Talk:Ku Klux Klan

Possible FAQ for political position?

Recently saw an editor change the political position from the obvious "far-right" to a perplexing "far-left." A little shocked at how one would think this, I then remembered, "oh yeah, modern American Democrats dominate the term 'left' in most Americans' minds. If they hear the Democrats founded the Klan, they might forget that this was before the mass-exodus of conservatives out of the party during the Civil Rights Era." It vaguely occurred to me that some American with a serious lack of understanding of political science and of world history could get this confused in their heads. Do they understand the Klan's attitude towards the left? Can a simple FAQ be set up on this talk page since I've seen similar confusion on this talk page and see potential future ones, as well? Motorizer (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I removed Category:Far-right politics in the United States and Category:Anti-communist organizations In the United States from the bottom since Category:Ku Klux Klan is a subcategory under these. See here and here. LittleJerry (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Referring back to the beginning, the Ku Klux Klan was originally founded by the Pulaski County Democrat Committee and as such is a far-left organization. Can someone please correct this? It was created by the Democrat Party in direct opposition to the Republicans winning the Civil War and freeing the slaves. The Democrat Party is responsible for this terrorist organization and needs to be held accountable for all of history. ZandoviseZandovise (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ below. Pirate Dan (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"Far-right" is an absolutely INCORRECT for the KKK. This is a political smear, using cherry-picked far-left liberal books as citations. The KKK Was founded and grew in its heyday from the U.S. Democratic party - for the sole purpose of harassing Republicans who supported freeing the slaves. Nothing about the KKK has ever been related to the U.S. right-wing whatsoever. The infiltrations of liberals within WP trying to re-write history is becoming so commonplace, it is scary that our kids are using this tripe for their school research. --216.114.194.20 (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

People need to learn some history. Both parties have changed considerably over the years. Southern Democrats before and after the Civil War were dominated by the rural, planter elite and had generally conservative views, what is now described as "right". The KKK represented conservatives who wanted to restore white supremacy and turn back the results of the Civil War - freedom for former slaves and equal rights under the law. It was not related to the Democratic Party of recent decades except in name. FAQ may be a good idea, as suggested above.Parkwells (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There has been a political re-alignment since the U. S. Civil War, with conservative southern Democrats moving en masse into the Republican Party. Notice too that African Americans in southern states no longer vote over 90% for the Republican Party. TFD (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What you are asserting here is that since the Dixicrats split from the former Democratic-Republicans (i.e. former name for the Democrats), that they magically became Republicans and turned the Republicans into racists. This is a patently untrue, and an immoral attempt to rewrite history. The Republican Party was FOUNDED on the core principle of protecting the rights of the freed slaves. Even the WP article on the Republican party explains this correctly. It is also a FACT that the MODERN Democratic party blocked all civil rights legislation brought by the Republican straight through the 1960's. The poster who claims blacks vote primarily for Democrats is making a completely unsupported and off-topic generalization that this has something to do with the affiliation of the KKK. To the person making the uncalled-for personal attack about my "needing to learn history". Well, One of my majors was *American History*, so you need to put away the insult cannon. --216.114.194.20 (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You claim to have majored in American history, yet you don't know that the Republican party was founded in the 1850s, before the slaves were freed. Nor do you know that the Democratic Republicans discarded that name and became the Democrats in the 1820s, over a hundred years before the Dixiecrats were founded. Given that incredible amount of ignorance, it's hardly surprising that you also don't know that Democrats, like Republicans, used to include both left and right wing supporters.

Hence the need for the FAQ, so we can stop having this ridiculous conversation every three weeks. Where should it go: on the talk page or the main article or both? Pirate Dan (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please go read WP's own article on the Republican party. They come somewhat close. You are trying to re-write history based on biased opinion. It started forming at the time you mention, but really did not coelesce to it's current form until the ~5 year following the civil war, when the Whig's started splitting off. Yes, I majored in american History, and yes, I have voted Democratic about 75% of the time. I am trying to correct a blatant smear campaign going on here, not playing politics. The KKK has *never* been associtated with the American right nor the GOP party. It is ridiculous to even assert such a claim, with the history of the American right being the ones who were pushing for the civil rights acts all the way up through the 1960's. Robert Byrd(D) who was in Congress right up to his death this year was a Grand Cyclops in the KKK. Are you going to call him a 'dixicrat and thus a Republican' too? --216.114.194.20 (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The Whigs dissolved in the 1850s, so your claim that the Whigs started splitting off "~5 year following the civil war" is utterly ridiculous. Byrd abandoned the KKK along with its right-wing ideology over 50 years ago, and chose to remain with the Democratic party. Other Dixiecrats, like Strom Thurmond, who chose to remain on the right migrated to the Republican party; that's straightforward history.

Your statement that the KKK has never been associated with the Republican party is false. The second Klan endorsed numerous Republicans in the Midwest, largely because they agreed on Prohibition (see D.C. Stephenson. The first Klan was, of course, exclusively Democratic, and even the second Klan was mostly pro-Democratic in the South. I myself have edited the article to show that. What you still fail to comprehend is that not all right-wingers are Republican, and that many Democrats in the past were right-wing, and many Republicans were once left-wing (Teddy Roosevelt openly called himself a Progressive). Whether endorsing Democrats or Republicans, the Klan remained exclusively on the extreme right, by embracing hyper-nationalism, racism, segregationism, Protestant supremacy, the exclusion of immigrants, and other positions rejected by all of the left as well as by the moderate and mainstream portions of the right.

