MM,
Ah yes, those words sound more familiar now and lead me to the point I was going to make:
Let's take a hypothetical situation within the UK Armed Forces (which is the area of concern that started this thread). An officer makes a decision based on his interpretation of the circumstances. However, it subsequently becomes apparent that this decision was not the correct one and he has unfairly disadvantaged (perhaps seriously) someone on the receiving end of this decision, who has subsequently voiced his dissatisfaction, requesting redress. Our hero could change his mind, reversing his previous decision, but the circumstances mean that this would result in serious embarrassment and loss of face. Fortunately, this officer is a freemason and there's a guy two ranks above him in the command chain whom he knows to be a fellow freemason (perhaps they even belong to the same lodge), so he approaches him for 'help in his difficulty'. This senior officer recognises his masonic brother's dilemma ('need') and supports the original decision of the offficer who, whilst junior to him in terms of military rank may well, if I understand correctly, be junior, senior or equal to him in terms of masonic status (degree?).
Thus, the senior officer has saved the embarrassment of his junior (to the detriment - again - of the 'disadvantagee', at no personal cost. This is the kind of area that is sublty different to, yet really the same as, giving someone an obvious bunk-up such as ensuring (sponsoring) the man's promotion. There is a broad feeling of suspicion (and that is all we are talking about here) that this sort of thing goes on throughout society, and the sentiment expressed by non-masons on this thread is that this is not appropriate in HM Armed Forces. Well, I now work for a civilian organisation and the volume of rumours about freemasons being promoted ahead of their non-masonic peers is probably larger than that which I can recall during my service days.
So, what would be a suitable way forward, which would show freemasonry in a good light, helping to remove (misplaced?) suspicion, without disclosing the identities of those who prefer to keep their masonic light under a bushel? How about, instead of publishing names as the thread-originator suggests, why not research and release figures for numbers of freemasons within particular organisations, especially those organisations which are, shall we say, most sensitive? These would certainly include the Police, Army, Navy, RAF, Judiciary, MPs and peers, but other professions may well be seen as necessary (teachers, barristers, town-planning officers?). This would infringe no-one's personal liberty and would calm the disquiet if, as masonic contributors to this thread seem to suggest, there is an equal spread of masons throughout society. If 5% (number made up - I have no idea!) of professional workers are freemasons and it transpires that 15% of senior Army officers wield the trowel (or whatever
), this might be grounds for genuine concern for both mason and non-mason alike.
Hope this drags the discussion away from the personal insults.
MB