Just saying

Lately the annoying expression “I’m just saying” — usually tacked to the end of what would be an otherwise thoughtless remark — keeps coming up in everyday conversation. We cannot escape. But we can be onto the hidden dynamics that make this and other such figures of speech so irritating, and we can prepare ourselves for the next time.

Brooke was chatting with her sister Ashley and provocatively remarked, “Don’t you think you should stay longer when you visit your family? You’re so selfish.”

“I’m doing my best. You’re pressuring me,” Ashley replied.

“I’m just saying!” Brooke retorted.

Oh, well. In that case….

Brooke used the expression “I’m just saying” after making an off-putting remark, conveniently absolving herself of responsibility for the affront. This tagline is a handy conversational tool: It serves as a free pass for the speaker to say anything and then negate any ill intent.

Often the remark preceded by “I’m just saying” is unsolicited and provocative. “I’m just saying” creates a confusing interpersonal dynamic. The speaker unconsciously attempts to trick the listener into believing an altered reality in which he or she is blameless, and the listener is implicitly accused of having an unfounded reaction. In this altered reality both are supposed to pretend that:

The speaker didn’t really say anything upsetting.
“I’m just saying” magically neutralizes any negative reaction.
The speaker can say whatever he or she wants as long as it’s followed by “I’m just saying.” Then, no one can hold the speaker accountable.
Still, this phrase may also be used more literally, without any hidden agenda, when someone has an unexpected negative reaction to a truly innocuous remark which leaves the speaker feeling unfairly attacked or exposed. In such cases “I’m just saying” expresses honest frustration and is intended in rightful self-defense, conveying: “That was an innocent comment – so chill!”

A similar ingenuous use of the phrase is when someone says something and then feels exposed. For example, Cathy raised a suggestion to which her friend said sarcastically, “Like we didn’t already know that!” In this case, Cathy took a risk to contribute to the conversation, and then felt foolish when her friend reacted as if her idea were stupid. “I’m just saying!“ Cathy replied. Here Cathy used the tagline in an attempt to save face.

The trickier situation is when people use “I’m just saying” to disclaim an offensive comment. The next time someone uses the “I’m just saying” scam, be armed and shoot back: “I know – and I’m not sure you recognize that what you’re ‘just saying’ is actually offensive.” (And depending on how irritated you are, you can always add, “Hey, I’m just saying.”)

From the same family of taglines is the phrase “I’m just teasing” or “I’m just joking ” where responsibility also is disowned for one’s actions and their effects. In some instances, however, the “joker” may, in fact, have trouble reading people, or may have miscalculated the other person’s reaction, believing she is going to laugh along with them. Such cases are easily recognizable because the recipient’s hurt is treated with more concern and sensitivity, not invalidated.

Typically, however, the “I’m just kidding” tagline is part of a passive-aggressive, unconscious dynamic in which anger is sneakily expressed and then defended against. The perpetrator of the remark denies responsibility for jabbing anyone, accusing the recipient of the jab of being “too sensitive,” and mocking her for feeling the sting. People who use this defensive style frequently accommodate others, are afraid of conflict and anger, feel misunderstood in relationships, and believe they never get angry. Not surprisingly, they are befuddled when others are put off by actions or remarks that, unbeknownst to them, transmit hidden hostility.

Stacey is a stay-at-home mom whose husband resents helping out when he comes home. When she asked if he could drive their son to hockey this time, Steve said, mockingly, “Why, because you’ve been working so hard all day?” When Stacey became upset, he said, “Honey, I’m just kidding. Where’s your sense of humor?” Oblivious to the covert hostility in his “playful” comment, Steve was indignant when Stacey reacted with offense, creating a cycle of hurt and misunderstanding for both.

So if you’re the misunderstood “joker,” and you’ve unwittingly hurt someone and want to make things better, be smart and own up to it. Consider soul-searching for the unconscious resentment you may be harboring so it won’t leak out surreptitiously. Hey, I’m just saying…

Tips for misunderstood “jokers” or “teasers:”

Step back from being caught up in whether the other person’s reaction is justified.
Don’t defend yourself or argue about the validity of the other person’s reaction.
Take seriously the other person’s feelings and experience of you.
Take responsibility: acknowledge that you hurt the other person.
Apologize.
Consider that you may have (unconscious) resentments that are leaking out. Think about possible resentments you may be harboring toward the person you’re teasing, in other areas of your life, or from your past.
Empowering comebacks to: “I’m just saying:”

“I know – and I’m ‘just responding’ to what feels like an insult.”
“I know – but the fact that you are ‘just saying’ something offensive doesn’t make it less offensive.”
“I know – and what you’re ‘just saying’ is offensive Hey, I’m just saying.”
“I know – and I’m not sure you recognize that what you’re ‘just saying’ comes across as critical, hurts my feelings, is insulting, etc.”
“I’ve thought this through and I’m comfortable with what I’m doing. I’m not seeking input on this.”
“Thanks for your input, I’ll take it under advisement.”
“Thanks for your input. I’ll let you know if I need any additional opinions on this.”

