Talk:Anti-Masonry/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Article Content

Well, considering this page is being re-created and we're most likely going to be moving most of the Anti-Freemasonry stuff from the Freemasonry article across here to shorten the Freemasonry article, we may as well begin properly by organising what content and structure is going to be used. There are many conspiracy theories about Freemasonry out there, finding credible arguments that can be backed up by fact is exceptionally difficult however.

Realistically, Wikipedia is about NPOV and if dealing with this in an NPOV way we must understand we are not dealing with 'facts standing against freemasonry', more so 'opinions of people held about freemasonry in a negative light and why'. Any suggestions? I'll move the content from the Freemasonry article over in 24 hours or so. Jachin 05:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting quote by DreamGuy on the Freemasonry article which may be of use to this article.
The problem with articles specifically about minority views on larger topics is that 1) the info is not integrated into the main article, where it usually deserves to be, 2) POV-pushing individuals see an article specifically about their stance and tend to think they "own" it as represntatives of that stance and can say whatever they want, dispensing with the NPOV policy because they claim the "balance" comes from the existence of the main article, and 3) editors tend to ignore the side articles and focus on the main ones, so those pushing agendas on these fork articles get away with a lot more because fewer people are watching. In this case with a known POV pusher on the loose, this just reopens the battle that was put on hold while this page was locked. You can still see him creeping around to other articles to try to sneak anti-Mason comments in as it is. DreamGuy 01:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
This page will be deleted after the block is removed from the Freemasonry page. It's only use is to expose the deceitful tactics employed by Pro-Masonry Wikipedia Editors, and to add to the general feelings of hopelessness and despair that currently exist throughout Masonry in every corner of the world today. Ab Ovo Ad Finem.Lightbringer 03:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
The block will likely remain until the RfA is finished. --20px Spinboy 03:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


Dr. Alfred Rosenberg, a Nazi wrote openly and virulently against Freemasonry. He was convicted of war crimes by the trial at Nürnberg and executed in 1946.

Do we have any further information on Rosenberg? I personally disagree with the validity of the Nuremberg trials as a whole, or the subsequent death penalties imposed, yet surely one had to do more than speak out against Freemasons to get hung at those trials? I know they were a circus where the inmates were running the asylum, but to that degree? Jachin 05:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going off the cuff here, but IIRC Rosenberg was tasked as the leader of an Einsatzgruppen whose purpose was to pillage as much "mystical" material from as many places as possible, not just from the Masons. There's an article on the Net about it, which I can't seem to find, but this page has a good source list at the end of the paper. MSJapan 17:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


This lists of names is a bad article start. Why not start with the "Criticism, persecution, and prosecution" section of Freemasonry, if it is intended to split up that article? --Pjacobi 20:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent deletions

User: grazon, would you please give reason for your recent wholesale deletions of large amounts of text? It's not obvious to me why all of that information was removed -- it looks like a fair amount of pertinent stuff is now gone, while some other oddities still remain. In particular, why was an actual quote from Pike removed, while a provably fictional quote remains? I can't see how a something Pike never said can be relevant here. In fact, the edits seem so odd to me that I was tempted to immediately revert them, but given recent tumult on this topic (and thinking you might be in-process), I decided to ask you to comment here, first, before I made any unilateral edits myself. Eaglizard 14:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


Repost of comments I just made in Freemasonry Talk Page under the anti-freemasonry page para. I also see someone just deleted a nights work of material I typed into this page, confirming my feelings I state in para below.

I spent about 40 minutes tonight adding some interesting info about the history of Freemasonry under the nazi's then I thought what is the point, there shouldn't be a serpate sub page for this 'anti' material anyways as it is integeral to the whole. I then read about subpages on Wiki and see that it is really something they are trying to get away from. If it is used it is only used sparingly and should be for extraneous material, which this under arbitration topic clearly is not. I also see that Dreamguy has once again deleted my addtional paragraph to the Taxil hoax with his usual caustic comments. So it appears to be still 'game on'. I have placed a redirect on the 'anti-freemasonry' page, and that is that. We are under arbitration and block and the subpage is not following Wiki guidlines.Lightbringer 07:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You got a rough grasp of the policy to be applied, but the details are wrong. Against policy are "POV-forks", i.e. one article "Why Freemasony is good" and another article "Why Freemasonry is evil". But if notable enough, and the main article is long, a separate article about notable critics and actual persecution is perfectly withing policy. As an example see Jehovas Witnesses and Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. --Pjacobi 10:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

don't be a history hater R9

Seehund -- The Nazis (and other Germans as well) thought that the Freemasons were partners in the international Jewish conspiracy. Here are some raw notes on the subject:

