Talk:Suppression of Freemasonry

message: "Freemasonry was suppressed in some Iron Curtain countries in the  Communist era, with notable exeptions being East Germany, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Cuba. The founder of the Red Army in the Soviet Union, Leon Trotsky, was a Freemason as were a number of overseas trade and diplomatic supporters such as Armand Hammer, Victor Rothschild, and the Rockefeller Foundation."
First of all, Here's info on Trotsky: .  He was a Bolshevik, and not a Freemason.  The other uncited info has nothing to do with the article. MSJapan 14:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion

message: The allegation doesn't appear in the cited article (which is from 1941, not the 50s), and Bernheim is clearly stating that although a letter of support was sent, Masonry was dormant in Germany.  Rudolph von Sebbetendorff (or Sebottendorff, either works) is a direct lift from FreemasonryWatch (Google it), and there are plenty of other sources that disprove it (same google) such as: "Sebottendorff's real association with Freemasonry is difficult to determine, although it appears that he was initiated into an irregular body of the Rite of Memphis under the Grand Orient of France." from here.  So, i would say that once again, POV dispute is from a disreputable source and is thus manufactured to make a point rather than disseminate facts. MSJapan 03:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The allegation about the Old Prussian Orders seems to be wider than Freemasonrywatch, to be fair.  It is certainly not clear that all "Freemasonry was actively suppressed" when the Nazis seized power.  JASpencer 21:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to put in some more information about the divide between the Humanity and Grand lodges.  I'm not that interested in this area to be honest.  JASpencer 21:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the six Humanitarian lodges were clearly suppressed, the three OPs renamed themselves and denied any connection with Freemasonry and still were compelled to dissolve in 1935, the Symbolic Grand Lodge left the country, and what happened to Rising Sun is unclear (but it was irregular), I would consider Masonry suppressed for all intents and purposes.  I'm going to add a little more to the Germany section once I work the info from the article into a more coherent whole. MSJapan 01:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Germany POV? 

message: The Nazis claimed that high degree Masons were willing members of "the Jewish conspiracy" and that Freemasonry was one of the causes of Germany's loss of the First World War. In 1933 Hermann Goering wrote that "..in National Socialist Germany, there is no place for Freemasonry."[4] In 1937 Joseph Goebbels inaugurated an "Anti-Masonic Exposition" to display objects seized by the state.[4] The Ministry of Defence forbid officers from becoming Masons, with officers who remained as Masons being sidelined[1]. Field-Marshal Paulus was denounced as a "High-grade Freemason" when he surrendered to the Soviet Union in 1943.[5]
Some Freemasons were active in the opposition. Masons would sometimes be arrested, not for being Masons, but for offences such as treason with their membership noted during sentencing. Freemasonry continued to be practiced clandestinely, however, and it i sclaimed that during this time German Masons took to wearing the forget-me-not as a badge of recognition (although it is alleged that this was a later invention by Theodor Vogel, the Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of Germany in 1948-49[6]).
There were nine Grand Lodges in Germany when when the Nazis seized power. Broadly speaking there were six small and generally liberal "Humanitarian" Lodges and three larger "Old Prussian" Lodges[7].  The latter were avowedly nationalist and would not allow Jewish members, but they did allow Jewish Masons to visit the Lodge as early as 1854[8].
In the first few months of Nazi rule the six "Humanitarian" Grand Lodges were suppressed, while the three "Old Prussian" Grand Lodges were permitted to continue operating as 'Frederick the Great Associations' after sending letters denying that they were Freemasons.
*I corrected the naming conventions so they match Bernheim.  I also made sure "Grand" was specified, as well as a number, because otherwise the scope seems a lot larger than it is.
*Corrected Vogel's info per the cite.  He was GM for a year of a lodge system that seems to have failed, and without any info on what Vogel did (if anything), I am not comfortable calling him a Nazi.  It's too much of a gray area.  Schindler had a Party badge on in Schindler's List - that doesn't automatically make him a Nazi.
*Note: This will need to be checked to make sure the sources line up properly when it is pasted back in. MSJapan 01:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I have an idea where it comes from, and in fact, the biography of Simon Wiesenthal lists Freemasons as one of the four main groups persecuted by the Nazi regime, along with Jews, Gypsies, and I think the other one was intellectuals.  That's an easy enough cite for me to find. MSJapan (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

text: This rather radical claim still exists in the article (and most connected articles, all citing the same source "Freemasons for Dummies" that is a part of the For Dummies series and highly non-scholar) and has not been backed further. I think it should be removed as obviously false, it's known for sure that at least the vast majority of the about 80 000 Freemasons in Germany were not murdered or even arrested. For example Hjalmar Schacht served as a minister in Hitler's cabinet for 10 years. It seems likely that someone has at some point confused the total number of Freemasons in Germany and Central Europe with the number killed by the Nazis. Indeed 200 000 deaths would have meant the extermination of the entire Central European Freemasonry, however even of the prominent names only few were killed in the war and usually for reasons not directly connected to Freemasonry. -89.67.22.30 (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany rewrite 