What makes a man a mason

Poem
by George M. Free

What makes a man a Mason, O brother of mine?
It isn’t the due guard, nor is it the sign,
It isn’t the jewel which hangs on your breast
It isn’t the apron in which you are dressed

It isn’t the step, nor the token, nor the grip,
Nor lectures that fluently flow from the lip,
Nor yet the possession of that mystic word
On five points of fellowship duly conferred.

Though these are essential, desirable, fine,
They don’t make a Mason, O brother of mine.
That you to your sworn obligation are true
'Tis that, brother mine, makes a Mason of you.

Secure in your heart you must safeguard and trust,
With lodge and with brother be honest and just,
Assist the deserving who cry in their need,
Be chaste in your thought, in your word and your deed.

Support he who falters, with hope banish fear,
And whisper advice in an erring one’s ear.
Then will the Great Lights on your path brightly shine,
And you’ll be a Mason, O brother of mine.

Your use of life’s hours by the gauge you must try,
The gavel of vices with courage apply;
Your walk must be upright, as shown by the plumb,
On the level, to bourn whence no travelers come,

The Book of your faith be the rule and the guide,
The compass your passions shut safely inside;
The stone which the Architect placed in your care
Must pass the strict test of His unerring square.

And then you will meet
with approval divine,
And you’ll be a Mason,
O brother of mine.

Ego (masonic)

EGO
This Short Talk Bulletin is the last scheduled to be published under the Editorship of R. W Brother Stewart Pollard who has served for the past ten years as Executive Secretary of The Masonic Service Association. In it he expresses personal opinions based upon his observations in travels to almost every Jurisdiction in the United States.

All-too-frequently we hear of Masonic leaders being on an "ego trip." Or, we hear that they are "stumbling over their own egos." Then there are such remarks as, "He turned into a 'monster' after he went into office," or "whatever happened to 'meeting on the level'?"
Those comments are not all without some foundation. There are, and have been, Masonic leaders who are carried away with their own importance. Yes, and there are some who let the title go to their heads, and who forget from whence they came.
Ego is a strange thing. We all should have a certain amount of it to demonstrate our pride in our abilities, in our accomplishments, and in our self-respect. It is only when we get to the point that we tend to believe that we're better, smarter or more important than the next fellow that ego gets in our way.
Masonry has never been considered a democratic society. The Master of a lodge is not only its leader, but more importantly he is its greatest servant. As such, he has an obligation to serve his lodge and his brethren, not for his own glory and honor, but for the good of the lodge. He must be prudent in all of his words and actions, and if necessary, subjugate his own desires to those of the lodge.
Masters, though, are not the only ones whose egos have a tendency to hurt the Craft. Longfellow said, "Into each life some rain must fall...." The phrase might well be reworded to "In almost every lodge there is a nitpicker." Or so it seems. There are some of our brethren who are never satisfied. They look for an excuse to: criticize; to complain; to "jaw", to sound off; to grouch;--to nitpick. Their ego, as shown by their need to be heard, is frequently a thorn in the side of the Master and officers. They have a tendency to ruffle feathers.
The Masonic Service Association recently received a letter from an irate Past Grand Master who had read in a Masonic publication a paper bearing the by-line of a Grand Lodge Officer in a sister jurisdiction. It was a good, thought provoking well-written article which caused the Past Grand Master to do added research on the topic.
What prompted his ire and disgust was that in his research he came across a Short Talk Bulletin of twenty-five years ago which sounded very familiar. When he compared it with the recent publication, he found that it was word-for-word, sentence-by-sentence and paragraph-for-paragraph, identical to the Short Talk Bulletin, yet the "author" had not had the courtesy to give credit where credit was due. His ego had permitted him to let readers think it was his words and his thoughts.
The story has been told of a Grand Master who was so puffed up with his own importance that his officers jokingly suggested that his theme song should be, "How Great Thou Art." Most of us have seen Masters of lodges who think that the title "Worshipful" was created just for their benefit.
And then there are PAST officers whose egos won't let them relinquish the gavel. Two people with their hands on the steering wheel at the same time can make it an unpleasant trip for the other passengers. If the Master is not in control of the lodge, its an unpleasant experience for the brethren. The old expression, too many cooks spoil the broth, is equally applicable to the management of a lodge or a grand lodge.
Yes! An overzealous ego can and does damage our Craft. It is a by-product of poor leadership traits, which we need to identify early in our progressive lines. In many cases, ego can be tempted by "whispering words of wise counsel in the ear of an erring brother." In a "worse-case scenario," when it is obvious that the over-blown ego cannot be controlled, it may be necessary to pass the brother over at the next election.
In The Freemason's Monitor, written by Thomas Smith Webb in 1799, he observes: "that all, who accept offices and exercise authority, should be properly qualified to discharge the task assigned them, with honor to themselves, and credit to their sundry stations." The same is just as true almost two hundred years later.
When elected to office, the brothers are confident that the one elected has the qualifications and ability to lead and has the best interests of the lodge at heart. He is expected to conform to the principle of the order, "by steadily persevering in the practice of very commendable virtue."
An often-quoted verse, titled "The Indispensable Man," is frequently used to illustrate the unnecessary value of egotism. It bears repeating.
Sometime when you're feeling important, Sometime when your ego's in bloom, Sometime when you take it for granted You're the best qualified in the room; Sometime when you feel that your going Would leave an unfillable hole Just follow these simple instructions And see how they humble your soul. Take a bucket and fill it with water Put your hand in it up to the wrist, Pull it out, and the hole that's remaining Is a measure of how you'll be missed. You can splash all you want when you enter, You may stir up the water galore: But stop, and you find that in no time It looks quite the same as before. The moral in this quaint example Is to do just the best that you can; Be proud of yourself, but remember There's no indispensable man.
A noted management psychologist, Dr. James G. Carr of Charlotte, North Carolina, in an article in PACE magazine, summed it up this way:
Power-hungry people do occupy high stations in life at times and some abuse their power; but to condemn all leaders on those grounds-including those whose primary motive was to serve or those who simply filled a vacuum left by the less competent or less motivated--is ridiculous.
Even the selfish did not attain those positions by selfishness alone. With predictable exceptions, authority usually has something to do with accomplishment and contribution; and, in the final analysis, we may have to concede that those who get the most--whether selfishly motivated or not--are sometimes those who have given the most.
The Master who completes his year in the East with satisfaction can quote those famous American philosophers, Bartles and Jaymes, by saying to the brethren, "Thank you for your support."