As early as late Sept 1923 the Nazi newspaper Voelkischer Beobachter attacked Generaloberst Hans von Seeckt, the commander of the German Army, in print as a pawn of sinister Judao-Masonic elements in German society. The German Defense Ministry ordered General Otto Hermann von Lossow, the military commander in Bavaria, to suppress the newspaper by force or resign, but von Lossow refused to do either. (Putsch 308-9)

In Sept 1935, Nazi authorities ordered all of the Lodges of Freemasons in Germany to dissolve and turn over their property to the state. Since the early 1920s, the Nazis had denounced Freemasonry as a sinister organization which worked to undermine German values as part of a general Judao-Masonic conspiracy. (Holo Ency 531)

On 13 Aug 1940, the Vichy government of France enacted a law prohibiting Freemasons from holding any public office. (Delarue, Gestapo 215)

On 6 Jan 1942, in a midday conversation with his intimates and staff, Adolf Hitler said: "I've realized one thing. The worst of Freemasonry is not so much the philosophic side as the fact that it's an immense enterprise of corruption. It's a handful of men who are responsible for the war." (Hitler's Secret Conversations 193)

Reich Security Main Office Department (RSHA Amt). IV B-3, under SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Wandesleben, was responsible for Gestapo activities against the Freemasons from 1943. RSHA Amt VII B-1, under SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Erich Ehlers, performed the same job for the RSHA generally in the same time frame.

Fay, Prof. Bernard (?-1978) -- Professor of American Civilization, College de France; Director, French National Library 1941-1944 {arrested by French partisans c. 27 Aug 1944 (NYT 28 Aug 1944:4:4); put on trial by a French court at Paris for "intelligence with the enemy" and publishing documents and lists for the arrests of Freemasons; convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor 5 Dec 1946 (NYT 6 Dec 1946:10:3); escaped from prison hospital at Angers 2 Oct 1951 (NYT 3 Oct 1951:19:2); died 1978 (}

Flandin, Pierre-Etienne (c. 1889-13.6.1958) -- French Premier 1934-1935; French Foreign Minister 1936 and 13 Dec 1940-9 Feb 1941 {declared in Nov 1940 that "occult forces seeking to establish Judeo-Masonic domination" were responsible for WWII; arrested at Algiers c. 11 Dec 1943 (Purge p. 51); impending trial announced by French authorities (NYT 10 Oct 1944:5:3); investigation concluded 23 Jan 1946 dismissed charges of treason and intelligence with the enemy (LT 24 Jan 1946:3e); put on trial by the French High Court of Justice at Paris 23 Jul 1946 (LT 24 Jul 1946:3e; LT 26 Jul 1946:3e); convicted and sentenced to 5 years of national degradation 26 Jul 1946 (dégradation nationale); sentenced annulled the same day by the court (NYT 27 Jul 1946:5:6; LT 17 Jul 1946:4f) since M. Flandin had only served 56 days as a Vichy minister; died 13 Jun 1958 at St. Jean-Cap-Ferrat (Obits I, p. 198; Purge pps. 179-80).}

Platon, Charles (?-1944) [French Rear Admiral] -- French Minister of Colonies 1940; responsible for the French anti-Masonic police (responsable de la police antimaçonnique) {arrested by French partisans for collaboration c. 3 Aug 1944 (NYT 4 Aug 1944:3:1); arrest warrant issued by French provisional government 20 Sept 1944 (NYT 21 Sept 1944:4:4); reportedly convicted by a French court at Limoges and summarily executed by members of the French Forces of the Interior (Forces Françaises de l'Intérieur - FFI) 18 Aug 1944 ( ) or by firing squad in Oct 1944 (NYT 17 Oct 1944:8:6; LT 2 Jan 1947:3d).(Vichy France p. 124n).}

I think the flower pin worn by Freemasons after WWII was the "Forget-Me-Not," rather than the 4-leaf clover.

grazon 19:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's the forget-me-not -- it was worn by German masons during the war as a recognition sign, where other methods weren't safe. --SarekOfVulcan 19:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