I have never claimed that the KKK was predominantly Republican, only that it was predominantly extreme right. Decent Republicans always opposed the Klan, of course, just as decent Democrats always opposed the Communists. Pirate Dan (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well stated. If we do include a FAQ on the talk page, as some other articles do, I hope you'll help out with writing it. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

In Rabble Rousers: The American Far Right in the Civil Rights Era, clive Webb writes that far right is the term most broady used by scholars to describe militant white supremicists.[1] I see no way of stopping these period discussions however, since fringe views of history are heavily promoted in popular media, such as the Glenn Beck show. TFD (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

So some guy makes a claim in a book, and that means that's just the way it is? There's some fine WP sourcing for you. There has never, EVER been any relation between the KKK and the political right in the USA. Contrary, there has been a deep history of their relation directly to the Democratic Party. Senator Robert Byrd (D) was a grand Cyclops in the KKK in the 1960's for heaven's sake. Are you going to try to claim he was a "Dixiecrat, and really not a Democrat"? This is ridiculous. --216.114.194.20 (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some guy makes a claim and then other guys who happen to be leading experts in social sciences agree with him. BTW the term "right-wing" itself is from France, and some people may claim it is inappropriate to describe U.S. politics. TFD (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, whoever this guy is that's trying to claim that there has never been any relation between the American Right and the KKK, he's completely wrong. There's a very good reason that just about every history book on the PLANET discounts your absurd "Glenn Beck" revisionist theories. And the Byrd reference is equally absurd, as Byrd was a self-described CONSERVATIVE while he was in the Klan, who later renounced those views and moved to the Left. I mean, Ronald Reagan was a Liberal Democrat when he started his political career...but that certainly is not "evidence" that Reagan's economic theories are "Liberal." Whatever institution allowed this guy to graduate with a history degree (assuming he isn't lying) should be investigated for accreditation. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Ku Klux Klan is historically a far-left organization created and promoted by the Pulaski County Democrat Committee, Pulaski, Tennesee, 1865 as the world’s first terrorist organization. This was in direct opposition to the Republican victory of the Democrat created Confederacy and to intimidate Freedmen everywhere. Indeed, this tactic continues even today in the circumstance of Al Greene, a veteran of the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force and U.S. National Guard. Mr. Greene fairly won the South Carolina Democrat primary and almost immediately was maligned by the establishment Democrat “Good ‘Ol Boy” network as someone with mental problems and accusations of involvement with pornography, totally unfounded. Indeed, the Tea Party came to Mr. Greene’s assistance. This demonstrates that the same attitude still exists within the Democrat Party in 2010 as in 1865, in conjunction with the Ku Klux Klan, thus confirming that the Ku Klux Klan remains a far-left organization and a child of the Democrat Party.Zandovise (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Do you have reliable sources saying the "Ku Klux Klan remains a far-left organization and a child of the Democrat Party"? - SummerPhD (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia International, 1968, Vol.10, New Book Of Knowledge, 1968 both attribute the Ku Klux Klan with Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forest, a Democrat. As the Confederacy was the creation of the Democrat Party, the only party to exist in the Confederacy, and the Pulaski County Democrat Committee oversaw the KKK it is attributable to the Democrat Party. The two versions of the KKK that followed would not have existed without the original. Sadly, the treatment of Mr. Greene by the Democrat establishment of South Carolina, also documented on here, is a sad reminder of that era.Zandovise (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The anon IP editor (possibly User:Zandovise?) is wrong in attempting to characterize the KKK as a "left-wing" organization but, given various comments, one begins to wonder if "right-wing" is appropriate either. As has been mentioned, American politics has changed several times in the last 150 years. "Left-wing" and "right-wing" are hardly appropriate terms to describe ante-bellum and post-bellum U.S. politics. The earliest that these terms could be considered appropriate would be during the Progressive era of the early 20th century but even then the terms are mostly projecting contemporary politics back onto that era. (i.e. the Progressives of the early 20th century do not necessarily map onto the Progressives of the early 21st century). Where "left" and "right" begin to emerge is with the New Deal of FDR but, as has been mentioned earlier, racism cut across political lines especially in the South. It was perfectly possible to be a supporter of the New Deal and be a racist. It was also possible to be an opponent of the New Deal and be a racist. It wasn't until the civil rights movement of the 1950s that racism became more consistently considered incompatible with liberalism/Progressivism. Even so, when LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, he lamented that he was "losing the South to the Democratic Party for a generation". He was only wrong in that he though the loss would only be for one generation. Reagan's genius was in adopting a "Southern strategy" which actively campaigned to get the South to vote for the Republican party. The KKK is an extremist organization and it does espouse some views which are associated with some conservatives (right-wing). However, as has been commented, its anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism are incompatible with today's right-wing conservative pro-Israel stance and the fact that Catholics constitute a significant proportion of the conservative movement. Thus, I think it is better to say that something different about the association of the KKK with the "right-wing". To call it a "far-right" organization is to use terminology from the politics of the latter half of the 20th century which probably became increasingly obsolete starting from the 70s and 80s. Racism exists in the right-wing conservative movement but I think it is better to say that the "KKK is a racist organization which is associated with some of the more extremist elements of the American conservative movement". --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If one continues to use the historical definitions of Left and Right as they emerged in the French National Assembly, Left and Right continue to have "eternal" definitions which continue to be relevant in modern political discussions. "Left" has always meant the support for social progress and egalitarianism, whereas Right has always meant adhering to Anti-Egalitarian concepts and keeping to "traditional values." The only way that one can make a case for the KKK having ANY relation to the Left is by its association with the Democratic Party...which is ludicrous and shows that "Zandovise?" has no business making edits on Wikipedia. The Democratic Party has never historically been synonymous with the Left or Liberals, nor has the Republican Party been synonymous with the Right. These current trends are only a few decades old, and have no bearing whatsoever on historical articles. The Ku Klux Klan has ALWAYS been a Far Right organization...and any attempt to paint a different picture is nothing more than Orwellian Newspeak, and should be regarded with the same contempt as Holocaust Denial. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that it is perverse to suggest that the KKK is a "left-wing" organization. I disagree that "left-right" have "eternal meanings". I agree that the KKK could be considered "far right" in the sense of being traditionalist and anti-egalitarian although the truth is that left-right politics itself has evolved in the last two centuries. (Right-wing politics originally would have been elitist, aristocratic, pro-monarchy, etc. and left-wing politics democratic, egalitarian, anti-clerical, etc.) The KKK is more populist in nature than that version of right-wing politics.

