Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry/Archive 3

message: I've put in in a few new sources on the main page which may have some interesting things to say - on both sides.  This may be a profitable seam to plough.  This discussion forum also has a number of links - although it is admittedly rather sparse on the masonic side .  --JASpencer 23:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: It might be an idea to explore in this article the geographical differences.  There seem to be three quite different attitudes.  (1) The Protestant regions, places like Sweden and the UK - where for historical reasons Freemasonry has been associated with a Protestant state religion, (2) the Latin regions - France, Mexico, Italy, Portugal, etc - where Freemasonry was (in many cases is) fiercely anti-clerical and (3) the New World where Freemasonry seems to have largely lost its religious traction outside the Catholic issue.  
The talk page appears to be quite informative on this issue, but the main page is sparse.  It seems to be a big issue with Masonic historians who say that being a Mason in the US is far less an anti-Catholic statement than being a Mason in Northern Ireland or France.  --JASpencer 00:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An excellent idea.  That would certainly solve some of my concerns about blanket, "all Masons are the same", type statements.  Good luck, and if you need info on the Masonic side of the questions (especially from the US point of view), please feel free to ask.  Now, If I could only get the Vatican to see the difference! :>) Blueboar 00:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Geographical Differences

message: http://www.lily.org/blog/2005/10/freemasonry-and-catholic-church.html --SarekOfVulcan 17:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't read it.  Sorry.  --JASpencer 23:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the Google cache version. (also slightly updated link above, but it doesn't seem to be working at the moment).--SarekOfVulcan 23:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have my thoughts on this, and if I can be bothered I'll put them on his comments page.  Thanks for the heads up.  --JASpencer 00:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good blog post on Catholicism and Freemasonry 

message: Please provide evidence that the Church considers the Orange Order to be Masonic.  As far as I know it isn't. (There may be overlap in membership between Orange Lodges and Masonic Lodges in Northern Ireland, but I do not think there is any direct tie).Blueboar 23:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not.  Overlap exists, and while it is possible the Orange Order's roots lay in the lodges of Northern Ireland (when the Order started), to make a general statement of it being Masonic when no Masonic body recognizes it as such is at the very least a questionable statement. MSJapan 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewrote this to take out ambiguity and provided a citation.  It appears as if the links were a bit more intimate at the foundation of the Orange Order so I may rewrite this.  How much this does anything other than create suspicion I'm not sure, although it certainly creates a bit of suspicion.  Freemasonry is also a badge of support for the Unionist establishment in Northern Ireland, although I'm not too worried about putting that in.JASpencer 12:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand how belonging to a Masonic Lodge might be big in Northern Ireland (this not a statement of fact... just my uninformed oppinion)... Freemasonry started in England (and Scotland), and thus can be associated with "all things English".  Yes, there may be overlap in membership, but that does not make a direct link between the Orange Order and Freemasonry.  If it did, you would have to also say that the Knights of Columbus is a Masonic organization because there is overlap in membership.  And we know that is not the case. Blueboar 19:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the citation?  Did you read the changes made? JASpencer 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes... although I have to ask, what citation? There was only a link to the Orange Order article here at Wikipedia, and that did not mention Masonry at all.Blueboar 00:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orange order 

message: Since the statement about the supposed ties between the Orange Order and Freemasonry comes not from a Church document, but from an essay by a historian at Trinity, Dublin, I felt it was important to point out more clearly who made the statement.  It seems more factual and NPOV this way. Blueboar 02:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orange order citation 