Grazon, I don't see any reason to delete this link from the Anti-Masonry page. It doesn't appear to be grounded in inaccurate research, like the conspiracy sites: it just takes the position that Freemasonry is a religion, and since Masonic prayers aren't directed to Christ, it must be evil. It's a valid Anti-Masonic argument, if you accept its premises.--SarekOfVulcan 05:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It's possible it might be a copyvio, but I'm sure that the original author/publisher would not object to its use here -- they'd probably prefer to get their word out, so it shouldn't be deleted on those grounds.--SarekOfVulcan 05:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
This page was intented to talk about History not contemperary. grazon 05:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from with this reason, but as much of the Anti-Masonic material has been moved here from the Freemasonry article, I'm not sure we can operate under that plan any longer. This link fits nicely with the "Allegations that Freemasonry is a new religion" section. --SarekOfVulcan 05:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I will remove this entire article before I alow it to become a "why Masons are evil page" grazon 05:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You may want to review [1] before flying off the handle. I think that your new material is valid and interesting.--SarekOfVulcan 05:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
grazon, it's not clear to me (or probably anyone else) how exactly you have the power to unilaterally 'remove this entire article'. I'd like to ask you instead to participate with SarekOfVulcan, myself and others in a new attempt at consensus (see my comments below). Eaglizard 05:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Article name

I've been politely told to put up or shut up on Freemasonry, and I feel this page is an inherent part of that one. In fact, I don't think anything can be done for either article seperately, they're too interconnected. I'd like to make my first suggestion on this page, which unfortunately re-opens the hash-can of this article's name. Ie, shouldn't this article be either merged back into Freemasonry (I know, I know), or at the very least renamed to (perhaps) 'Criticisms of Freemasonry'? Let me first point out that I've already read the entire history here and most of Freemasonry (revision by revision), so I get the arguments for this page. But please answer this one question: is there now, or has there ever been, a movement or organized body that referred to itself (or is referred to by historians) as Anti-Freemasonry? In other words, is the titular subject of this page really an extant thing whose existence we can cite, or is it just a transparent euphemism for "Why Freemasonry is wrong", and a very bad POV-forkage? I propose we start from there. (And that's twice I had to merge edits, you guys are talking too fast! :) Eaglizard 05:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd be more than willing to change the title of this article to "Persecution of freemasons" if that were possible. grazon 05:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for typing too fast. :-) In any case, Anti-Masonry in America had its own political party at one point: --SarekOfVulcan 06:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, see my link (1) above -- it points to the original Anti-Masonry page, before it was merged into the Freemasonry page.--SarekOfVulcan 06:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah thanks for the link, I'd seen much of that text in the history of Freemasonry -- so in other words, I suggested merging this article again (for the 2nd time) with the article it was originally extracted from, I know. And I'm not in favor of that idea, but just the idea of an encyclopedic subject. What exactly are we talking about here? A specific movement? Clearly this page goes beyond the bounds of Anti-Masonic Party. If we are discussing criticisms of Freemasonry, I suggest we discuss that sort of title. Its a start, anyways. And grazon, um... I don't think we're gonna come to consensus on that version, but at least it's a suggestion, so thanks. :) Eaglizard 06:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Criticism (arguments) belong into the NPOV treatment of the main article. But if a main article is overyl long, notable critics (persons and groups) can go into their own article, especially when their hostility doesn't stop at arguments but spawnded persecution. Compare Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. --Pjacobi 07:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't feel many of the current anti-mason "facts" are factual at all, and can't really be sourced. That being said, the main article is too long, and it worked well before the merge of the two articles. (It is a feature article.) After the merge the edit wars began, so I'm willing to tolerate such an article, no matter its name. Criticisms of Freemasonry is just as good a title, so I'm open to the idea. --20px Spinboy 14:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Criticisms of Freemasonry can and will be challenged as POV fork. --Pjacobi 18:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


Listen everyone. I had an agreement with spinboy that I could put all the links I wanted in this page. All I have done was put one. Guess what? The f-ing thing stayed for a total of 2 days. The culprit who vandalized my link was Victrix. It is really getting to be a pain in the ass having to be subservient to masons. I don't do it the real world and I'm not about to start online.

Guess what? I wouldn't even dare to edit this page. I know that if I did, all hell would break loose! The page would be changed in 1 minute flat! "Tread softly ...," "the masons might not like your contribution," ... "wouldn't want to offend the brotherhood." What the hell is this place! A totalitarian regime! Who in the hell is monitoring the blatant hegemony that has become of this topic? What a racket this place is. Your world may start and end with wikipedia, but some of use have lives to live. Do me a favor, and keep your hands of my contribution. The link is:

Everybody got that? Leave the F-ing link alone! (forgot to sign my sig)--XDev 19:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Minus certain aspects of the language, I second that. The link makes a valid attempt at researching its data. While I disagree with its conclusions and some details (for example, it quotes the Grand Lodge of BC as confirming that Crowley was a Mason -- the actual page makes it clear that it was not a regular lodge that he joined), it's hardly an unresearched piece of go-se, like some others. :-) --SarekOfVulcan 19:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You guys are something