Consider these two sections in Left-right politics: Contemporary usage in the U.S. and Relevance of the terms today. It's kind of like the term "socialist": is that the Marxist/Leninist socialism, Trotskyite socialism, Maoism, or the socialism of Western Europe? If a term has multiple meanings, it is risky to use the term without specifying what exactly you mean. It's also unhelpful to use the term if other people will tend to understand the term differently from the meaning that you intended.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, but I think Left and Right _need_ to have "eternal definitions" or Newspeak can easily "change history." The KKK is more populist than 18th century Rightism, but the modern American Right-Wing is _also_ extremely populist. (See: Tea Party) While the support for early Leftism came from the masses, particularly in France, that's never been the case in the USA. But the definition of Left=Egalitarian/Social Progress;Right=Tradition/Anti-Egalitarian still continues to properly define the Left/Right axis in the USA...at least on Social issues. (Economic issues are, of course...a whole different can of worms...but the KKK was always primarily a Social issue organization) Oh, and for the record, in my previous response, the strong language is primarily-intended for the person above you. I view these modern attempts by Conservatives to "re-brand" the KKK and Nazis as "Left" and the Civil Rights Movement and Abolition as "Right" as being the single most insidious attempt at pseudo-historical revisionism since David Irving, and think personally that anyone subscribing to that nonsense should be shunned and ridiculed as he was... Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

To Pseudo-Richard: I deleted Zandovise's comments because I evaluated them as trolling and vandalism, which are permitted to be deleted by WP:TALK. I did this particularly because Zandovise already posted the exact same thing further up this very same section (his comment is still there), and then instead of reading the FAQ when I asked, he posted the same thing again. But if my fellow editors disagree with my evaluation of what he's doing, I won't continue to delete his stuff.

I do have sources in the FAQ below saying that the Klan is right-wing and, as Bryon has pointed out, the right-left dichotomy goes back to well before the Klan's foundation. I agree with you that left and right do change in meaning over time. However, even given that truth, the Klan has remained on the extreme right at all times even as the meaning of left and right have changed; the KKK has always been backward-looking since its foundation, seeking a return to a pre-Civil War state of society rather than for sociopolitical innovation. The only exception was the Klan's former support for Prohibition, and even that was mostly another way for the Klan to persecute Catholic immigrants and thus help restore the supposed Protestant supremacy that reigned before the Civil War.

I also agree that plenty of left-wingers have been racist - racist eugenicism and progressivism worked hand in glove for a while, for example. It just happens that these particular racists, the Klansmen, were and are right-wing extremists, according to the sources. Pirate Dan (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-Richard and Pirate Dan, thank you for your very objective and logical input. My point is that the origins of organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan need to be kept truthful and accurate. Indeed, the National Encyclopedia of 1932, Vol. 6 and 8 (Ku Klux Klan & Reconstruction, respectively) maintain the connection to the Democrat Party in 1865. This is not to say that all Democrats pertain to these views, however, the U.S.A. had not yet defined "Left" or "Right" as they are today. To infer that the "Right" in the U.S.A. is responsible for such a horrible organization is misleading. Perhaps instead of saying "far-left" or "far-right" in the beginning of the article someone could say "radical" or "terrorist" in regard to that time period without a political affiliation? As the KKK is the child nobody wants, perhaps it can also be stated that it has no connection to the modern definitions of "Left," "Right," "Liberal" or "Conservative"? I am just going with my experience as a Professor of American Government here. The goal being not to enhance the Left or Right but to maintain an historical accuracy.

However, the treatment of Mr. Greene by the South Carolina Democrat Committee forces one to re-examine what was intentionally done by the modern Democrat Party. If one looks at the Civil Rights legislation of the late 1800s and the mid-1900s one finds the resistance in the Democrat Party of the South. This appears to have resurged again in 2010, in spite of having an American of African Descent in the White House. Indirectly, this relates to the establishment of the Ku Klux Klan by the Southern Democrats and forces one to question how to view this organization in the modern context.

As stated earlier on here, in the American minds of today, the term Democrat is synonemous with the "Left" or "far-left" and the term Repulican with the "Right" or "far-right" so to insert this label at the very beginning of the article is a most clever way to make an inference that is not only untrue, but offensive to anyone espousing conservative views, and historically misleading to the origins of this organization.