message: Section: Introduction
Quote: Catholicism and Freemasonry have often seemed to be in conflict, with Freemasonry being seen as tending to anticlericalism and the Roman Catholic Church forbidding Catholics from becoming Freemasons.
Reason: This is a claim made in the rest of the article lays out.  
Section: Original Prohibition
Quote: The Protestant origin of the organization
Reason: This would be covered in the previous citation request
Section: Original Prohibition
Quote: that it was an object of suspicion to the Catholic church authorities from the outset
Reason: This is laid out in the rest of the section
Section: Original Prohibition
Quote: but accepted Italian members
Reason: This is laid out in the next paragraph (Tommaso Crudeli)
Section: Allegations of Deism
Quote: One of the persistent Catholic criticisms of Freemasonry is that it advocates a deist or naturalist view of Creation
Reason: This introductory sentence is elaborated in the rest of the section
Section: Allegations of Deism
Quote: One piece of evidence that is said to attest to this deism is the prominent role of geometry in Masonic ritual
Reason: The citation is in the next paragraph
Section: Religious Indifferentism
Quote: Masonic behaviour is seen as a denial of the truth of Christian revelation
Reason: The same citation is asked for at the end of the sentence
Section: Anti-Catholicism of Higher Degrees
Quote: It is alleged
Reason: This introductory sentence is elaborated in the rest of the section
Section: Anti-Catholicism of Higher Degrees
Quote: that anti-Catholicism becomes more pronounced in the higher degrees of Scottish Rite Masonry
Reason: This introductory sentence is elaborated in the rest of the section - as above
Section: Anti-Catholicism of Higher Degrees
Quote: A related allegation is that lower degree initiates could be manipulated into directions
Reason: The same citation is asked for at the end of the sentence
Section: Anti-Catholicism of Higher Degrees
Quote: - particularly against either Catholicism or Christian belief
Reason: The same citation is asked for at the end of the sentence - as above
===Allegations that Freemasonry is a new religion===
I've added a main section for Christianity and Freemasonry and will take all the citations from the section here as it should go to the main article.
::I would not worry too much about all of these citation requests... the user who posted them has gone through all of the articles that even remotely critisize Masonry and has gummed up each page with citation requests.  While I agree that citations are needed to back our statements, I do not think every sentence needs to be cited.  This is obviously an overzelous POV attack.  As a contributor with a definite personal POV (pro Masonic) but who wants a NPOV article, I think that it would be OK to simply delete all the requests.  We can go back to our accepted method of requesting individual citations for specific statements on the Talk page, where they can be properly discussed and agreed upon prior to inclusion in the article. Blueboar 02:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general citations are good, so I don't want to take away every citation request. a lot of them are valid.  The only caveat I would have is that taking out so many lines with citation requests in a short time would unbalance the article.  JASpencer 09:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citations are definitely good, on that we can all agree.  Over citing, however, can ruin an article.  Not every sentence or statement needs to be cited, especially if the same citation can be used for an entire paragraph or for several statements in a row.  I was simply trying to point out that we have a good working method for requesting citations (asking on the talk page and then discussing) and that we should continue to follow it. Blueboar 15:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think that asking for a citation is a far more open way of doing this.  It means that citation requests are far more open to the reader and that the benefit of doubt is with the person asking for the citation.  If you think that a citation request is unreasonable then you can also state your case on the talk page. JASpencer 19:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Citation Requests

message: I've added a main section for Christianity and Freemasonry and will take all the citations from the section here as it should go to the main article.
::I would not worry too much about all of these citation requests... the user who posted them has gone through all of the articles that even remotely critisize Masonry and has gummed up each page with citation requests.  While I agree that citations are needed to back our statements, I do not think every sentence needs to be cited.  This is obviously an overzelous POV attack.  As a contributor with a definite personal POV (pro Masonic) but who wants a NPOV article, I think that it would be OK to simply delete all the requests.  We can go back to our accepted method of requesting individual citations for specific statements on the Talk page, where they can be properly discussed and agreed upon prior to inclusion in the article. Blueboar 02:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general citations are good, so I don't want to take away every citation request. a lot of them are valid.  The only caveat I would have is that taking out so many lines with citation requests in a short time would unbalance the article.  JASpencer 09:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citations are definitely good, on that we can all agree.  Over citing, however, can ruin an article.  Not every sentence or statement needs to be cited, especially if the same citation can be used for an entire paragraph or for several statements in a row.  I was simply trying to point out that we have a good working method for requesting citations (asking on the talk page and then discussing) and that we should continue to follow it. Blueboar 15:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think that asking for a citation is a far more open way of doing this.  It means that citation requests are far more open to the reader and that the benefit of doubt is with the person asking for the citation.  If you think that a citation request is unreasonable then you can also state your case on the talk page. JASpencer 19:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations that Freemasonry is a new religion

message: Why is Imacomp altering direct quotations?  I don't like accusing others of vandalism, but... JASpencer 15:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interfering with citations

message: I've put in a main article reference.  I think that the citation requests are now superflous.  Any objection to removing them?  JASpencer 16:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation requests on "Christian religious opposition"

message: I know this is going to look suspicious, but Imacomp is not a sock puppet of mine, although I can't speak for the other non-Masonic editors.  I only wish I had the wit and imagination. JASpencer 16:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had half the wit... I'd be a half-wit.  (no comments please)  :) Blueboar 00:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Imacomp: A clarification