This article is a collection of allegations, and the official masonic response right after it in the next paragraph. You guys got all your rebuttals right there in the text! And on top of this you want to rebut every single link that is added? Man you guys are something. Talk about propaganda.--XDev 19:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey. I aint got no butt, never mind rebutt... Grye 04:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
You're making an assumption that you are then contradicting by your own words. You use the word "allegation", which by definition is something that is not known to be true or false (otherwise they would be statements of fact), and you are assuming them to be true. All the rebuttal (not "evidence", apparently) serves to do is clarify the factuality of the allegation. I am sure that if there was an Anti-XDev page, and it was claimed yhereon that you were a dirty homeless bum (as in "It is alleged that XDev is a dirty homeless bum") you would most likely want to respond to that if there was evidence showing that you had a home equipped with a shower, wouldn't you, rather than letting people have a misconception of what you are?
Simply put, an encyclopedia article, by definition, must be factual. The fact is, there are various statements made against Masonry. Another fact is that many of them can be easily disproven, and in order to present the correct picture, all information must be provided. There are plenty of sites out there that make allegations based on faulty information and no proof. Why should this Wikipedia article become like that? MSJapan 15:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOT. --20px Spinboy 15:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Freemasonry advocates ought to be rewritten

The last section (Anti-Freemasonry advocates) don't 'flow' as well as the rest... I feel it need a rewrite, without loosing the information off course. I'll see if I can't get the time myself, but certainly wouldn't mind a helping hand. ¨¨¨¨(my comment, unsigned because I got bananas for fingers and pressed the wrong key *blush* WegianWarrior 06:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC))

Can you tell us more about how it needs a rewrite? --20px Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 06:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
At least it's not because it don't sit with my POV ;) No, it's because I feel it don't read as well as it ought to - incomplete sentences, fragments, one sentence paragraphs.. that sort of things. I'm also confused why there are links to three US states at the end - I'm assuming these states banned freemasonery in the years listed, but there is nothing to indicate if I'm wrong or right. As I said, I'll see if I can't get the time to look at it myself (including cheking out the references given to make sure they say what the article says, and to see if there is anything else of value worth including from them), but having at least the aid of a native english speaker would be a definite plus. WegianWarrior 06:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I finally got the time to work trhu it and rewrite it - hopefully someone can take a look at it and clean up any typos and gramatical abortions I've made as well :)
Off course, you may agree or disagree wether my rewrite is an improvement on the previous version. I've maintaned all the references, I've added more material to flesh it out, and I've tried to maintain neutral point of view. I hope I've been successful. WegianWarrior 07:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

RFC: NYT link

Since this is not going to go away without discussion, here goes:

The NYT article link to "Ritual gone wrong" is factually incorrect. The statement at the end of this article from the Grand Master of New York states clearly and unequivocally that this incident had nothing to do with accepted Masonic ritual.

Furthermore, this article explains that the incident took place at an initiation for a "Fellowcraft Club" that, while related tangentially to Masonry, has nothing to do with regular and official Masonic ritual.

For the above two reasons, I think the NYT article should be removed as not factually accurate. I have listed above both a Masonic and a non-Masonic source, and they both agree on the facts of the incident and the key point that is at issue here, which is that the events took place at a non-sanctioned event, and therefore have no bearing whatsoever on Masonry.

A third reason as to why it should be removed is that it is not an article that is visible to a reader unless they have registered with Therefore, it should be removed as not being an accessible source of information, even if it was factually correct (which it isn't).

As a note, linking to it from FreemasonryWatch is contrary to WP:Copyvio.

I'm hoping that an RFC will put this particular issue to rest. MSJapan 23:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

While it may be slightly misleading, for the most part I feel that there's no reason not to leave this link here. It does identify the "Fellow Craft Club" as a social club not officially tied to the Lodge. Is there a page here somewhere which states that free-registration sites like the Times should not be linked to?--SarekOfVulcan 23:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I can reword it to similar effect: if it has nothing to do with Freemasonry officially (and therefore conversely has nothing to do with Anti-Freemasonry), why does it belong on this page? MSJapan 02:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, all the participants were Masons, and it took place in a Lodge hall. Whether we like it or not, that associates it with the Craft, and I don't think we can remove it in good conscience.--SarekOfVulcan 02:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it didn't take place in the Lodge hall. It took place in the building, but it appears that it was in the basement, or at the very lesat, in a different room. It wasn't associated with anything Masonry is about - rather, it was an independent group of lodge members acting on their own, with no pretenses of it being Masonic, and certainly not approved by the Grand Lodge. So, I think the article is citing so-called "Masonic secrecy" in a negative fashion, which is not really the problem in my mind, rather that I think it's being used in a situation where it doesn't really apply, especially since other more detailed sources refute some of the claims of the article. MSJapan 03:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The clarification improves the situation markedly. MSJapan 06:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I thought so too - thats why I put it back after you-know-who removed it today in his massive revert to support his own POV. WegianWarrior 13:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Saints Alive link and others