Now, for the person posting directly before this, I would never presume to edit an actual article, although I have been on here for a few years, however, these comments are supposed to be based on facts while being civil and logical. It does not seem that this is the place for highly emotional, name calling, politcial rants and diatribes as can be seen on here over and over and over.Zandovise (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Zandovise, you stated above that "The Ku Klux Klan is historically a far-left organization." This, in and of itself, is such a ludicrous and absurd statement as to make me sincerely doubt that you are a "professor" anywhere except perhaps "Beck University." It's as ridiculous as a person claiming to be an astrophysicist saying that the sun revolves around the earth. Conservatives are Center-Right, and Liberals are Center-Left. Your argument, that it is "offensive" or "misleading" to say that the KKK is Far Right is as preposterous as if I decided to edit the pages for Communism and Stalinism to remove any references to them being "Far Left" in order to not make the article "offensive" or "misleading" to Liberals...most of whom are as far away from Lenin or Stalin as Conservatives are to the KKK or Nazis. You don't get to change historical fact just because you don't "like" it. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Then we are agreed. The KKK is a Democrat invention. Thank you. As for political rants, emotions and name calling, this point is proven. Again, thank you.Zandovise (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. It was invented by FAR RIGHT Democrats. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

One thing is certain. Here, as well as in the KKK and other far-whatever groups, ignorance can be a powerful tool for mis-shaping the American political landscrape. isack 68.18.196.168 (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

'fantastic costumes'

I understand that use of the adjective 'fantastic' is to describe Klan costumes in the lead section, as a synonym for outlandish from the previous sentence. However, as the (arguably) primary connotation of the term fantastic is a positive one like great, excellent, superb et al, I think its usage here can be misleading, even in present context. Is anyone else bothered by this? Unfortunately, there aren't many other synonyms for outlandish which seem appropriate, either: unconventional, bizarre, preposterous, ridiculous, ludicrous, outrageous. To be clear: I'm not saying outlandish is the base word from which we should look for alternatives because it too has certain problematic connotations, though not nearly as obvious as fantastic. Since I'm new to this article, I'm simply offering feedback as a reader. I've checked archives but see no discussion of this term. Respectfully, -PrBeacon (talk) 07:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It occurs to me that we can simply delete the word "fantastic". The sentence before says they're outlandish, and this sentence says they're the same, so we don't really need to belabor the point. I went ahead and deleted it, but please feel free to revert me. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The klan's uniforms are similar to Nazarenos. 72.161.229.229 (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, is it fair or accurate to call their white hoods and robes "costumes"? Would we call the Black Panthers' berets and turtlenecks "costumes"? 207.6.167.227 (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call them "uniforms" in this case. Is there a better word choice? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think "costume" is appropriate -- and that is the term used by the reliable source: Elaine Frantz Parsons, "Midnight Rangers: Costume and Performance in the Reconstruction-Era Ku Klux Klan." Journal of American History (2005). it was a special, unique, garb more like today's Halloween costume -- it was not like an ordinary piece of clothing (berets and turtlenecks are ordinary garments) Rjensen (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The term "costume" is accurate. They originally dressed that way in order to appear to be ghosts. TFD (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Religion: Protestant?

Unless it is demonstrated the KKK took any action against the Catholics they are just another masonic secret society with offices such as "Grand Wizard" who burned crosses. The article needs a section on Secret societies for credibility. It is know some of the high offcie holders in the KKK were Freemasons, like Albert Pike. Pike waas certainly no Protestant, but was an occultist, a Cabalist and a Gnostic. And Protestants who were not in the KKK were anti Catholic, which was the law of the land in early America, including many states up until the Civil War as state governments and Constitutions were then changed.[1][2] I do not believe it has ever been demonstrated there are ANY "knights" who function in support of a Protestant denomination, or that the KKK held any worship services. As for who founded the KKK and their function, the same can be asked about Freemasonry and is possibly outside the scope of the article. Perhapse take a page from the 1902 Britannica:

A widespread secret society, the "Ku Klux-Klan," beginning with the effort to overawe the Negro population by whipping and arson, was rapidly driven into political murders.

75.120.185.48 (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The 1902 Britannica is a bit out of date. The Klan was well known at one time for its opposition to Catholics. See this book, for example.[2]   Will Beback  talk  02:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

They burned a cross on Father Coughlin's lawn! Notice that the mention in the article to Protestantism is about the Second KKK which was formed long after 1902. TFD (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced on the KKK's supposed anti-Catholic stance, its possible there were some individuals who felt that way, its more likely the sentiments were against the Hispanic southerners who were largely Catholic. Bear in mind though many of the Klan were descended from Irish and Scottish Jacobites, many of whom were Catholic, and there were Catholic Confederate soldiers. The KKK bombed a Protestant church, surely by the same standards you could say they were anti-Protestant or specifically anti-Baptist? Hachimanchu (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No one cares whether or not you are "entirely convinced". Articles are based on sources. TFD (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Precisely, there are sources which say there are attacks on catholics, just as there are sources describing attacks on Protestants, but none to my knowledge that specify anti-catholic attacks per se. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.142.21 (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Klantreerome.jpg comes to mind. You might also take a look at File:Goodcitizennovember1926.jpg, File:Poperob.jpg, etc. Once you prove the Klan is not/was not anti-Catholic, you'll want to clean up Guardians of Liberty, Anti-Catholicism in the United States, Alma Bridwell White, Pillar of Fire International, etc. Then, you'll need to start cleaning up the web, then the libraries... - SummerPhD (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

@willbeback, Are you saying the book lists actions the klan took that were anti Catholic? If so what were they and reference the page?75.120.185.48 (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