message: This source makes claims that have been shown to be factually incorrect (Masonic unification, what Freemasonry is about, etc.) even by sources such as The Catholic Encyclopedia.  Things is attributing intent to quotes in directions existing only ot the author of Things, and I think it is far too POV (and hyperbolic) to be presented as a legitimate source of information. Notably, the author ignores Rev. George Oliver's title, and uses wildly date and country disparate sources, and yet ascribes them as authoritative.  I hadn't heard of the Oliver book before this, so there's clearly something going on regarding agenda in this source, and I don't think it's encyclopedically appropriate, especially since the claims made are examined in a much more NPOV manner within the article.MSJapan 19:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an historic document laying out what many Catholics thought about Freemasonry in the period leading up to the Al Smith presidential bid.  It's madness to take it out rather than qualify it.  And yes the agenda of the source is that it is a Catholic apologetic.  JASpencer 17:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thoughts we should be moving the external links to the citations anyway, which I've done.   After all if we don't want to cite them why are they in the external links?  JASpencer 18:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it depends... if you are using it to directly support a statement then, yes, it would go in as a citation... if you are simply using it as further information on the general topic, then it could go into an external "see also" set of links.  However, if you use it as a citation then you do have to address MSJapan's concerns about veracity. Blueboar 01:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things Catholics Are Asked About 

message: Once again, I have to make a plea that it be noted that not all Masonry is alike... The recently added quotations from the Grand Orient of France is a case in point.  What would you expect from an organization that admits avowed atheists!  Of course they are Anti-clerical.  I can understand why the Church would object to this.  So does Masonry.  It is stuff like this that made Regular Masonic Jurisdictions withdraw recognition from the Grand Orient of France, and brand them as irregular.  These statements do not reflect the attitude of the vast majority of Masonry (both as individuals and officially as Grand Lodges).  Please make it clear that, once again, the Church is objecting to a MINORITY viewpoint, expressed by a renegade faction.  Blueboar 23:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. MSJapan 05:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blueboar, the main idea - that the Latin lodges are more anticlerical than the English speaking lodges - is a fair point.  It may have informed the Church's disapproval of Freemasonry (as Anglicanism's base in the English speaking world could allow for it's relative leniancy towards Freemasonry per se).  It's certainly an interesting area - although one IMO overplayed by Masonic historians.  For example the Church has real doubts about oath bound secret societies, the the perceived theology of Freemasonry, the links –albeit imperfect- with the Latin lodges, etc.  It is no coincidence that most of the recent church rulings on Freemasonry has concerned the “difficult cases” in the English speaking world rather than the more clear cut Latin cases. It's certainly a subject that should be explored on this page.JASpencer 12:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No argument with any of that.  I do understand that there are things in regular "Anglo-based" Freemasonry that the Church has issues with, and these should indeed be discussed in the article.  My point is that where the Church is basing its criticism on things that only "Latin" lodges do or say (I hate that term, but can not find a better one), this be pointed out. Blueboar 18:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the idea of organising France, Italy, etc among the 'Anti-Clericalism among the "Latin Lodges"' section in.  If you think you can make the distinction clearer then please do.JASpencer 18:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1905 French anti-clericism 

message: Looking at the citations, why not just cut and paste the  CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA here? Imacomp 00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the problem here? According to this statement: Wikipedia:Using_Catholic_Encyclopedia_material usinge material from this source is perfectly acceptable.  I've added the Catholic tab.  It's certainly no basis for a NPOV or accuracy dispute.  JASpencer 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA 

message: This article is neither neutral nor factually accurate. Imacomp 11:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I have an objection by tomorrow I'm removing the tag.  JASpencer 12:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For objections, see above. Imacomp 15:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a non-answer.  Please ennumberate the problems in this section otherwise the tab goes tomorrow.  References to other talk areas are fine, but we need to have some meat here.  JASpencer 17:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  "...otherwise the tab goes tomorrow." Bet it comes back as well... Imacomp 22:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  "...this section...". I'll put posts anywere on the talk page that I please, as per my editorial perogative. So yah boo to you.  Imacomp 22:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bet it comes back as well.  Fine.  Does anyone know anything about WP:DR?  Looks like Imacomp is incapable of being civil or constructive.  How's the sock check going?  
JASpencer 23:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... I do have to say that the article is a bit one sided (that side is mostly presented in a neutral NPOV way in my opinion, but one sided it is).  I have been busy on other pages where the neutrality is more questionable, or I would have addressed it.  Essentially, a short "What the Freemasons say in reply to these critisims" section would ease my concerns.  Perhaps I or one of the other Masons who edit these related pages can find time to work on it with all of you, once the hoopla at the Freemasonry page dies down. Blueboar 01:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 editors say remove, 1 says keep.  No reasons given (yah boo sucks doesn't count).  Removing tab.  JASpencer 17:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed neutrality and factual accuracy 

message: If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new sectioned titled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article.
:Any clear and exact explanations?JASpencer 22:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From [[Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#How_to_initiate_an_NPOV_debate?]]

