I am sure we can all accept that the masons are altruistic and that their lodges are worthy charitable organisations. But why should anyone want to join what is certainly a covert (if not a strictly secret) society, unless they believe it brings certain priviliges and advantages ? After all, there are many well-known, well organised charities of unimpeachable reputation that they could join, from the churches through the Salvation Army to the British Legion.
The secretiveness of the Masons is bound to attract suspicion of nepotism and mutual back-scratching. We all know (or think we know) of cases where someone has been promoted clearly beyond his natural ceiling, or where favours have been granted to individuals, which were only "explained" by the later discovery that the favoured party was a mason. In the public service, where the taxpayer's dosh is involved in large lumps, probity and fairness must not only present but must be seen to be so. Anecdotal evidence of favouritism corrupts and undermines the system.
When I was approaching retirement in the early '80s I did the Business Management course run for the services at that time by PCL. All students were asked to fill out a questionnaire on how they made initial contact with their eventual employer (jobs were scarce for those aged 50+ at that time). In order of frequency, over a number of years, the answers came out as follows:
- Contacts made while still serving (huge majority)
- Golf club
- Church
- On commuter train (1st Class)
- Advertised vacancy (very few)
Masonry was not mentioned; but this only increased suspicion. If masonry does not help you to find a congenial job when you retire, what's it for?
The Welsh Assmenly has at last found something useful to discuss: whether members should be required to register their membership of the freemasons as an "interest". Perhaps all the public services should follow their lead. An index held on some government web site should do.
------------------
presto digitate