This link needs a response or clarification as well. The majority of the complaints against Masonry in the articles on the site refer to the blood oaths, which have more or less been removed from most jurisdictions (and were allegorical to begin with), and that one should swear no oaths to anyone besides Jesus. However, the ritual itself states that any obligation you take as a Mason will not affect any other obligation you have, religious or otherwise. Furthermore, the only example of ritual on the site is over 100 years old, is out of date, and refers (if correct) to how things were done in only one of 50 jurisdictions in the US, nevermind worldwide. The arguments are therefore based on hearsay and out of date info (any incidents that occurred are very non-specific as to time and place).

That being said, to avoid opening up a discussion thread for every link, I think all the links definitely need re-evaluation to comply with WP policies on fact-checking and verifiability, unless they are marked as examples of Anti-Masonry rather than legitimate sources of information. MSJapan 06:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Freemasonry and Christianity

The entire article is based on Mackey's encyclopedia, which the author was supposedly told to get as an authoritative resource by someone at GLPA, after apparently asking for Masonry's religious position. This is patently ludicrous, because this question gets asked a lot, and the questioner is not going to be directed to a book published a hundred years ago. Furthermore, the major gripe of this article seems to be a logical rebuttal of Masonry based on the fundamental (ist) principle that "Christianity is the only true religion". It's looking more and more like the links section is going to be a rebuttal section, because half the stuff in there is patently ridiculous and wholly unsupported. MSJapan 06:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Let us research the Freemason's design of Washington D.C. This website studies the occultic symbolism incorporated into the U.S. capitol. Symbols including the upside-down pentagram or "Goathead" pentagram formed by the streets intentionally. It is, simply put, the symbol of Satanic worship. It's top four points represent the elements of the earth (ground, water, fire, air) and it's bottom point represents the spirit of Lucifer, Satan the Devil. The White House is purposely situated at that point. There is also a statue of George Washington that is modeled after the Satanic Baphomet by the Masons. How could any society or religion that would incorporate Satanic imagery into their designs be holy and good? I think everyone should do their research on the Holy Bible itself and not the religions that misinterpret it. Read the Book of Revelation and keep an open mind, for things in it are already coming true (911, Hurricane Katrina, the Mark of the Beast being an identification microchip that's already been invented). I am only trying to help people find truth in this world. Do not fight me until you have studied the Bible and the occult like I have, because from what I know I believe wholeheartedly that these things are true. [HAYASHI]

Chick tract

As far as I can tell, Wikipedia (and the rest of the world) seems to consider Chick tracts as complete garbage. Therefore, is it appropriate? MSJapan 06:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Huh, thought I edited this last night. Must have been during one of the Firefox crashes I had. :-( In any case, I think that since Chick tracts are noteable enough to have their own Wikipedia page, they're definitely relevant to an Anti-Masonry article. On the other hand, I'd argue against the same link being placed on the Freemasonry article. --SarekOfVulcan 18:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


I'm not sure if it's just me, but does anyone have any proof that Freemasonry as such had any part in this at all? The content of the article only mentions Freemasonry tangentially (IMHO), and only with respect to France, during a particular period of time. The references to other countries in more modern times don't seem to be supported very well. This sounds a lot like "The Freemasons caused the French Revolution". MSJapan 05:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Minor update: The actual article [Anti-Clericalism] makes no mention of Freemasonry except to point at another page, and given what it says, it looks like "Anti-clericalism = anti-Catholic, and Freemasonry = anti-Catholic, so anti-clericalism is related to Freemasonry". The problem mainly being that during the times this was an issue, there is no record of Freemasons taking part in any of it as Freemasons, nor can I find any real proof anywhere else of what the section claims. MSJapan 03:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
As I've heard no dissent, and there's no verifiable connection, I'm going to edit that section a bit. MSJapan 18:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's an Idea

Why don't you let the critics of Freemasonry do a page entited 'criticisms of freemasonry' or 'anti-freemasonry' and the promoters of Freemasonry can do a page entitled 'refutations of masonic criticism' or some such, and let the readers of Wikipedia read both perspectives and make their own minds up. That way we will stop spending all our time on reverts and 'brilliantly crafted' complaints that tie up all of the Wikipedia Arbitrators time?