message: The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:
*it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references.
*it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
*in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking.
*it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.
:Any evidence provided? JASpencer 22:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From [[Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute]]

message: Do they really belong here? They're pretty much "out there" from both the Catholic and Masonic POVs--SarekOfVulcan 06:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think MSJapan raised the issue.  Sedevantism is a growing movement and very much powered by the Masonic Vatican claims.  Even some of the trads in communion with Rome - such as Christian Order and Michael Davies have said similar things - especially in connection with Cardinal Bugnini.  JASpencer 12:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is that Bro. Cardinal Bugnini? Erm... I never met him at that Vatican Ladies Night.Imacomp 23:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sedevacantist claims 

message: We really should archive this page.  As there are quite a few discussions going on I suggest that all topics that are not on the list below are archived into "Archive 2".  Please add sections that you believe are still current, these will not be archived:
* Anti Catholic Quotations JASpencer 21:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive 2

message: As far as I can see the only reason for the total tab is whether the term "Roman Catholic" or "Catholic" should be used.  This is not a factual dispute and so should be changed to a POV tab.  Are there any more specific tabs for terminology disputes?  
I will replace the total tab with a POV tab in two days unless there are any objections. JASpencer 21:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I object, and you did not ask for any qualification as to why, so the tag remains.Imacomp 10:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are playing the game.  Well done.  OK so are there any objections apart from whether we use Catholic or Roman Catholic?  Now I'll wait until Tuesday before changing the tag. JASpencer 15:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  JASpencer aka the defined WP:DICK. "Now I'll wait until Tuesday before changing the tag." Mmmm I wonder if the tag will change, or just go back? Imacomp 18:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But why?  POV is the issue that you've got here.  Why do you need to appear as if your beyond reason?  JASpencer 22:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Replacing the Tab

message: We seem to be going in circles where it comes to Links to Militant Protestantism.  Let me put this plainly:  FREEMASNRY IS NOT FORMALLY CONNECTED IN ANY WAY TO THE ORANGE ORDER.  There may be lots of similarities between to two groups, and they may have an overlap of membership in Northern Ireland, but they are NOT FORMALLY CONNECTED.  It does no good to put a fact tag on that statement.  I doubt there is anything that could be cited... no one keeps records to show all the groups that AREN'T part of some other group... they keep records of those who ARE.  All I can say is that the Orange Order will not be on any Grand Lodge's list of recognized jurisdictions.  To ask for a citation to prove this negative would be like asking for a citation that says the Knights of Columbus are not formally connected to Freemasonry. Blueboar 14:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it's an uncited assertion (entered by Imacomp).  Remove it.  The KoC (Atlanta council) say "The Knights of Columbus is not a, nor is it affiliated with any, Masonic organization (for more information on Freemasonry read Humanum Genus)".  Surely the Freemasons and/or Orange order could find something similar? JASpencer 15:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, much to my surprise, I have found a citation from the Orange Order side... Not surprisingly, I did not find one from Freemasonry ... Please note that we also do not list the fact that there is no formal connection between Freemasonry and IBM, the Girl Scouts, NASA, Major Leage Baseball, or the East Puddleby Historical Society.  Do we need citations for these as well? Blueboar 16:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone wants to make the point that East Puddleby Historical Society was no longer linked to Freemasonry, although it's Masonic antecedants were a source of suspicion for the Catholic church then that would have to be cited.  Otherwise I think we'll leave it. JASpencer 17:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  How did you find out about East Puddleby WP:DICK/JASpencer? Now the "Grey Aliens" will have to move home. :( Imacomp 19:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orange Order... again 

