Talk:Anti-clericalism and Freemasonry

Untitled

I redirected this article... it was nothing but a POV recreation of the old Catholicism and Freemasonry article, which by consensus was merged into Christianity and Freemasonry and Papal ban of Freemasonry. The recreated article is essentially an attack page, filled with POV material supported by selected quotes and unreliable sources. Half of the material is Original Research. (all of which were discussed multiple times on the old page).

If the redirect is undone, I will take this to arbitration. Blueboar (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the material which is in the merged article. What remains is reliably sourced material. If you have objections please raise them. Aliajacta (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No... what you have returned is all the POV and OR material that was removed from the merged articles... because it violated WP:NPOV and WP:NOR (specifically WP:SYNT). It was removed for cause, and should stay removed. Blueboar (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Article is not attack page/candidate for speedy deletion

The article is plainly not an attack page but is a well and reliably sourced article regarding anticlericalism and Freemasonry. To the extent it has flaws, they can be remedied by editing. It is certainly not a candidate for speedy deletion. Aliajacta (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've declined speedy on it, but it's still probably headed to AfD. I would encourage disputing parties to so nominate it and make their cases there. I've added a POV-check tag to the article in the mean time. Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

To the extent it has flaws, they can be remedied by editing... we already did this... this is exactly what we did before... after we moved most of this material to Papal ban of Freemasonry and redirected the rest to Christianity and Freemasonry. I have raised the issue at WP:ANI, and have asked a neutral Admin to get involved. I will also happily nominate for AfD if that is recommened. Blueboar (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't look like their was any constructive editing but a complete blanking of the material that is now in this article. Aliajacta (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason why the material was removed from the previous incarnations of this article was because it is fundamentally flawed... it violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR (specifically WP:SYNT), it is filled with WP:Coatrack arguments that constitute a WP:Attack page. In other words, it was removed for cause (the cause being that it violated multiple Wikipedia policies). This was fully discussed on the talk pages of the previous article. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I am busy with off-line life right now (and will be for at least a week), so I may not be able to respond to comments and edits right away... this is one reason why I have not (yet) nominated this for deletion. Please do not assume that a lack of comment from me means agreement or consensus. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think anticlericalism and freemasonry is a notable subject, separate from either of the other articles - since the issue of conflict between freemasonry and Catholicism appears prominently in many mainstream histories of 18th and 19th century Spain, Portugal and Latin America. If some people consider it an attack article, then it would be good for them to identify sources that back their point of view on issues and present them here. Xandar 03:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between the topic and the article. The topic might be notable (if there are indeed reliable source that discuss it)... this article, as it stands now, is nothing but an attack page... full of coatracked POV accusations and sythetic WP:OR. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Analisys of the problems with this article

Overview

Let us start with the Title... it violates policy. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Titles containing "and", we should

• "avoid use of 'and' in ways that appear biased. For example, use Islamic terrorism, not 'Islam and terrorism'."

The title "Anticlericalism and Freemasonry" definitely appears biased, as it predisposes the reader into thinking that there actually is a direct connection between the Freemasonry and Anticlericalism. It is certainly true that many Catholic authors think this is so... Freemasonry disagrees. Unfortunately, the alternatives are not much better... remaming the article to something like "Masonic anticlericalism" would require an actual discussion of how and why Masonry might be considered anticlerical (and thus requiring the editors to find sources that do more than mearly make an accusation).

It is also biased in that it tars all of Freemasonry with the same brush. The article itself hints that the supposed anticlericalism is limited to just the Continental branch of Freemasonry. But that distinction is not reflected in the Title. It is true that at various times in history, individual Grand Lodges of the Continental branch (a minority world wide) have taken a public stance on political issues of their day... and in some cases this stance has been the opposite of that taken by the Church. The question is... is this Anticlericalism?

I don't think it is, but for the sake of argument, let us make the same error that the article makes and assume that it is... that mearly indicates that a specific Grand Lodge, at a specific place and time in history, supported an anticlerical political stance on a specific issue. Not that the institution as a whole is anticlerical. The article does not examine instances when the same Grand Lodge's being discussed took a political stance that was the same as that of the Church. The article cherry picks it's material to push a point.

Almost every country discused in this article is or was at one time strongly Roman Catholic. The Church is documented to have controlled many things that it no longer controlled with the adoption of republic-style governments. I do understand how the Church might view anything that deminished the Church's control over these things as being "anticlerical" by default. But if so, then we must say that everyone who supported democratic government was guilty of Anticlericalism... the Freemasons who did so are thus improperly singled out.

Meanwhile, the article does not even mention the Anglo/US branch of Freemasonry (which forms the majority world wide). This branch actually forbids all discussion of both politics and religion. The Grand Lodges in this branch never express any stance on political or religious issues and thus, by definition, can not be anticlerical.

Unfortunately, the article does not stop there... it not only blindly accepts the argument that Freemasonry as a whole is anticlerical, it takes this viewpoint a step further... The article strongly implies that historical events occured as they did because of the involvement of Freemasonry, and prominent people acted in the way they did because they were Freemasons. That is nothing but conspiracy theory and paranoia.

The entire article is one giant excersise in WP:Coatracking and WP:SYNT... it is a highly POV attempt to improperly "prove" the accusation that Freemasonry actually is anticlerical in intent and action. There is no attempt to discuss the issue neutrally, or to cite sources that do so. The article as it currently is, is nothing but a well diguised WP:Attack page: "created primarily to disparage its subject"

So, is there any way to fix this short of deletion? While the topic certainly seems like it should be notable and legitimate, I am familiar with the reliable sources that could be used in trying to build a proper article... and there simply isn't enough out there to support a neutral and balance article. There are reliable sources that discuss the historical and social roots of anticlericalism... reliable sources that discuss the history and social impact of Freemasonry... but none that tie it together into one package. About all we can say on the topic is: "The Chruch thinks Freemasonry is Anticlerical."