Just an idea.Lightbringer 11:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

(Moved to the bottom of the talk page, as per convention on Wikipedia WegianWarrior 11:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC))

I whole-heartedly agree. From what i read, the Anti-Fremasonry section very pro-masonic in its defense against allegations aired toward the freemasons. To be fair, both sides of the coin need to be present so that wikipersons, like myself, can come up with our own conclusions. dyNas_t 02:04, 22 December 2005 The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .
I'm confused. You're agreeing that both sides need to be represented, but you dislike that both sides are represented?--SarekOfVulcan 16:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of relevant material

Uhm.. this is a page about Anti-Fremasonry (as the title suggest). So why did you (Lightbringer) delete a relevant and fully referenced section? I can stab a guess at why, but I much rather hear what you have to say as opposed to jumping to conclusions. WegianWarrior 11:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"References to Satan in Masonic Writings"

Since the additions of the factual and verfiable responsa in this section did not apparently serve well enough to show that the majority of the works were not Masonic at all, I've got a new tack that might be acceptable to end the controversy.

While I was at the Secret Conclave of the 33 and a thirds over the weekend, held this year at Caesar's Palace (because some of the Egyptian motif helps to channel spirits better - Al Pike gets mad if we can't hear his Supreme Declarations, and Waite and Hall need things on the wall to point at during lectures), I was ableo to clear some of the mess up. Satan showed up fashionably late (with Jack the Ripper, who was apparently the secret guest this year). I didn't get to talk to Satan until after dinner (all of the US Presidents and other politicians were too busy discussing the New World Order with him; I guess Pat Robertson really threw a spanner in the works with that book a few years ago), but he basically said that he is well aware of the fact that we don't worship him, and the only reason he keeps showing up at Lodges all over the place is because he likes the dinners. MSJapan 17:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we see the beginnings of a page on Masonic Humour in the makings. I have rewritten the section, I think you will find it and the para heading very suitable. The rebuttals are contained in other area's of the Freemasonry page, especially in regard to Masonic teachings on Lucifer. They can be expanded there, or elsewhere if you feel it is necessary, but I think it is already covered pretty well.Call of Duty 23:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
No, actually, I don't like the rewrite. The whole point of the quotes was to prove that Masons worship Satan. Changing the heading to "Criticisms of Masonic Writers" removes the reason to quote them in the first place. If you want to delete the whole section, be my guest. --SarekOfVulcan 23:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with Sarek; the point of the quotes is not to criticize Masonic writing, rather to support the case of Satan Worship in Freemasonry. Therefore, if the section is suddenly not about Satan Worship, those quotes are unnecessary, as is the entire section. It isn't at all the fault of this article if the argument is poor and not supported by fact. Furthermore, anti-Masonic arguments have never based themselves on the quality of Masonic writing, and really, there's no way to criticize that. MSJapan 01:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
There was no descriptive or narrative going through the accusation that Freemasonry worshipped Satan, just a jumble of quotations. The only descriptive was the end two paragraphs which tried to explain why Freemasons do not worship Satan. Do we even know what Satan or Satanism is? I've seen accusations that Freemasonry is 'Satanic'. Maybe the entire para needs a rethink, possibly getting rid of all the quotes and starting afresh with something like Criticisms that Freemasonry is Occultic or part of the occult, that sort of thing. I don't know what the quotes are supposed to represent, although they certainly are unusual. I invite your idea's and comments.Call of Duty 02:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

(new editor: please bare with me if I screw up a tad ;)) IMO this page, anti-freemasonry (FM for now), certainly has it's merits since they sure had their share of persecution and defamation. Only focusing on the alleged satanic nature of FM or the charge of satanism, is missing the point though. I think FM's unique position as (perceived) opponent of established religion on one side and government/law on the other is a rather interesting phenomenon. Trying to stuff it all in the main FM article would, again IMO, obscure the information about FM and could create some unwanted bias against (unwanted since the article should be unbiased, not because I think there should be no bias against FM).

Nevertheless, I would like to point some stuff out about these satanism allegations and since I don't want to march in here while you regs are currently having a debate about the contents I thought I'd bring them up here. Because, you see, it looks like some of the quotes (and rebuttals) are using the wrong word. Satan in stead of Lucifer. And this is an important distinction since these are NOT one and the same, contrary to what latter christians would like you to believe. Without treading into too much detail, and probably goof somewhere due to lack of thorough education on the matter, I present to you two links, one detailing about how Lucifer got mixed up with Satan (from a theological site) and another describing how the term Lucifer ended up in masonic writings (from a masonic source, interesting nevertheless).

linkage: -"Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12-17

-Lucifer and Satan

(note BTW how the third quote under "Claims" looks very much like the Isaiah passage.. IIRC there's a relation between those two but I don't know for sure..)

