Talk:Anti-Masonry/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Religious Anti-Masonry

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

Given that the Masonic rituals are published, and freely available for purchase the public (Freemasons. Emulation Lodge of Improvement (London, England) (1991). Emulation Ritual. London: Lewis Masonic. ISBN 9780853181873. OCLC 40357899), the above comment can not be taken seriously. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, the sources support the statements. Some clergy see nothing wrong with Freemasonry, and in fact, there are clergy from many religions who are members and function as Chaplains for Lodges and Grand Lodges. At the other end of the spectrum, the Roman Catholic Church has such a concern about Freemasonry that it was mentioned in Canon Law. So there are a range of published opinions that illustrate the situation exactly as it is stated in the article. MSJapan (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Freemasonry & Patriotism

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

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

Nonreligious/Nonpolitical Criticisms

I'm not aware of any criticisms of Freemasonry that are not about politics or religions. I don'te know much about the organization or even their criticisms, but I scanned through the article and saw just political/religious criticisms. Aren't there criticisms of their views of history (the solomon's temple thing), the order's claim to have invented certain everyday symbols, (supposed) election of people based on membership, etc? I mean, I'm pretty sure that an organization such as this has criticisms that do not relate to religion/politics, though I was wondering if there are any notable sources for this. 67.77.70.240 (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

First, there is a difference between criticim and actual opposition. This article focuses on the latter. But to answer the question... yes, there are people who are critical of the fraternity for non-religious or non-political reasons. The most notable are the conspiracy theoriests... those who think Freemasons are secretly either already rulling or trying to rule the world and all that. However, most of the conspiracy theories overlap with and tie into political or religious criticisms.

The closest we come to a criticism that is not religious or political is the accusation of supposed "cronyism"... that a Freemason might favor another Freemason in business or in other dealings. This is essentially the same complaint that is made about any group with "insiders" and "outsiders"... Alumni from the same school, College fraternities, the local country club, it is even made against veterans of the armed services (I would have gotten that job if it weren't for those damn Marines with their "Semper-fi" favoritism!) ... anyone who could form an "Old boys network" has been accused of doing so. It was a fairly common criticism of Freemasonry 100 - 50 years ago, but it seems to have faded in recent years.

As for sources... I would suggest starting with Freemasons for Dummies and The Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry (I'm serious... don't be put off by the titles... they both contain several very well written chapters discussing the various criticims of Freemasonry.) Blueboar (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, cronyism was the word I was looking for. And I'm not offened, I'm a big fan of the Dummies books myself. I was meaning criticisms rather than opposition, so, yeah... I'll check the book out 67.77.70.240 (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling?

How should this term be capitalised and spelled?

1. Anti-Masonry 2. Anti-masonry 3. anti-masonry 4. anti-Masonry 5. antimasonry 6. Antimasonry

The article uses several of these spellings, and so do other sources. Does it depend on the degree of organization of the anti-movement?

Thoughts?

Thanks, Don Argus jr (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Standard practice is that the "M" in Masonry is capitalized, to indicate that we are talking about the Freemasons (small "m" masonry refers to building in stone or brick... so "antimasonry" or "anti-masonry" would be "opposition to brick or stone walls")

I don't think anyone spells it antiMasonry (with the capital in the middle of the word) so we should go with either anti-Masonry or Anti-Masonry. Which to use depends on context. When referring to the Anti-Masonic political party that existed in the US in the 1830s, we would use capitals (the Anti-Masons). At other times we can use "anti-Mason", "anti-Masonic" or "anti-Masonry" unless beginning a sentence. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have somewhat conformed things to what I have stated above. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar. Makes sense to me. Don Argus jr (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)