WHAT UNITES US - Freemasonry

WHAT UNITES US

PICKING AND CHOOSING WHICH PRINCIPLES OF FREEMASONRY APPLY, SUCH AS DISCUSSING RELIGION OR POLITICS, RISKS UNDERMINING THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE CRAFT, ARGUES DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROJECTS JOHN HAMILL

Recently I had the privilege of presenting a new Master Mason with his Grand Lodge certificate. The recipient, afterwards, asked me why I had emphasised that he should contact Freemasons’ Hall before attempting to visit lodges overseas and what exactly irregular Freemasons were.

I explained that overseas there are many organisations that call themselves Freemasons and in many ways follow our practices, but they differ in that they have rejected what we would regard as fundamental principles of the Craft. In particular, they do not require their candidates to have a belief in a Supreme Being and allow their lodges to discuss matters of religion and politics, as well as make public comment on politics and state policy. We therefore do not regard them as true Freemasons and bar our members from associating with them.

The subject of regularity has been much discussed at meetings of European Grand Masters and at the annual meetings of European Grand Secretaries and Grand Chancellors, as well as being a topic of conversation when masonic leaders attend each other’s Grand Lodges. The rules covering regularity were developed over a very long period and were codified by the United Grand Lodge of England in 1929 when we promulgated our Basic Principles for Grand Lodge Recognition. They have since become the standard against which regular Grand Lodges measure new Grand Lodges seeking recognition.

So if there are rules, why does the subject have to be discussed? The short answer would be that Freemasons love to discuss and question long-held views. The more serious answer is that there are groups within regular Freemasonry who seek a more liberal interpretation of our fundamental principles and landmarks.

That, to my mind, is dangerous and will lead to there being no difference between regular and irregular Freemasonry. Regular Freemasonry has developed over a long period and imbues its members with a strong sense of morality combined with fairness and kindness to others. It seeks to bring people together so they can discover what they have in common, rather than what divides them, and how they can use that for the good of the community.

‘Freemasonry in no way replaces religious belief but its teachings of morality, tolerance, charity and kindness can support the individual’s personal faith.’
PERSONAL FAITH

We insist that candidates have a belief in a Supreme Being because it is the one thing that unites us. Freemasonry draws its members from disparate backgrounds – the membership has always been a microcosm of the society in which it exists. The one thing we have in common is that we have a belief, however we practise it and whatever religion we may follow. Freemasonry in no way replaces that belief but its teachings of morality, tolerance, charity and kindness can support the individual’s personal faith.

The banning of religious and political discussion goes back to the earliest records. Most historians now believe that Freemasonry as we understand it developed in the seventeenth century, which was a period of intense religious and political turmoil. Those who developed Freemasonry were seeking to provide a setting in which men of goodwill could come together in peace. By knowing what divided them, they could discover what they had in common and use that for the good of the community.

Freemasonry became, in the words of the First Charge, ‘the centre of union between good men and true, and the happy means of conciliating friendship among those who must otherwise have remained at a perpetual distance’. That sentiment is worth defending.