@TFD, This Coughlin was an anti semite who supported the hitlerian discredited Jewish Bolshevism claims. He was a radio host that covered political talk radio. He and the KKK are very very similar. Maybe they worked together to foment revolution. It was a publicity stunt with no injuries or property damage of note. Also, just because the KKK may have expressed anti Catholic views certainly does not mean they are Protestant. The Templars and the Freemasons have a history of anti Catholicism. You all should remove the religion claim in the description box. That's something that will not be proven because there's simply no truth in it. Even though there were many misguided Protestants in the KKK following the Civil War the same were members of the armies that fought the war.75.120.185.48 (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not based on your opinion, but historical sources, which do document that the KKK members were generally Protestant.Parkwells (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There are historical sources listing the Klan as a secret masonic society with offices such as Grand Wizard held by well known Freemasons from the Civil War like Albert Pike. This masonic society recruits dupes from the Protestants with claims of being anti Catholic, which Protestants were (as it was law in numerous state's Protestant "test oath"). The Klan however had political motives that did not include anti Catholicism and you've not demonstrated any actual anti Catholic actions taken. The Freemasons as well recruit from Protestants, Jews and Muslims, yet masonry is not any of those religions. (the republican part was full of Protestants, the democrat party was full of Protestants. religious organisation?) Without a section on the masonic founding of the KKK the article has no credibility. The political organisation was not of any religion. Once again, the Grand Wizard was not Protestant. The Freemasons are based on the Knights Templar and their Klan group worked for the political agenda of the Pope, and the Jesuits in Washington DC at Georgetown, to frighten the blacks away from the Protestants. However the later is outside the scope of this publication. The point is they were not a Protestant religious organisation, quite the opposite. The article should include 1) Freemason ran organisation and founding, and 2) clarification that the KKK claimed to be anti Catholic for recruiting of the Protestants (as do FM). Unless it is documented the Catholics were lynched and burned out as the blacks were.72.161.229.229 (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

All of the reliable sources presented show they were anti-Catholic. Saying that "there are historical sources" is not the same as presenting reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Please observe Article II of the Ku Klux Klan manual, visible here: the purpose of the Klan is "to organize the patriotic sentiment of native-born white, Protestant Americans." Thus the Klan, at least in its second incarnation, was not merely anti-Catholic, but pro-Protestant. It hated not only Catholics, but also Jews and all other non-Protestant religions, although of course the Klan was also capable of terrible viciousness against Protestants who were black, foreign-born, unionists, or otherwise didn't fit the Klan's narrow definition of Americanism. Pirate Dan (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The Klan's masonic definition of Americanism included harassing the free blacks away from anything Protestant with hopes the blacks would run to the Roman Church as the Templar Knights have always worked for the same. Just because they use Protestants for their political agenda does not mean they are pro Protestant. That's how revolutions are caused, by misinformation. There was alot of misinformation in the Civil War72.161.229.229 (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources presented so far say they were anti-Catholic. The burden of proof now rests on those who wish to say otherwise. After pproving it here, they will need to address File:Klantreerome.jpg, File:Goodcitizennovember1926.jpg, File:Poperob.jpg, etc. Then they'll want to clean up Guardians of Liberty, Anti-Catholicism in the United States, Alma Bridwell White, Pillar of Fire International, etc. Then, they'll need to start cleaning up the web, then the libraries...Good luck! - SummerPhD (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well, there are over one billion Catholics on the planet producing this propaganda. The truth however is not up for a vote. Until some anti Catholic action is proven it is a baseless claim no matter how often repeated or what the consensus says, similar to the often disregarded definitions of fascism and marxism, as they are an ongoing conspiracy within the encyclopedist. This article has no credibility without a section on secret societies and the Freemasons holding the offices and founding of the KKK. 72.161.229.229 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice the edit history completely filled in just a few days by individuals correcting obvious errors to this Wikipedia page only to be revesed. The page even had to been locked for protection. And this has been going on for how many years? The high traffic of corrections will most likely continue until the errors are corrected, and the credibility will suffer until this is done!

With offices such as Grand Wizard, the Freemasons founding of the Klan is evident yet the Wikipedia page refuses to publish this fact. The baseless claims about KKK being Protestant or Christian terrorist or religious, and not just a political action group like today's La Raza, are the hight of absurd. (the same goes for any biased books making the claims.)

Credible Information about the Freemasons, Albert Pike and the KKK is very easy to find, in minutes.

"In 1905 that the Neale Publishing Company, New York and Washington, published Ku Klux Klan: Its Origin, Growth and Disbandment, written and edited by Walter L. Fleming, incorporating earlier published material by J.C. Lester and D.L. Wilson. Historian Walter Fleming's introduction to this 1905 book explains that he has been given "information in regard to Ku Klux Klan, by many former members of the order, and by their friends and relatives." Dr. Fleming states that "General Albert Pike, who stood high in the Masonic order, was the chief judicial officer of the Klan." On a page of illustrations of important founders of the KKK, Dr. Fleming places General Pike's portrait in the center, makes it larger than the six others on the page, and repeats this information as a caption: "General Albert Pike, chief judicial officer". Dr. Fleming attaches as an appendix to his book, a KKK "prescript" or secret constitution which had then recently been discovered."(freemasonrywatch)

The above is confirmed in Fleming's book (yet not on Wikipedia) and no surprise given Pike's involvement as a Civil War general, and founding other similar secret societies (Orders of Knights) for the war effort.

NOTE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT. Assistance was given to me while searching for information in regard to Ku Klux Klan, by many former members of the order, and by their friends and relatives. Of especial value were the details given to me by Major James R. Crowe, of Sheffield, Alabama; the late Ryland Randolph, Esq., and his son, Ryland Randolph, Jr., of Birmingham, Alabama; Judge Z.T. Ewing, of Pulaski, Tennessee; Miss Cora R. Jones, of Birmingham, Alabama, niece of one of the founders of the Klan; Mr. Lacy H. Wilson, of Bristol, Tennessee, the son of one of the authors of the History printed within, Major S.A. Cunningham and Mr. A.V. Goodpasture, of Nashville, and Dr. John A. Wyeth, of New York City. 1. D.L. Wilson, one of the authors of "Ku Klux Klan." 2. Major J.R. Crowe, one of the founders. 3. Captain John C. Lester, one of the founders. 4. General Albert Pike, chief judicial officer. 5. General W.J. Hardee. 6. Calvin Jones, one of the founders. 7. Ryland Randolph. pg.19,27 Ku Klux Klan: Its Origin, Growth and Disbandment, written and edited by Walter L. Fleming,Ph,D.,(Professor of History at West Virginia University) incorporating earlier material by J.C. Lester and D.L. Wilson (New York and Washington: Neale Publishing Company, 1905)