message: For some reason I can't identify, this page appears under "D" in the Freemasonry category.  Does anybody know why, and more importantly, how to fix it? MSJapan 02:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cat problem 

message: The Template:Disputed-section tag has been removed, which is fair enough.  However I have asked for citations on a lot of facts in here.  If Bessel is going to be used, could the direct quotes be included in the footnotes?
I'll wait a while before reinserting the Template:Disputed-section tag.  By then it probably won't be needed.
JASpencer 12:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made some additons to this section and improved the referencing, hopefully this has solve the problem Benvenuto (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Spain

message: Bessel and the American Mercury newspaper are quoted quite generally.  Can we have quotations from the articles in the citations?
Are there any tags to ask for more detail within a citation?  JASpencer 21:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple Quotes

message: I found a ton of possibly relevant things in Englishhere while trying to dig up more on Virchow (which I've had no luck on yet), but I don't have time to look at all of it ATM.  MSJapan 22:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE No grounds to dispute heavily cited section and follow-up sections across Wiki, so disputed tag removed from section. Imacomp 22:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some editing done to this section. Imacomp 10:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Some stuff moved to this article from Freemasonry "Holocaust". Imacomp 19:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More German stuff 

message: :Lies or not, they are statements with a verifiable source.  It is not up to us to make a value judgment, especially if there is no reason to think that the source is biased.  However, rather than rv the article repeatedly, how abbout we discuss what the problem supposedly is and try to work it out here instead? MSJapan 02:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact tags 

message: Neither of those states is even arguably totalitarian.  I would suggest, for those who think that they belong in this artice, that become familiar with the three subjects (i.e. the two states and the category of totalitarianism).  Please read the wikipedia article Totalitarianism and read up on the states in question.
As to Spain, Spain Franco's Political System from the The Library of Congress Country Studies states:
"In spite of the regime's strong degree of control, Franco did not pursue totalitarian domination of all social, cultural, and religious institutions, or of the economy as a whole. The Franco regime also lacked the ideological impetus characteristic of totalitarian governments. Furthermore, for those willing to work within the system, there was a limited form of pluralism. Thus, Franco's rule has been characterized as authoritarian rather than totalitarian."
As to the Papal States, Encarta notes that totalitarianism is "a form of autocracy peculiar to the 20th century".  Encarta goes on: "Those countries whose governments are usually characterized as totalitarian were Germany, under the National Socialism of Adolf Hitler; the USSR, particularly under Joseph Stalin; and the People's Republic of China, under the Communist rule of Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung). Other governments have also been called totalitarian, for example, those of Italy under Benito Mussolini, North Korea under Kim Il Sung, Syria under Hafez al-Assad, and Iraq under Saddam Hussein." Mamalujo 18:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the info is indisputable fact, so it would seem the inaccuracy is in the usage of the term "totalitarian" in the title.  Can you think of a more accurate term to use, or even a better title? MSJapan 04:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: MSJapan said pretty much the same as I was going to say, and he beat me to it... However, I do want to thank you for your willingnes to discuss this. Would one option be to include something like "While technicaly not a totalitarian state by the modern definition etc", and / or something to the effect of "often considered a totalitarian state" be acceptable? I have also pondered the alternative title "Freemasonry under oppresive regimes", but a lot of people would probaly blow a fuse or ten if the papal state is mentioned as one... I'm also going to put the information back in, but hidden. This way we will have less trouble reintergrating it into the article at a later time. WegianWarrior 11:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a thought.. having looked thru the article on Totalitarianism, I proceded onto the article on Authoritarianism. As far as I can tell, all the countries discussed in the article meets the critera for being labeled as such. Spain under Franco was a dictatorship, and Dictatorships are always authoritarian. The papal states was a theocracy, and Theocracies are almost always authoritarian. Thus I suggest changing the name of the article to "Freemasonry under authoritarian regimes". WegianWarrior 12:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me... In fact, it could open the article to a broader discussion.  For example it would allow us to talk about Freemasonry in Austria during the 1700s and 1800s and how the state's attiude changed between different reigns. Blueboar 14:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would resolve the current issue.  Perhaps a better rename would be "Suppression of Freemasonry".  That way any states which have supressed or outlawed Freemasonry could be included regardless of whether they are "authoritarian".  If I'm not mistaken many Islamic countries currently suppress Freemasonry.  There are probably some countries which do not have full freedom of association but may not constitute "authoritarian" states. For example, I believe Freemasonry is illegal in Jordan but I'm not sure if it's an authoritarian state.  There are other examples, too.  I think suppression of the oranization is what the article is about and such a title would allow for the broadest inclusion of subject matter. Your thoughts, please.  Mamalujo 20:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would certainly work for me. WegianWarrior 11:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not strictly true, as there are Islamic countries like Comorous, Djibouti and Ethopia, that are Arab speaking countries, that permit freemasonry. In the case of Jordan, your statement is correct, but a lodge of one of the UK based home or sister constitutions contines to meet there, privately. --Aquizard 11:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papal States and Franco's Spain 

