Talk:Anti-Masonry/archive
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Temporary note: I have placed this notice here to bring to the attention of any new reader that the text below referes to the edits logged in the history page as I have unbiased its content as far as is possible, good luck with it!. Faedra 01:47, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This page reads somewhat POV to me -- it mostly potrays Freemansonry as "good" and its critics "bad", chiefly motivated by aversion to Freemasonry's noble sentiments of ecumenism. Actually, a monotheistic religion like Catholicism cannot admit -- for its very nature -- any "supplementary religion", or any spiritual concepts or activities (theology, moral system, whatever) which are parallel or beyond its own beliefs and rites; User:Jorge Stolfi|Jorge Stolfi]] 08:49, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
History lacking
This article is POV, without doubt, but that, to me, is the least significant problem with it. Hostility to Free Masons simply can't be understood without a discussion of the history of Masonry. One reason that the Masons are accused of infiltration is that the Masons did infiltrate. One reason they are accused of Satanism is their roots in quasi-Templar rites dating from the Crusades that can be easily confused or interpreted that way. Most importantly, though, is the long, long, long history of nations officially outlawing the Free Masons. In particular, Roman Catholic nations of Europe had such laws fitfully in the past, and Masons were regarded as on par with Jesuits in England through the 19th century (i.e. very bad). The US was rather unique in having no anti-Masonic laws. Later, Canada and Australia similarly either ignored their British inheritance along these lines or repealed such laws. Finally, American Masons are very different from the older European rites. The Masons who were opposed in Europe wouldn't have been seen driving a miniature car in a parade.
It's not a bad article, and I think the author tried to be neutral, but the subject can't be discussed without a survey of the history. I wish I could provide a good history so that I could help the piece. Geogre 03:08, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I believe the article is balanced
"This page reads somewhat POV to me -- it mostly potrays Freemansonry as "good" and its critics "bad", chiefly motivated by aversion to Freemasonry's noble sentiments of ecumenism."
Actually first of all be thankfull that this article even discusses the historical criticism of Freemasonry for being "ecumenical" or supporting "freedom of religion". Almost no one critizes Freemasonry for that reason nowadays (mostly all criticism is of the NWO conspiracy theorist type). In fact, most right wing protestants and catholics in the present time either focus on "NWO" or "devil worship" theories.
I think the reason you felt that the article is currently not NPOV is because it is not made too clear that the opposition of Freemasonry for supporting freedom of religion et al. has largely dissapeared and was mostly a phenom of the past.
"and Freemasonry, with its elaborate mythology and rituals, is certainly more like a religion than just an association of good-willing people. But perhaps the major cause of prejudice against Freemasonry simply is its secrecy itself: "if you don't want me to know what you are doing, then you must believe that I would not approve of it; so, just to be safe, I will trust your judgement, and act accordingly...".[["
Well I think all those points are brought up in the article as various reasons why people have been anti masonic.
"One reason that the Masons are accused of infiltration is that the Masons did infiltrate." This is argueably true, depending on your definition of infiltration. This point should be added to the article.
"One reason they are accused of Satanism is their roots in quasi-Templar rites dating from the Crusades that can be easily confused or interpreted that way." This however is different, I have never heard a non masonic, modern historian believe Freemasons themselves into tracing back their lineage to the Templars. MASONS of course believe it but they believe they also built the pyramids too.
" Most importantly, though, is the long, long, long history of nations officially outlawing the Free Masons. In particular, Roman Catholic nations of Europe had such laws fitfully in the past, and Masons were regarded as on par with Jesuits in England through the 19th century (i.e. very bad)." The could be clarified to state that "freemasons were outlawed initially in many catholic countries for the freedom of religion/other enlightnment ideals propaganda and religious rituals, the fact that they were outlawed to this day causes some to be anti masonic (although those people might not realize the original reason that freemasonry was outlawed)".
Page title
Shouldn't the page be renamed to something better like "Arguments against freemasonry"? cesarb 03:06, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Adjective Usage
"Reactionary"? One may very well feel that the Institutions described as reactionary (the Catholic Church and Southern Baptists) are indeed so and I might even agree but isn't this very much of an opinion rather than fact. Would the article be improved if the word were taken out?
I have rebalanced the article
I have rebalanced the article in light of recent changes, and to me as it stands at September 23, 2004, it seems NPOV. If you don't agree please comment and I can explain.
- Looks good to me. --SarekOfVulcan 22:13, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
<<The most vigorous opposition to the fraternity, however, has come from the Catholic Church, but this body was also responsible for the Spanish inquisition and the attempt to convert Paganism (all these things were done for the same reason). Historically, Catholicism is by nature opposed to any movement it deems a threat to its attempt to monopolize state religion. Masonry by its nature is one such threat. This opposition has died down throughout the 20th century, so that the documents of Vatican II contained many Masonic princples>>
Don't you consider this statement more than a little inflammatory? -- Kade Shaderow 00:28, 26 Oct 2004
- Hmmm. That last sentence has to go, unless someone can back it up with good cites here.
Votes for deletion results
This page was listed on votes for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Masonry for the results of the debate. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Freemasonry and "Anti-Masonry" on the Internet
As a general point of interest it may be relevant to this discussion to be aware that there is a group of 'active' masons going around the internet filing elaborate complaints with web site hosts attempting to get the websites that they disagree with removed. This article is about as 'balanced' as you are going to get it, as it includes many aspects of 'Anti-Masonic' critique that Freemasons are loath to accept. IMHO 'Anti-Masonry' is part of 'Masonry' and as such should not really be considered seperate, but it is a bit of a moot point as that is the language and catagorizing Masons use and they outnumber their critics by a very wide margin in terms of internet sites, and probably attempts to influence these sections of Wikipedia. 'Creating facts on the ground'. Actually what Freemasons seek is for the section entiled 'Freemasonry' to be their version of their history, as they see it, i.e. entirely positive, and to have a seperate page or category that portrays the critics of Freemasonry as basically criminals or mentally ill, motivated only by 'hate' or their delusions. In other words what Freemasons are trying to create is an environment where there is no legitimate or legal criticism of Freemasonry.