Fleming points out all the Klan's founders were Freemasons. The Grand Wizard, Forest was Freemason. Albert Pike was high in Freemasonry and made no claims of being Protestant. 72.161.229.229 (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, then, you are here on a "mission" against the consensus and the "ongoing conspiracy within the encyclopedists" or whatever. The cabal has spoken and "Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.". - 01:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The question of the role of Freemasonry in the KKK has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether the KKK was Protestant. Pirate Dan (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The klan was founded and ran by Freemasons not Protestants. Pike for instance was not Protestant. No Protestant worship service was held. The klan was/is a Masonic political society similar to the Jacobins of France (cir.1790). No more Protestant than the Republican Party. The quotes and reference should be added to the article with the names of the founders, as documented by the historian. As it is the Catholics have hijacked the article and made it all about evil Protestants. They have to conceal the Freemason involvement to do this. 174.125.77.208 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary FAQ

I'm thinking along the lines of the below. This is definitely not ready for inclusion in the article. If anyone can suggest modificaitons, changes or sources (I've only got two sources so far, and one is decidedly unscholarly), please pitch in. Two points I'm particularly unsure on are the relation of Northern Democrats with the first Klan, and what political relations, if any, existed between the third Klan and the Democrats or Dixiecrats during the 1940s and 1950s.

1. What is the partisan affiliation of the Ku Klux Klan?

The first Klan was an exclusively partisan Democratic organization. “The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was in effect the armed wing of the Democratic party.” Riches, William Terence Martin (2004), The Civil Rights Movement: Struggle and Resistance, ISBN p. 5. The first Klan being a southern organization, Northern Democrats generally did not join it, but preferred to claim that it did not exist, while opposing the Klan Act and other Republican measures against the Klan. Jean H. Baker, Affairs of Party: the Political Culture of Northern Democrats in the mid-Nineteenth Century, ISBN 0823218651, p. 349.

The second Klan was bipartisan, largely endorsing Democrats in the South and Republicans in the northern Midwest , who agreed with its racist, anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant and Prohibitionist goals. Mark David Chalmers (1987), Hooded Americanism: The History of the Ku Klux Klan, p. 202.

The third Klan since the 1960s has repudiated, and is repudiated by, both major parties.

2. But if the Klan was aligned with the Democrats, how can it be right wing?

The current political alignment that places almost all Republicans to the “right” of almost all Democrats is a modern phenomenon that came about gradually from the 1940s through the 1980s. From the 1850s through the 1940s, both the Republican and the Democratic parties were broad ideological coalitions. Each party included leftists, centrists, and rightists. Frances E. Lee (2009), Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate, ISBN 0226470768, p. 69-71. Thus the first Klan appealed to the right wing of the Southern Democrats, the second Klan appealed to the right wing of the Southern Democrats and the right wing of Midwestern Republicans, and the third Klan appealed briefly to the right wing of the Southern Democrats.

3. What does it mean to call the Klan “extreme right?”

The Klan is called “extreme right” because its white supremacist, hyper-nationalist, anti-immigration, segregationist, and anti-Catholic ideology is ‘’reactionary,’’ meaning that it seeks a return to an actual or imagined previously existing political situation. Clive Webb (2010), Rabble Rousers: The American Far Right in the Civil Rights Era, ISBN 0820327646, p. 10. Chester Quarles (1999), The Ku Klux Klan and related American racialist and antisemitic organizations: a history and analysis, 078640647X, p. 31.

In politics, the “right” is a vague term meaning to be conservative or reactionary, as opposed to “left” which means to be progressive or radical. The terms “right” and “left” originate from Revolutionary France, where supporters of a return to the ancien regime or the continuation of the new constitutional monarchy sat on the right of the National Assembly, while supporters of gradual or radical change to a republic or other new schemes of government sat on the left. Norbert Bobbio (1996), Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction, ISBN 0226062465, p. x.

4. So is this article saying that most or all rightists agree with the Klan?

No. Conservatives and reactionaries together make up the “right, but virtually no modern American conservatives and only some reactionaries support the Klan’s particular brand of racist, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic nativism. In particular, Catholicism and support for Israel are both very strong on the modern American right, both of which are irreconcilable with the Klan’s anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic agenda. Thus, to say that the Klan is on the extreme right suggests that it occupies a fringe position on the right, not that it agrees with the mainstream of the right.

Pirate Dan (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC) (second edition)

Sounds fine. Here (p. 10) is a link to a source that explains how the terminology is normally applied. TFD (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Nativism is no more antiSemitic than the Chinese, Japanese or Mexicans. AntiSemitism implies unjust or undue persecution, not just anti immigration sentiments. You may want to check your source for bias. 72.161.229.229 (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No one said it was. TFD (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've changed the FAQ to put in some more sources I found. I also included the Clive Webb source that TFD kindly provided. This is as far as I'll be able to go for a while, as it's back to school tomorrow for me. Pirate Dan (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is very helpful—thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Looks fabulous; Hopefully this will save a lot of talk page space. The rchives are filled with these questions The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok but drop "In Indiana, the Klan completely dominated the state’s Republican political machine in the first half of the 1920s." -- historians no longer agree with this [the KKK for example did not choose Congressmen or write legislation]. Rjensen (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC),

