For my inaugural post on philosophy (not counting my introduction to the website itself), I'll share the discovery that this site comes up as, roughly, the 10th result for a Google search for the word "philosophization"—and that's before I even posted a single article on the topic. The "Recent philosophization" page is responsible for this. I guess that means either that keyword optimization is easy, or that relatively few people use the word "philosophization" on the internet. Ironically, but incidentally, this post might just improve that ranking further.
To the topic at hand: From my brief (and possibly superficial) reading about Freemasonry, my understanding is that one of the prerequisites to becoming a Freemason is a belief in a "Supreme Being." Freemasons, however, expressly do not question or discuss the nature of the Supreme Being, the details of a member's belief, or other matters of religion, at least in their lodges or in the context of their organization. This means that they are, by design, open to individuals of any religion or school of philosophy, as long those individuals are of the desired moral character.
This rule leaves open the possibility of beliefs in any kind of God (or gods): a sentient God, a personal God, a natural God—any of the countless conceptions of God discussed in the study of religion and philosophy. It would support individuals who are atheists in the usual sense but still believe in something divine, such as Thoreau's understanding of the divinity of nature. The beliefs of many Buddhists would also be included. No conditions are placed on the idea of a Supreme Being; only a belief in a Supreme Being is required.
Since I read about this, I've been pondering where exactly the boundary falls between belief in a Supreme Being and beliefs that don't quite meet that description. Certainly, there are atheists who fall on both sides, depending on their spiritual beliefs, or lack thereof. But how about someone like, say, Nietzsche? He might or might not have acknowledged any sort of divinity, but his views on humanity and life itself do point to something supreme (whether or not you take the idea of the Overman in a literal sense).
Now, how about Taoism? Since the Tao Te Ching is all I know of Taoism, I'll speak in terms of the Tao Te Ching: The Tao, although its meaning varies in the same way that the meaning of "God" does, is not a being. Some interpretations of the Tao, however, would characterize it as something universal and divine. On the other hand, I personally interpret the Tao—that is, this is only my interpretation—as something limited to an individual person, bounded by oneself, but not universal. It is just as powerful and profound as it is in its other versions, but it has nothing to do with nature as a whole, nor does it relate to a universal energy. It is simply a way of being, thinking, and living. I see this as closely related to Kierkegaard's notion of faith, a subjective relationship with the "infinite," because that is, too, ultimately a way of believing and living. These sorts of beliefs are far from any conventional faith; they do not involve a Supreme Being in the senses described above. But they could still be described as beliefs in a Supreme Being—that is, a supreme way of being. In other words, take the word "Being" as a gerund: Buddhists, Nietzscheans, Taoists, and Kierkegaardians could all say, "Yes, I believe in a Supreme Being."
Admittedly, this amounts to wordplay on the Freemasons' term "Supreme Being." However, my aim is not to find a loophole in their policy nor to belittle the intent behind that requirement. For Nietzsche or for a Taoist of the type suggested above, "way of being" receives a truly religious focus and effort; it is not simply an excuse for atheism. At the same time, the idea of a "way of living," whether its connotation is primarily spiritual or merely practical or utilitarian, is an important part of many religions and belief systems, not to mention a core piece of the way Freemasons see their role in society. It can be an essential aspect of faith. The question is whether or not a belief in Supreme way of Being in absence of literal faith would be considered a belief in a Supreme Being.
I realize that, out of the context of Freemasonry, this question would be meaningless. However, in an attempt to understand the non-denominational belief system and organization of the Freemasons, it's a worthwhile question. It is possible, though, that I misunderstand their rules. On one hand, the original, 18th-century intent behind the rule was probably to make sure the organization was non-denominational, while a relatively narrow understanding of faith was assumed. On the other hand, it's possible that Freemasons today generally wouldn't care if an individual's "belief in a Supreme Being" is objectively on the border-line as long as the individual considers himself to have the right kind of belief. (Maybe I'll go down to the Pennsylvania Grand Lodge and find out.) In the latter case, that would truly reflect an embrace of the subjectivity of faith. Either way, I think the question would be interesting to explore.