a collection of pictures of tattoos with a Masonic theme; generally some versions of the traditional Square & Compasses, but many we very elaborate examples of well-designed skin art. That site, Masonic Ink, now has dozens of pages of such artwork, and hundreds of pictures of various tattoos sent in by readers ranging from young, new Masons up to Grand Masters of the craft. In the last six or eight months it's become one of the most popular pages on this blog, judging by the Google and other search engine hits. Obviously, the desire to display one's Masonic affiliation has, for many of us, gone far beyond deciding what kind of ring or pin to buy.
That is why I was surprised and admittedly, a little irritated to read this recent anonymous comment on that post:
An "oxymoron" is a thing which is characterized by inherently incongruous or contradictory elements. For instance, a "smart fool," a "salty candy," a "soggy desert," etc.
A Masonic tattoo is what many would consider an oxymoron because the wearer has chosen to do something that demonstrates a certain lack of the kind of prudence, restraint, moderation and temperance that is taught in Masonic degrees.
Of the three great duties that you, as a Mason, are taught to inculcate, the third charges you to avoid "all irregularity and intemperance, which may ... debase the dignity of your profession." We are assured that "a zealous attachment to these duties will insure public and private esteem."
But, a Masonic tattoo says to the casual observer, "I'm enthusiastic about being a Mason, even to the point that I am willing to do something incredibly tasteless and intemperate to display my membership, therefore also demonstrating that I have learned nothing of Masonry's lessons."
Other examples of this kind of misplaced enthusiasm would include a minister who is so enthusiastic about being a minister that he would would wear his collar anywhere he went, including wearing it into a house of ill repute; or an Eagle Scout who is so proud of being an Eagle Scout that he wears his uniform all the time, even when he is doing something that he should not.
Would you want to be a member of a fraternity whose members do not frown upon, say, eyebrow rings with the fraternity logo? I wouldn't.
Wow.
I have to admit that my first thought after reading this was "Who died and left you in charge of what is acceptable and tasteful around here?" After a few moments, however, I managed to subdue my passions and read it again. What struck me was how this person - who I'm assuming is a brother - ascribed a "wrongness" to tattooing, without explaining his reasoning behind it. The central theme of his opinion, that a tattoo is "incredibly tasteless" and proves that one has learned "nothing of Masonry's lessons," is, I'm sure, based upon some kind of previously held perspective on morality; and truth be told, most of us have some kinds of prejudices and biases based on nothing more than our constant exposure to stereotypical attitudes in our local culture. Further thinking on this led me to wonder what it is about tattooing and other body modification that - supposedly - belies one's Masonic prudence.
Indeed, it made me wonder about the entire concept of Masonic morality. After all, we purport to teach moral lessons through metaphor, allegory, and symbolism. But what, exactly, is the basis of that morality? And what, exactly, are those ethical principles? And how do we manage to go from general principles of morality to those things that belong within the realm of the individual - tattoos, clothing, piercings, hair length?
In the US, the charge to a Fellowcraft - the second degree of Masonry - one learns that it is "the internal, and not the external qualifications of a man that Masonry regards." One can't get much more "external" than a tattoo or an eyebrow piercing. Indeed, I'm reminded of one of those old Carl Claudy-esque tales in which a young, long-haired, scruffily dressed Mason shows up at a crowded lodge meeting, and finding no seat sits on the floor. An older, respected Past Master sees this and walks (slowly, because of of his age, of course) down the aisle. Everybody in the room expects that the PM is going to give the scruffy youngster a stern talking-to, but they are surprised when he - carefully - sits down on the floor next to the young man and introduces himself, and welcomes him to the lodge. Apocryphal as this story most likely is, it demonstrates that some of our members actually do that that part of the charge to heart. Masonry has everything to do with being a good man and true, and little or nothing to do with what amount to individual preferences or tastes.
Coincidentally, there is a recent post over at Beacon of Masonic Light about homosexual lodge members, and personally I'm astounded that this topic even warrants any discussion. Again, as with tattoos or piercings or hair length, where in any of our obligations, allegories or any other part of our teachings does a person's sexuality have any bearing on their being good, honest, and upright men? Judging from the comments left there, however, it apparently does make a difference to some members. Bro. Dunn's excellent response to a comment sums up my own perspective on Masonic morality rather succinctly:
Its not about me changing them, its about ME changing ME.
We need to keep this in mind in lodge. Morality is not about what people do with consenting adults in private, its what we do to and for society that shows our morality.
Indeed. Those of us with ashlars needing to be perfected would do well to remember this.
Tao of Masonry | Freemasonry | Masonry




10 Comments:
Dear VWB Tom,
Another great post! It fills me with pride to hear a brother so thoughtfully respond to a comment that is made by ignorance and prejudice. I am a brother who chose to get a Masonic tattoo. It's on my ankle and I always wear a sock over it. Most people I know do not know I have it and I don't flaunt it. I chose to put it on MY skin and it is only seen by the people I choose.