Birth of KKK

Please let me revive the following discussion. I did not have time to come back to this earlier, but I think it is worth it since it means correcting a factual error in the article. I am reproducing below the archive of the discussion and my response. Frhoo (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} The date of December 24, 1865 is a post-fact reinvention, and is not historically accurate. Allen Trelease, in his book White Terror, has a good discussion on this (pp. 1-2). Most probable date of the first meeting is June 1866 (we have nothing more accurate than that, although the Pulaski KKK celebrated its first birthday on June 5, 1867). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frhoo (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. It seems there is some contention about the date; the Time article lists the earlier date, for instance. Is there any source to support the fact that the December date is mistaken? Celestra (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the change would need concensus. I had reviewed this request shortly after it was posted, but it seems we have two sources making conflicting statements, so I refrained from editing until there is some agreement from other editors. If one source is clearly more reliable (ie, scholarly rather than specualtive), then that would certainly be the prefered reference. If they appear equally valid, then we might need to list both possible dates, mention the conflict, and cite both sources. I've seen this done in many other "historical" articles where the facts can't be known with certainty and there are different interpretations. Doc Tropics 19:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That was my thought, as well. If there is a good reference that claims the (somewhat dubious) Christmas Eve date is a revisionist construct, so be it. If there isn't, some mention of the conflict seems appropriate. Celestra (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me argue that the Time article and the Allen Trelease book are of different authority. The Time article is a newsweekly article that mentions the date in passing while giving no reference to check its information. Allen Trelease's book White Terror is a major scholarly book, written by a recognized historian, cited many times by other historians ( http://scholar.google.fr/scholar?start=10&hl=fr&as_sdt=0&sciodt=0&cites=1644879006359020515 ). The scholarly status of both sources are thus different. Yet the date of December 24, 1865 is probably worth mentioning, since it was part of the mythic reinvention of the first KKK during the emergence of the second KKK. Frhoo (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to Trelease's book. He mentions the founding as probably May or June 1866 on p, 3. He sources this to an academic paper from 1928 (see footnote 1, p, 423). Since this book was published in 1971, we need to confirm that subsequent scholarship agrees with him. Can you also say that the secret symbol for the KKK was to have fingers in waist band and three middle fingers outside. TFD (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link: it saved me from a trip to the inconvenient library where I had read the book, and it makes it available for everyone. Actually, the correct footnote is footnote 1, p. 430 (first footnote for chapter one). It is a long footnote that references many accounts of the birth of the KKK and explains why, with all probability (although nobody is certain) the Klan was born late spring or summer 1866. I agree we need to confirm, but it seems to me, at least, that accounts by witnesses do not agree on the date, and that maybe we can agree, at this stage, that there is considerable doubt about the exact date of December 24, 1865. Frhoo (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Brian A. Scates

In its account of the 1867 Nashville meeting the article says that one Brian A. Scates was elected Leader and President of the KKK. The name sounds suspiciously modern ("Brian" was not a very common name in the 19th century), and when I checked for other references on Google Books I was not surprised to come up empty. It turns out the edit adding Scates to the article was made September 23, 2008 by an editor with the IP 67.128.15.155. At about the same time he vandalized other articles using Scates' name.

Given the above, it's obvious the edit was vandalism and since Scates is probably a real person somewhere, mention of him should be removed forthwith. While looking into the subject on Google Books I did see some sources which reported Nathan Bedford Forrest was elected Grand Wizard of the Empire at the Nashville meeting, which may be worth including in its place if that info is accurate. 69.225.198.24 (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Request to add reference and possible addition of the word "Klanbake" dubbed by the press

{{editsemiprotected}} This may help the back and forth argument of those above too. The Democratic Party was very different in 1924 for many different reasons. My suggestion would be to add a reference to one part especially, and below is my proposal:

Under the title heading "Political influence" in the third paragraph down says:

"The Klan issue played a significant role at the bitterly divisive 1924 Democratic National Convention in New York City. The leading candidates were Protestant William Gibbs McAdoo, with a base in areas where the Klan was strong, and Catholic New York Governor Al Smith, with a base in the large cities. After weeks of stalemate, both candidates withdrew in favor of a compromise. Anti-Klan delegates proposed a resolution indirectly attacking the Klan; it was narrowly defeated.[85][86]"

Please remove the word 'issue' from 'Klan issue' to just 'The Klan' itself, and explain in a few words how it was "significant" such as using the then-coined term, 'Klanbake', or please use the link reference I provide here, and use it after this sentence (revised) "The Klan played a significant role at the bitterly divisive 1924 Democratic National Convention in New York City. The Democratic Convention of 1924 (at digitalhistory.uh.edu).

Below are some points from the link I provided:

• "Northerners and Southerners, Westerners and Easterners, Catholics and Jews and Protestants, conservative landowners and agrarian radicals, progressives and big city machines, urban cosmopolitans and small-town traditionalists." and

• "The two leading candidates symbolized a deep cultural divide. Al Smith, New York's governor, was a Catholic and an opponent of prohibition and was bitterly opposed by Democrats in the South and West."

• "Newspapers called the convention a "Klanbake," as pro-Klan and anti-Klan delegates wrangled bitterly over the party platform."

