ANTI‐RIGHTS FREEMASONRY?

 By Iván HERRERA MICHEL

Former President of CLIPSAS

                

Let us agree that what we call Freemasonry is a multifaceted phenomenon, divided into different conceptual realms that pursue distinct—and sometimes even contradictory—objectives, while under the umbrella of such diversity not everything is acceptable.

           

Let us also admit, in the interest of truth, that today voices opposing rights can be heard within Freemasonry. Although they do not represent the general norm, they clearly show that in some sectors there is active resistance to societal progress in human rights, especially on issues such as gender equality, the recognition of minorities, the acceptance of diverse orientations and identities, same‐sex marriage, women’s reproductive and labor rights, migration, and racial justice.

           

In contrast, while some quarters continue to fight for a world of greater freedom, equality, and fraternity, other Freemasons cling to interpretations of these values—filtered through a lens of limited, selective empathy—that morph them to fit their own prejudices and fears. This striking diversity of positions can create tensions, yet it also opens the door for us to become aware of structural discrimination and invites us to reflect on the course we wish our Masonic life to take.

                  

In general, the Order has always regarded itself as a haven for free thought and an open conscience—a place where reason is cultivated and debate flourishes with few restrictions. However, in the 21st century we cannot ignore that there are sectors determined to obstruct any progress related to human rights, both within and outside their walls. Consequently, while the world advances—albeit with many difficulties—toward greater equality, some Freemasons prefer to remain on the sidelines or even actively oppose these changes.

                     

This is not a new problem, but it has become more visible in recent times due to social media. Every time a Lodge decides to reject the inclusion of women, indigenous people, Black people, or individuals with disabilities; avoids discussing diversity; or clings to immutable beliefs and interpretations of ancient texts in order to justify exclusion and discrimination, it strays from those principles of fraternity and universality that have been so proudly proclaimed from its Columns. The reasons—whether collective or individual—lie in fears of change, aversion to uncertainty, a propensity for cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias or an adherence to the status quo, religious ideas, and so forth.

                     

Freemasonry prides itself on its values, but those ideals cannot remain in the nirvana of mere rhetoric. They must be reflected in our daily actions. To say «it has always been so» is no longer sufficient, especially when the history of the Order is filled with changes and adaptations—from those initially inspired by the Enlightenment, to subsequent religious, pseudoscientific, Egyptian, and Orientalist influences, and even the democratic movements that have charted the course of many societies. While the world struggles for social equity and the acceptance of difference, anti‐rights Freemasons prefer to entrench themselves frenetically in their obsessions, employing a distorted narrative of tradition as an excuse to justify inequalities.

                     

On the other hand, it is important to emphasize that traditions are constantly evolving—even if at times they seem set in stone—and what we may describe today as a pure version is, in reality, the result of many years of accumulated development. What now appears as a sacred, unchangeable pillar was something entirely different a couple of centuries ago, and in a few years it will likely look different once more. The key is to distinguish when a change represents genuine evolution and when it is merely a passing trend.

                       

If Freemasonry is to remain relevant, it is not enough to merely speak of freedom of thought. It is time to translate its principles into concrete actions: to reassess the mental and power structures that continue to perpetuate exclusion; to stop using a supposed «neutrality» as an excuse for avoiding difficult debates; and to open up to a world where human rights are indisputable. After all, taking no stance is itself a stance—and in this case, one that strays from the very purpose for which the Order was founded.

               

Furthermore, the existence of anti‐rights Freemasons is not merely an internal matter. Their attitude is characterized more by a reaction to the advancement of rights than by a constructive proposal, and it is based on an exclusionary discourse that blends fear of change with the idealization of a past they portray as orderly and morally superior. To use the skills acquired in Freemasonry—the effective application of its tools and the constructive potential of both human beings and society—for that end is a colossal absurdity.

                

At the end of the day, Freemasonry should continue to be grounded in fundamental principles such as mutual respect, the pursuit of truth, and the welfare of humanity, regardless of the nuances of its constructive nature. If some Freemasons stray from these principles, it is an opportunity for all of us to question what we truly desire as Freemasons and as a society. Are we moving toward a more equitable future, or are we trapped in outdated ideas and dehumanized preconceptions?

              

In any case, the answer lies in our hands, as members of an Order that has always been a reflection of the highest ideals of society.

                         

                       

Iván HERRERA MICHEL