I think that, before continuing the whole "FM == Satanism" part of this anti-fm page several of the quotes as well as the rebuttals need to be cleaned up to reflect on this in order to avoid further confusement. --Trickpath 05:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this article in my travels, and I have to say it's one of the worst I've ever read. The section on "Claims that Freemasonry worships Satan" is particularly bad, it's like a flame war between two sides. No context or NPOV discussion is provided, just "masons are bad" "no we're not" "yes you are" over and over. Can someone please clean this article up and boil it down to just the facts (i.e. accurate and verifiable instances of anti-masonic incidents)? No claims, no rebuttals, just a proper encyclopaedic entry. Honestly, you guys are like children. Alexforcefive 16:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

See user's talk page for this. As a note, if we follow his directions, we might as well RfD the article. MSJapan 18:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
MSJapan left this on my talkpage. I'm moving it here to keep the conversation all in one place.

I furthermore think you're commenting on something that you really don't know about, but, since you don't like the Satanic writings section, how else would you presume to deal with a central theme of Anti-Masonry when every claim that is made is a doctored claim? Don't you think it would be POV to state those claims and not give a rebuttal, when a cursory check of facts shows creative editing everywhere? For example, Blavatsky's writings: her Wikipedia article unequivocally states that she said was never a Mason, yet her writings are used as proof that Masons worship Satan, never mind the fact that the quote is culled together out of five pages of material and only appears on one Internet site that everyone else copies. Thus, the facts state a POV contrary to the stated claim's POV. How is that not showing both sides of the argument as per policy? MSJapan 17:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Additional - one other important note to your comment is that there are no verifiable incidents. However, were the page to be removed, the main Freemasonry article would be vandalized again like it has for the past three months, simply because "the article is being deleted by pro-masonic editors who don't want the truth to be known". Every time unverifiable things are taken out, they get put back in. So, what do you suggest, given that the article is repeatedly designed to push POV in spite of fact, and given that the anti-Masonic POV people are only interested in pushing their view as correct?
Whether I have knowledge of this subject or not is irrelevant. I am not here to discuss whether freemasons worship satan or not, I am here to discuss the quality of this article, which in my opinion is lacking.
In regards to your first point, the rebuttals could in fact be removed without unbalancing the neutrality of the article. The article is about anti-masonic sentiment, not whether this is correct or incorrect. To use your example: Blavatsky's writings have been used in this article as an example of anti-Freemasonry, not as proof that masons worship satan. There is no need to refute her claim in the confines of this article.
However, as I have already stated, I would prefer the article to be neutral in the first place. To use your example again, it could be said that "Blavatsky has claimed that Freemasons worship satan, in her book The Secret Doctrine." Although even this innocuous statement is unbalanced, as the article states the quote has been concoted from several different pages in the book, and does not even refer to freemasons at all. This is the point I'm trying to make. Someone has clearly included this quote as a blatant piece of anti-mason propaganda, and instead of removing it since it's clearly inaccurate or false, someone has replied to the claim as though the entire article was a discussion forum.
To your additional point: I do sympathise, it's a problem which most articles on this site are subject to. I have given my suggestions though - rewrite the article to include only verifiable, historic examples of anti-masonic activity and speech, and leave it at that. If people insist on vandalising the article with propaganda, revert the changes or have it locked. I think it's an interesting topic, I wouldn't suggest deleting it. Alexforcefive 19:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

RFC: Editing Procedure

I'm starting to see a trend again, and I'm not best pleased with it at all. Just so we don't have a repeat of the mess we just got done cleaning up, I would like to see an RFC on the following, which will become a binding policy on this article:

All major edits (major edits being defined as adding external links, or making changes to information contained within sections, apart from correcting flow issues or typos) must be discussed prior to being made to conform to editing by consensus. Any major edits made without consensus will be reverted. MSJapan 01:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

1. I agree with this. MSJapan 01:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

2. I agree with this.Call of Duty 03:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

3. I disagree with this. It goes against WP:Bold. --SarekOfVulcan 05:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

4. Comment: I will neither argree, nor disagree at this time. However, I will point out that the suggested policy is very restrictive, and likely to turn potential new editors away from the article. WegianWarrior 07:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with the comments you made here however:

-While I was at the Secret Conclave of the 33 and a thirds over the
weekend, held this year at Caesar's Palace (because some of the
Egyptian motif helps to channel spirits better - Al Pike gets mad
if we can't hear his Supreme Declarations, and Waite and Hall
need things on the wall to point at during lectures), I was able
to clear some of the mess up. Satan showed up fashionably late
(with Jack the Ripper, who was apparently the secret guest this
year). Ididn't get to talk to Satan until after dinner (all of
the US Presidents and other politicians were too busy discussing
the New World Order with him; I guess Pat Robertson really threw a
spanner in the works with that book a few years ago), but he
basically said that he is well aware of the fact that we don't
worship him, and the only reason he keeps showing up at Lodges all
over the place is because he likes the dinners. MSJapan 17:07, 6
November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be the basis for a reworked paragraph on Freemasonry and Satanism? Call of Duty 03:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

proposed merge

I recently proposed a merge of Persecution of Freemasons into Anti-Freemasonry. After reading about the conflict here, I hope I haven't opened a can of worms.