Thanks for considering any of the above, but please insert the reference so others can read into what they will, whether it's far-left or far-right, or some other POV. -IP John in Cinci — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.23.189 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done. It wasn't "the Klan", it was "the Klan issue" meaning something like "the argument involving the Klan and revolving around the ethos of that group". If it had just been "the Klan" then it would have meant some action that just the Klan had undertaken, such as burning something or whatever. But it was the Klan issue because everyone, both in and out of the Klan, were arguing about it. It is significant because of the next sentences: "The leading candidates were Protestant William Gibbs McAdoo, with a base in areas where the Klan was strong, and Catholic New York Governor Al Smith, with a base in the large cities. After weeks of stalemate... Anti-Klan delegates proposed a resolution indirectly attacking the Klan; it was narrowly defeated." People argue about issues. Right now we're discussing the "Klan article issue". What sort of issue would you say they were arguing about back then? What caused the stalemate for all those weeks, what was the resolution about and how was it meant to be received by the opposing party? ;) Let me know on my user talk page if you'd like any further help, put the edit requested template back up or put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk page and someone will be along to help you. Banaticus (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

pov labeling

Note: Talk:KKKK / Archive 8 - section: Christianity (previous related discussion). -PrBeacon (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In response to a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch)#WP:LABEL_and_categories, I attempted to relabel ("recategorize") the KKK with "Protestant organization" instead of "Christian terrorist". The reason is as follows: The organization is labeled "terrorist" by the government. The category explains that. It calls itself Christian, so using that is okay. But couldn't find a proper category. It does not call itself "Christian terrorist", which is no surprise, and labeling it that way is WP:OR because it joins the two categories into one by inference.

My changes were reverted.

There are a bunch of "punching bags" like the KKK: Nazis, Hamas, that sort of thing, that the media gangs up on and "everything goes." It would actually be a good test of the encyclopedia to label things objectively no matter what the media does.

This is why "Christian" or "Protestant" should survive and "Christian terrorist" should not. Lets keep this encyclopedic. Too often, we have concentrated on text in the article and overlooked categorizing. This should stop. Categorizing should not be more pov than the article. Quality needs to be kept up. For those interested, join the discussion on this matter listed above. Student7 (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

They are a "Protestant Organization" which engages in "Christian Terrorism." This just appears to be part of the recent Revisionist attempts to pretend that Christian Terrorism doesn't exist. Nobody calls THEMSELVES a "terrorist organization," so your attempt to base it on that logic fails. By your "logic," one could not label Al Qaeda an "Islamic Terrorist" organization. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The actions of the KKK are not normally referred to as Christian terrorism, but are seen as ethnic/nationalist terrorism. Al Qaeda is considered an Islamic terrorist organization because its objective is to set up an Islamic state. Note that earlier Middle Eastern terrorists who were Muslims, such as members of the Abu Nidal organization or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, are never referred to as Islamic terrorists. Christian terrorism btw is extremely rare, as was Islamic terrorism until recent decades. TFD (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The KKK's aims and stated goals are openly Christian Supremacist, as I have pointed out on the Christian Terrorism page. Michael [3] and Rosen [4] describe their intent to, "reestablish Protestant Christian values in America by any means possible," [5] and extensively quote many senior Klan officials and publications showing their clear religious orientation: "The Ku Klux Klan stands primarily for the principles of Jesus Christ and that explains why...Christian white men are...to give the Jews some of their own medicine..." and "We honor Christ as the Klansman's Only Criterion of Character." Furthermore, one only has to look at any modern KKK organization to see that Christian Supremacism is still as important to their goals as their racial motivations. [6] Either way, Student7's attempt to replace Christian Terrorism with Protestantism is like going to Al Qaeda'a page and replacing Islamic Terrorism with Sunni Islam. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That is all original research. The sources describe their actions as "Christian terrorism"? The KKK does not meet the criteria for religious terrorism, "the use of violence to further divenely commanded purposes".[7] TFD (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

How is that "original research?" It's a bunch of quotes from Klan officials and publications, some as old as the early 20th century...including claims that Jesus was the "first Klansman," and that the KKK represented "militant Christianity." The whole organization is filled with Christian symbolism (Burning crosses, anyone?) and their own members are quite open about their motivation being based on their interpretation of Christianity. Furthermore, their opposition to Jews and Catholics is based solely on religious grounds, and particularly with their targeting of Jews as "Christ-killers," they are indeed meeting the criteria of "the use of violence to further divenely commanded purposes." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:OR: "The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." You may believe that the actions of the KKK amount to Christian terrorism, but you need a source that makes that conclusion. BTW, do you not believe that the ideology of the Klan may have been motivated, at least in part, by racism? TFD (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the above references are from a well-respected academics. The mere fact that they don't use the term "Christian Terrorism," while they lay out the case for the KKK being an organization based on a racist interpretation of Christianity...amounts to nothing. Furthermore, your final comment is irrelevant. Many Islamic Terrorist organizations have multiple ambitions. Al Qaeda wants to get Western bases out of places like Saudi Arabia...but that doesn't mean that they are simply an "Anti-Western" organization. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The KKK is described as "terrorist" by many authors.[8] However "Christian terrorists" is not so common. In fact, it's specifically rejected by some.[9] Since they were anti-Catholic for much of their existence, the term seems inappropriate anyway. If we were looking for a descriptor, "racial terrorists" would seem closer to the mark. But we should use which terms is most common among reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  17:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As I also commented at Talk:Christian terrorism, there seems to be relatively little sourcing to establish the KKK as "Christian terrorists", per se. However, there are plenty of sources that discuss the extent to which things like the burning cross have Christian terrorist overtones. Perhaps what would be most useful for this page would be to include more material about the role of Protestantism in the KKK, not with the effect of concluding that they are or were "Christian terrorists", but of putting into context the extent of Christian identity in their history, and in their perception by others. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Previous discussion (now archived here) also included the relevance of burning crosses, which put me on the fence about using the label of 'Christian terrorism' for the KKK. There are (at least) two separate but related issues I see here: (1) WP:Category as de facto label or not -- which I'm still not sure of, even after discussing this at other articles; and (2) semantics of 'Christian terrorism' -- ie, whether that means they are terrorists in the name of Christiandom or terrorists who happen to be Christian. However, I agree with the OP of this thread that it is the latter connotation. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)