Is Freemasonry a Secret Society?

I am continuing my journey into Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol. Despite my earlier protestation it has one thing going for it - it is easier to read than "Business Information Systems" by Bocij, Greasley and Hickie. This is for a course I am teaching this semester.



Anyway, that aside, I am up to Chapter 6 and am pleasantly surprised. Okay, a few innaccuracies first:

p.26 the word "brotherhood" - only those outside Freemasonry refer to it as a brotherhood. This word is rarely heard within the craft as we think and refer it as a "fraternity"
p.26 Baphomet - this does not exist in Masonic ritual. It does not even get a mention in Waite's Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry. To be fair the context does not perpetuate this particular myth.

Now:

p.30 - Freemasonry is not a secret society but a society with secrets. Hurray! We've been saying that for thirty years. A distinction, though, that seems to go straight over the heads of those outside the Craft. I like the way he used the recipe for Coco-cola as a metaphor. Every organisation has aspects of its internal workings that it prefers to keep private.
p.30 - Freemasonry is not a religion. Hurray! There is no theology in Freemasonry and is open to men who believe in a deity. In his lecture Langdon refers to this as "refreshingly open minded."
p.30 Discussion of religion are not permitted in a Lodge. Hurray! [Missed out politics, but never mind].
p.31 The absence of politics would have been useful when talking about the non-inclusion of women. That is, of course the difference between the politics of gender (the assertion of women's rights) and the politics of sex (the competition for a partner). As is pointed out, there are exclusively female organisation and indeed mixed gender organisations (e.g. Le Droit Humane) that are masonic in character.
p.32 "We fear what we do not understand". I liked the way he used Christian ritual as a metaphor and would add that what is normative is culturally biased to appear logical (after Grint in Fuzzy Logic). Therefore what we have not experienced is illogical.

This might not be so bad after all... but let's wait and see. I only wish he could have referred to the "tripod" on p.28 as a Lewis. After all, we are talking about a professor of semiotics here. Or is that asking too much?