Factors to take into account:

  • Reason for creation: the new article was apparently created because the editor didn't like the amount of anti-masonic material in this article.
  • However, there may be a good reason to have a separate article. Are criticism of freemasons (and replies by their defenders) significantly different from actual persecution, or somewhat different and this article would be too big with them? If so, the articles should be kept separate.

A final decision on the merge should probably wait until the RFA is sorted out. --DDerby-(talk) 08:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree to this merge, on the grounds that merging persecution with anti-masonry would be equatable to bringing the Anti-Freemasonry article in line with the Anti-Semetism, et al, articles dealing with the violence, persecution and hatred directed towards individuals of a Church of organisation based on xenophobia and lack of understanding. Jachin 09:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Albert Pike speaks for Masons?

"Hmm... Albert Pike. Where to begin with him. Albert Pike may have been a Masonic scholar, but he was not the end all, tell all on Masonry. To say as a Mason, that Albert Pike is our voice, would be like saying that Pat Robertson is our voice as Christians. Christians do not believe in assassination, and Masons to not believe that Satan is a god."

D. David Will, at [2]--SarekOfVulcan 04:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Frederick the Great Association ??

Recently User:Novembre 19 inserted some text in the article that I find, how to put it, strangely remicent of another editor who is temp banned from editing any articles relating to freemasonry. In that block of text there is a reference to something called The Frederick the Great Association. A quick google reveals 19 pages (on 11 sites) refering to this, one of which is a Wikipedia RfA page, and the rest seems to mostly be copies of each other. Several of the pages are dead (404) or blocked by websense as hate sites. The sites I do manage to access are not very encycopedic, nor do they hide the fact that their prime goal is to attack masonry.

User:Novembre 19 also deleted a paragraph which explained that several masons continued thier masonic work in secret under the Nazis - presumably it don't fit his POV. It is however a fact that it happened, both in Germany and occupied nations.

I've reverted these changes. Until reliable, neutral references can be found for this, I propose keeping it out. WegianWarrior 07:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Check out Paul Bessel's page - it includes some of this info.--SarekOfVulcan 17:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Freemasonry and Anti-Semetism

Perhaps this article should be a little more encyclopediatic. Take Anti-Semetism for example, that is how an article should run for a group of individuals who have historically been persecuted. It alludes to the reasoning of persecution, but doesn't outright condone it like this article does.

Freemasons are just as if not more so persecuted as Jews are, being because there are still more public lambastings of them than Jews. To fight anti-semetic feelings the B'nith B'rai and the Anti Defamation League were organised, however it appears the Freemasons have no such body to prevent outright public vilification.

I would like to see some respect shown in this article and for the suffering of others based on crackpot theories and religious zeal that still goes on, in 2005, in a world that is supposed to be civilised.

So, perhaps, if people agree with this concept, we can model this more on the lines of the above article and not just have it as a sandbox for conspiracy theorists and born again christian cultists to lambaste a group of people. 10:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm dissapointed not one of our fine editors has any input on such a suggestion. Sitting back and reading over my post, I felt the need to add also that, furthermore, anti-semetism and anti-freemasonry both stem from a lack of understanding of the organisation and are based on secondary and tertiary evidence primarily as a source of 'fact', leading to misconceptions of great magnitude.
I would really appreciate getting a bit of a consensus going, as I feel that this article is basically a stomping grounds for the lambasting of freemasons. 22:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, it comes down to an inability to do much of anything, as we have a quite persistent vandal on our hands, and having to revert the articles twice a day makes it hard to sit down and write new material. MSJapan 18:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert of 14:42, December 2005

A new user Daniel Matheson, did two edits on this page today, which not only matches the edits done by a previous, currently banned from editing any articles relating to freemasonry, editor, but also was a copyvio from The Catholic Encyclopedia (which is, according to the website, ©2003. Because of this, I reverted the article back to the last version by MSJapan .

As a sidenote, the new user Daniel Matheson claims that the version he replaced was highly speculative and unreferenced pov material, while I find it to be not just NPOV, but also quite well referenced in the References / notes: sub section.WegianWarrior 13:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)