message: I have removed the citations from Pike and from The Builder, as they do not mention anything about trampling papal tiaras.  Also, the anti-papal statements are talking about the attitude of the historical Knights Templars, and not Freemasonry.  I have also asked for the full text of Pikes statement about tyrany (Please do not just give a snippet, but give the full paragraph or even several paragraphs so we can see the context of the quote). I suspect that Pike is discussing history there as well. If so, I think the entire bit about the Kadosh degree will have to either be re-worked (and cited with something reliable) or cut entirely. Blueboar 14:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... coming up with the proper quote may be more difficult than I hoped...  Just so we know what I am talking about.  The quote in question is: "from the bondage of Despotism and the thraldom of spiritual Tyranny" and is cited: "Quoted from The Catholic Encyclopedia article Masonry (Freemasonry), citing Pike, Morals and Dogma, volume IV, page 476"  I did a key word search through the version of Morals and Dogma that is at Sacred Texts (which has been discussed before as a site that gets quotes right) and did not find the quote in any chapter, much less the one on Knights of Kadosh. ... could it be that the CE got the quote wrong?  If so, it will have to be cut. It also would bring into question any secondary citations from the CE.  if they got this one wrong, who knows what else they mis-quote. Blueboar 15:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not there, and I just read through the chapter myself in the paper copy I have.  That chapter is all about the Templars, and Pike is denouncing a lot of critics if you look carefully at what's in quotes and what isn't.  There's also no volume 4 of Morals and Dogma.  It might be Legendas, but it's probably the wrong volume to have the 30th in it.  I bet it's The Ancient Scottish Rite by Blanchard, which was the Cerneauist (and therefore "Not Accepted" ritual, which is why in the US it's "Ancient and Accepted". MSJapan 15:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I am going to remove the citation.  Given the number of mis-quotes, the section either needs to be completely re-writen or cut.  I also think we need to check every citation where the CE is quoting a Masonic author... I am beginning to seriously doubt the reliablility of the CE in this context.  It certainly is authorative and reliable for citation on what Catholics in 1913 believed, but may have problems when quoting others.  Blueboar 16:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Catholicism of Higher Degrees 

message: Note my several last edits. Please read them, before commenting, reverting, or whatever. Imacomp 11:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Balancing out NPOVly

message: It has been about a week now... and since the material about the Kadosh degree etc,  that was supported by bogus citations, has not been given any other citation, I have removed it.  Put it back if and when you find proper citations to back it up. Blueboar 18:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK... that is a bit more like it.  I have added some language to make it clear that these are allegations and not proven fact... but the citations do support the fact that the alligations are made and by whom.  I will look for counter citations etc., but for now I am satisfied.  Thank you. Blueboar 03:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: nor say that members of the Scottish Rite agree with these sentiments.  I've removed this for the moment as the citation clearly talks about swearing emnity - surely there must be some agreement towards sentiments if you are swearing a solemn oath?  Peraps some less confusing language would help. JASpencer 15:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, and will either replace the line or reword it ... I agree that there is an allegation made by evangelical anti-masons that Scottish Rite Masons swear an oath of emnity against the Church, but you have not presented evidence that they actually do swear such an oath, nor that the ritual actually includes any anti-Catholic sentiments. Blueboar 16:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No Blueboar you don't understand.  What I'm saying is that if they do swear an oath (yes, I know it's a secret oath and there's no reliable source) then they agree with their sentiments.  The idea that someone would swear an oath of emnity and then not agree with it is on the face of it bizarre idea, which at the least needs some explanation. JASpencer 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I would be willing to bet that ALL GLs claim sovereignty in their jurisdiction, and that none place themselves under any "higher" body...  to disprove this statement, it would be nessesary to cite a GL that actually does place itself under "higher" degrees. I can say that NO US Grand Lodge does.  Blueboar 17:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's likely, but there might be some who don't specifically state it.  The only one that I can think of is LDH which works the Scottish Rite, but that's irregular as far as UGLE et al are concerned.ALR 17:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish Rite 

message: A quote request was placed on the first citation in the "Allegations that Freemasonry is a new religion" section.  The line in the article to which the citation refers is: "Freemasonry has a non-dogmatic nature and explicitly states that it is not a religion, or substitute for religion."  The citation links to the UGLE website, which reads: "Basic Statement - Freemasonry is not a religion, nor is it a substitute for religion. It demands of its members a belief in a Supreme Being but provides no system of faith of its own. Freemasonry is open to men of all religious faiths. The discussion of religion at its meetings is forbidden."  I fail to see how there could be any confusion as to the interpretation of this quote, but since the tag was placed, I have provided it here as instructed. Blueboar 17:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation quote request