Talk:Anti-Masonry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a project to improve all Freemasonry-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Freemasonry-related articles, please join the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Freemasonry To-do:

Archives of old discussions:

For the content of Anti-Masonry and its talk page prior to the AfD vote in March 2005, which resulted in a merge to Freemasonry, see Anti-Masonry/archive and Talk:Anti-Masonry/archive.

Contents

[edit] Page is a joke.

This page is a joke. It is nothing but a propaganda page written mostly by of all people masons. Dwain 21:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree... but from the other side of the coin. I see it primarily as an anti-Masonic rant. Not sure what to do about it though... NPOV says both sides of the issue should be presented. Blueboar 21:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... We know you dwain! The page isnt full enough of the antimason crap like your userpage was huh? Not enough conspiracy theories for you? maybe? What happened to that page of yours by the way? ;)GrandTutonic
It's interesting how he's latched negatively onto something he claimed in the past to have no issues with and know nothing about, despite having "generations of Masons" in his family. Never mind that he thinks Masons got his page deleted (which is amazing, because no one on his "Wikipedia Masons" list is an admin). The problem with this page, however, is that the none of the oft-repeated claims stand up to even basic verifiability from objective (and non-Masonic!) sources. We can't really talk about the claims without elucidating them, and in order to meet RS, the only published sources we can use also refute the arguments. MSJapan 05:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hollocaust edit

HMMM... seems we have had this before... see this edit at the Freemasonry page... and this edit here and this edit, and several others... and now we have this edit ... talk about pattern behavior... do you really think we don't remember. Say good by LB. Blueboar 21:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, BB, as you found it, it's all yours. :) Also, the lack of footnotes in Freemasonry for Dummies doesn't invalidate it as a source by any means. Despite the title, the publisher is mainstream and reliable, and if "no footnotes" were at all a legitimate complaint, we'd have to blank Wikipedia. MSJapan 22:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
too late, it seems - allthought it tells us that the admins are aware of the problem, when a RFCU are 'unnecessary'. I'll add the diffs you dug up BB to the WP:LB page later. The more examples, the easier to prove his MO later. WegianWarrior 04:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Heeeeeeeeeere's Lightbringer: Edit from a Shaw Communications IP in Canada. Again.--Vidkun 15:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] confusion in Social Anti-Masonry section

The section on Social Anti-masonry makes no senses to me...

  • Another criticism[43] is that Freemasons practice cronyism, granting favors to fellow members. Masonry has also been criticized for the moral faults of some of its members. Masons respond to these criticisms by pointing out that there are many programs and initiatives sponsored by lodges that do give back to the community at large.[44]

Giving to the community is not a response to charges of cronyism. I think something got lost in editing and we ended up with a response to one criticism being used to respond to another. Can we sort this out? Blueboar 12:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it was something about charity given outside of the Lodge as opposed to being totally inside the Lodge. Throw out whatever doesn't fit, and if you can find why the article has unsourced statements while you're at it, that would be great. I can't figure out where the tag is hiding. MSJapan 02:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I think giving back to the community is an answer to charges of cronyism, if cronyism means only caring about one's own group. Throw out the whole paragraph and rewrite it if you like. It could use improvement. :-) Steve Dufour 05:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] intro doesn't make sense

The intro says (in reference to anti-Masons):

Their main goal in the defamation campaign against Freemasonry was the expansion of Liberalism and Socialism, religious tolerance and the enlightening rationalism.

This contradicts most of the article, which seems to be saying the Freemasons were in favor of tolerance and rationalism. In that case, the goal of the anti-Masons was not tolerance and rationalism, but rather tolerance and rationalism were the target of the anti-Masonic defamation.

Perhaps something like:

They accused the Freemasons of wanting to expand Liberalism, Socialism, tolerance, and rationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikel Ward (talk • contribs) 23:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Anti-Masonry

I think personally that this article is written rather subjective. I quote: “Some simply express mild concern as to whether Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity while, at the other extreme, some accuse the fraternity of outright devil worship. Moreover, the writer of this text dictates the clergy that mustn’t tell the dangers of “the fraternity”. And do you or do you not do such things at the secret meetings? Than you will say that you can’t say anything. But I conclude than that you do worship the devil and you do keep black Mass, because you don’t speak of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.138.141 (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the Masonic rituals are published, and freely available for purchase the public (Freemasons. Emulation Lodge of Improvement (London, England) (1991). Emulation Ritual. London: Lewis Masonic. ISBN 9780853181873. OCLC 40357899), the above comment can not be taken seriously. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Not only that, the sources support the statements. Some clergy see nothing wrong with Freemasonry, and in fact, there are clergy from many religions who are members and function as Chaplains for Lodges and Grand Lodges. At the other end of the spectrum, the Roman Catholic Church has such a concern about Freemasonry that it was mentioned in Canon Law. So there are a range of published opinions that illustrate the situation exactly as it is stated in the article. MSJapan (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Freemasonry & Patriotism

It would be nice if this section relied less upon the 'Catholic Encyclopia' as a source, since many of the suppositions referenced have historically also been made about Catholics. Fullobeans (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice if the entire article relied less on the CE as a source. Unfortunately, the CE is one of the few reliable sources to lay out these claims (and in the case of the Partiotism issue, one of the few sources period). That means it gets over used. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)