message: : I note that someone has made additional commentary on the Iraq section. Whilst it is can be proved that a number of Lodges associated with US and British military units now, and have met and continue to meet in Iraq, in military camps, I have not seen anything on the GL of NY website to confirm that the Land, Sea & Air Lodge No 1 of the GL of New York has been re-opened, let alone in Iraq. Yes, there was a proposal to undertake this and indeed there was information on certain websites to this effect. But equally there is assumed evidence that the Land Sea & Air lodge was (?) working under dispensation in Afghanistan!. I am not sure of the source information that has been used but I appreciate that there is a genuine wish for the return of such an activity in Iraq, but the following website states everything is on hold . Interestingly the brother who is petitioning the GL of NY has according to his blog written to the GL of NY a number of times as evidenced on his blog . I do question that the lodge is currently working in Iraq exists at all. Aquizard 18:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it should probably be changed to the past tense, that's all.  I would imagine the problem was one of duty rotation. MSJapan (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an article in the Empire State Mason (GLoNY's quarterly publication) about a year ago that said Land Air and Sea Lodge had been issued a warrent...  I suppose it might have folded or moved since then. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Land Sea & Air #1 was reactvated in Iraq in 2005, for a short period of time. Currently it is not working and there is a proposal to reactivate it once more. Aquizard (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq 

message: Hi. Someone smarter than I might know something about the Craft in Indonesia. I have searched the web but not been able to find anything definitive...... Investigations reveal Master Masons being stationed in the Dutch East Indies - but not being active there...... Today there seems no trace of Lodges in Indonesia - it is illegal ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.46.179 (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on Indonesia ? 

message: In this article, it says that Morgan was definately kidnapped by Freemasons and possibly murdered, while in Masonic conspiracy theories, it states Morgan was supposedly kidnapped and murdered, as alleged by a group of Anti-Masons. Besides the obvious contradiction, this article shows some major NPOV. Mego (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morgan's Disappearance 

message: User:Mamalujo has twice now attempted to add a portion of Kennedy's address to the American Newspaper Association from 27 April 1961 to this article, and in response to my comment that the quoted section did not address Freemasonry by name, and was therefore undue weight, said "Nice try".  Let's look at the full paragraph from which the quote came:
 The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know. http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03NewspaperPublishers04271961.htm
It is a paragraph about official censorship of the press or stifling of dissent.  Attempting to link this to suppression of Freemasonry in the United States is original research, unless someone can find a reliable source that states this speech in general, or this paragraph specifically, was about Freemasonry.--Vidkun (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is plain who the speech referring to.  However, you do have a good argument that it is OR, barring a reliable source which makes the connection. Mamalujo (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it could also be taken as referring to the Knights of Columbus, I think a cite would be a good thing to have, yes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kennedy quote 

message: Just like we add tags for information derived from older versions of currently published works (like the Catholic Encyclopedia and Britannica), the section which cites various laws in the US doesn't address whether those laws exist anymore, and, given that the cited sources date to the 1800's, it's obsolete info, without further info on the continuance of those laws.  As the article stands now, it would lead a reader to assume Vermont still has anti-Masonic laws.--Vidkun (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As to those statutes, reference to them is appropriate even if they are no longer applicable law. History of suppression is what the article is about. Much, if not most, of the suppression in the article is no longer in effect.  Mamalujo (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly enough, nowhere in the article does it say it is about historical suppression, which could, as there is nothing but the historical info in the US section, lead the uneducated, who know nothing about the article, to think these laws are still on the books.--Vidkun (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated info 

message: The section named "Other countries" seems a bit out of place, badly worded, and way too short. What's the best way to rectify this? Someone was trying to be helpful there so removing it seems rather uncouth… 96.18.238.19 (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other countries" 

message: Turkey does not ban freemasonry as well. It should be noted in the Islamic World section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.73.174 (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey 

message: Holy Unix, IBM, Linux and Motorola, pray for us ! If you think the way I think, with all the informations you can find into Internet and books, maybe, finally, Freemasonry is not such a bad thing. At the moment my biggest problem is psychiatry. Science, medicine, religion, shamanism ? What is psychiatry in fact ? Regards!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.138.85 (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social networks 

message: It is as factually incorrect to translate "Tiandihui" into English as "Freemasonry" as it would be to translate "Green Berets" into Chinese as "Shaolin monks." "Freemasonry" is not a generic term for all secret societies. When I have time I will rewrite that section. Mpaniello (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiandihui =/= Freemasonry