I decided to get the tattoo so that I have a constant reminder of the principles that I live by; friendship, morality and brotherly love. I do not consider a tattoo to be tasteless and intemperate. I reserve those words for individuals who are judgmental and bigoted, who believe that forcing their views on another with no care for the receiver's beliefs is "proper." I would rather have a lodge full of brothers with S&C eyebrow rings, then have one "tasteless and intemperate" brother debase the dignity of my profession.
It irritates me to no end to see our brothers be willing to chastise and berate brothers who are excited about the fraternity. I collectively call these brothers, Nero. Because they play the fiddle as Rome burns. Our fraternity is dieing, but it's not too late. The brothers who are willing to display the S&C with pride no matter the form are the ones who are picking up the pieces of 50 years of decay brought on by Nero. There is a new breed of mason joining our brotherhood and these brothers want something our society doesn't give them; purpose. We fight through a world of ignorance and judgment on a daily basis. The masonic lodge should be a sanctuary against small-minded people. Why should men who want to stand up for masonic ideals be shunned because they are different.
Are masons who have masonic tattoos rebels? Perhaps. But so were Washington and Franklin when they fought against the British. So was Garibaldi when he took Italian power away from the Catholic Church and gave it to the people. So were Mozart, Voltaire and Twain when they changed the landscapes of their fields. So were the brothers who died in Nazi concentration camps when they defied fascism. All these brothers were Rebels during their times and I hope that when my time for greatness comes, I can have but an ounce of their strength. There are no small parts, only small actors.
Well....tattoos have become incredibly common (note: I don't have one) among people say 40 and younger. Among people in their 20's they are almost ubiquitous.
The most common people to hear criticism about this from are older. (note: not looking to start a war, I could be wrong...)So I think it is a largely generational thing.
Tattoos are, of course, a very ancient tradition and I for one think it is wonderful that so many people get them today.
I would love to get a tattoo except for one thing.....I once had it pointed out to me that while they look great when you're 20 (and they can look GREAT) just wait until you're 80.
I don't have a tattoo nor do I want one. But that's my personal decision. Even in the EA degree it is taught that we should have no regard for the outward appearance coming neither barefoot nor shod, naked nor clad. It is all in the actions of the brother as to whether or not he is a true and faithful brother.
It is funny to look back and see how much our society has changed in just the last 15 years. I remember a time when you looked at the Mr. Clean man with his shaved head and earring and thought "what a rebel", now he looks like the majority of law enforcement officers that I know.
And speaking of earrings, remember when as a man when there was a rule on which ear you wore an earring denoted your sexuality, now allot of fella's wear more than two on both ears!
If you had a tattoo you were either a biker or a sailor, now you see soccer moms with the ubiquitous tattoo on the small of their backs.
My how things have changed. To look at a tattoo as something that is intemperate or morally wrong is quite an old fashioned point of view. It is actually amazing that someone with that opinion is on a computer and commenting on the web.
Bro. Charles - well written, my brother! When did Masonry become synonymous with "reactionary" or "stodgy"? It's not so much that the Colonial Masons were rebels, but they were not willing to settle for what they had, and were willing to break with tradition in order to create something new for themselves.
NE Corner - I pierced my ear back in 1979, a bit ahead of the curve.
It's funny that back in the 60s such huge battles were fought over hair length and the wearing of jeans and sneakers in public, and now one rarely thinks twice about them. Earrings on men had a similar reaction in the 80s, as did other body piercings in the 90s. Now the reactionary focus is on tattoos, I guess.
Randy - Right. Again - these are just surface, i.e., external qualifications.
Curt - A lot of things look better in your 20s than in your 80s.
;-)
Interesting. I recently had the same sort of conversation with my dad (he'll be 45 at the end of the month). And he mentioned how places shouldn't hire guys with tats and piercings. He said something along the lines that associating with people like that was wrong. I attempted to get him to elaborate, but it was at dinner and Mom didn't want to hear it so I dropped the subject.
But this does bring up an interesting thought: where does this dislike of people with piercing, tats, and odd hair styles come from?
Just doesn't make sense to me. Some of the nicest guys I've met had multiple piercings.
I'm getting a tattoo of Tom Accuosti on my left arm. If anyone questions it I can just say it is either Willie Nelson or Hiram Abiff
Willy Nelson?!
* shudders *
Geez, I'm not that time- and alcohol- ravaged, am I?
At Friendship, they called me "Ernest Hemmingway," at least, until I lost the weight.
This reminds me of a quote by Meister Eckhart:
"People should not worry as much about what they do but rather about what they are. If they and their ways are good, then their deeds are radiant. If you are righteous, then what you do will also be righteous. We should not think that holiness is based on what we do but rather on what we are, for it is not our works which sanctify us but we who sanctify our works."
" [such attitudes are] based upon some kind of previously held perspective on morality; and truth be told, most of us have some kinds of prejudices and biases based on nothing more than our constant exposure to stereotypical attitudes in our local culture"
That says it all brother. Well stated.
Interestingly enough, I visited a Lodge recently where one of the members noticably (at a small gathering after the meeting) wore spiky wrist bands and other heavy-metal-esque paraphanelia below his suit jacket.
It is entirely the place of the individual to sport such things. I would not personally wish to be a member of any fraternity that told me how I could and could not express myself.
Post a Comment