Jacko
Although not a direct apology I will defer to TM and agree that some ground has been given.
Your selected items from the committee report surely prove my point. Chris Mullin was desperate to prove a massive masonic conspiracy but, as the Committee commented, it was unable to prove any allegations 'on ballance of probabilities' let alone 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It's good to see that you are still innocent until proven guilty in this democratic society.
So it's OK for a politician to withold information on murderers, but you still want to force innocent men to declare membership of a lawful society? I am not sure that I like your idea of democracy.
If you are alleging that the masons are a sinister body, interested only in the promoting self interest and will do anything to help each other out by secret signs and handshakes, then you had probably better stick to fiction in future.
If you are asserting that the Freemasons have been appalling at promoting a good image, then your argument has merit.
For too many years the movement has been able to go quietly about it's business, promoting benevolence and providing a focal point for likeminded individuals. In today's society not even the Royal Family is free from public scrutiny - hence the easy targeting of the masons.
If all people are truly concerned about is the ritual then go to almost any library and take your choice of books on the subject. Knowing about trouser legs, bared chests and bits of rope does not make you a mason. It is the internal qualities that freemasonry regards, not external values and appearances.
Just because we don't shout about our charitable work doesn't make us any less benevolent.
Don't get wound up about the secrecy. How can masonry be a secret society when so many people know about it? I would prefer to use the word privacy, rather than secrecy.
Given that there has been no proof of masonic wrong doing, only allegations, why force people to disclose? And then, where do you draw the line? Rotarians, R&A Golf Membership, Political Parties, Church etc etc.
If you don't think the same 'corruption' exists between members of these organizations then you are not applying the same logic.
The bottom line is that I belong to a society that is thouroughly lawful, promotes benevolence and gives you the opportunity of meeting with some very interesting men and women.
Although I have no objections to people knowing that I am a mason, if you force people to be placed on a register, you are in danger of creating reverse discrimination. "Can't be seen to promote bloggs, bloody nice chap, but he's a mason."
That's not the democratic society I joined the Services to protect.