Furthermore, we already have multiple articles that say this. It is stated in the main Freemasonry article, it is stated in the article on Anti-masonry. It is stated in Christianity and Freemasonry#Catholic Church, Papal ban on Freemasonry, Anticlericalism, and Continental Freemasonry. It is stated in just about every article that even remotely concerns itself with Freemasonry or the Catholic Church. The shear repetition of the assertion throughout Wikipedia is boardering on being disruptive.

Section by section analysis

France

Text

Catholic authors have often seen Freemasonry in France as being particularly hostile to Catholicism and the American Freemason Christopher Hodapp complained that the attitude of French Freemasonry towards Rome was a major reason why there was disunion between English speaking and French speaking Freemasonry, as long ago as 1918 this split has been emphasised by American commentators.

It was claimed that Napoleon I had encouraged the resurrection of Freemasonry after the French Revolution as a counterweight against the Catholic Church.

In 1877 the Grand Orient de France allowed atheists to join, and split from the United Grand Lodge of England, forming what became known as Latin Freemasonry. Catholic sources, quoting Masonic documents from both the United Grand Lodge of England and the Grand Orient of France, saw Freemasonry as the primary force of French anti-clericalism from 1877 onwards. During the Affaire Des Fiches (1904-1905) it was discovered that army promotions were partly determined by the Grand Orient of France's card index on public officials, detailing which were Catholic and who attended Mass. French Masonic publications called for religious orders to be expelled from France.

Issues

Sources do not directly support statements, Improper synthesis of material, coatracking, and over reliance on biased sources - The first paragraph of the section starts off by inproperly representing the views of one specific Catholic author as being the view of all Catholic authors (Catholic authors have often seen Freemasonry in France as being particularly hostile to Catholicism). The source does not discuss what other Catholic authors say. The source is used to coatrack in the accusation "that Grand Lodge of France was among the most violently anticlerical of the world" (quoted in the citation), an accusation that the author makes with no further explanation. The mention of Christopher Hoddap's view is an attempt to make it seem as if American Freemasons agree with this author (taking Hoddap's views out of context).

The rest of the section is simply a synthesis of historical events that are coatracked in with the implication and assuption on the part of the editor who added them that they "prove" Anticlericalism.

There is also an over reliance on Catholic sources... which will only present one POV. What do non-Catholic scholarly sources say about these events?

Discussion

I am assuming that since there was no discussion on my analysis above, that there are no objections to my removing this section. Is this correct? Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I object. JASpencer (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That does not surprise me (especially since you were the original editor/author of this section, back at the old Catholicism and Freemasonry article)... but simply saying you object is not enough. Please explain why you object, and respond to my analysis of the problems with the section. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire - secton analysis

Text

Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor from 1765 to 1790 and ruler of the Habsburg lands from 1780 to 1790, was a proponent of enlightened absolutism. His ecclesiastical policies of measured toleration and national control of the church, known as Josephinism, were aimed at breaking any real control of the Austrian church by Rome. There is no evidence that Joseph II was a Mason, but he was regarded as being favorably inclined towards freemasonry, most of his advisers were Freemasons and the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia claimed that he had an alliance with Freemasonry.

Freemasonry was banned in Austria-Hungary shortly after Joseph II's death in 1790, a state of affairs that continued until 1867 in Hungary and 1918 in Austria.

Issues

Circular reasoning, synthesis, and coatracking. - The assumption here is that Josephinism is the same as Anticlericalism. I do not know enough about the topic to judge on that... but the connection to Freemasonry is tenuous at best. The argument seems to be that Josephinism was Anticlerical because it was influenced by Freemasons, who are Anticlerical because they influenced Josephinism. There is no discussion as to whether freemasonry had any real connection to Josephinism and if so what that connection was. The rest seems to simply be a history of Freemasonry in Austria, with no connection to the topic of Anticlericalism.

Discussion

Given the above, I think it best to remove this section. I will, however, give people a bit of time to respond before I do so. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the assumption of the Catholic Encyclopedia (not of the article) was that Anticlericalism was an integral part of Josephinism. Catholic sources such as the Catholic Encyclopedia claimed that Josephinism was influenced (almost driven) by Freemasonry and that the anticlericalism was a fundamental part of that. It is what the sources say, not what the article is saying. Sadly the editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia are all dead so you can't take them to task for coatracking. JASpencer (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no... the CE doesn't say that "Josephinism was influenced (almost driven) by Freemasonry" or anything like it. ... What it says is the single sentence you quote in the citation... that "Freemasonry during the eighteenth century was a powerful ally of the so-called party, of "Enlightenment" (Aufklaerung), and of Josephinism;" That's it... that's all it says. Furthermore, the article on Joseph II (here, which contains a very detailed explanation of Josephinism, does not back your your assertion that the CE assumes that Freemasonry was an intrigal part of Josephinism... since that article does not even mention Freemasonry in conjunction with Josephinism.

So, what you have done is cherry picked the one single sentence in the entire CE that mentions both Josephinism and Freemasonry... and interjected your own personal interpretation as to what it means, implying that it says something that it does not actually say. That is a WP:NOR violation pure and simple. It is something you do far too often when you are editing articles on Freemasonry, and it really does need to stop.

As for the coatracking and WP:SYN... that comes in with the use of the other sources... for example, the comment that "The emperor was favorable to the fraternity" from the webpage article on Mozart (again cherry picked). That article says nothing about anticlericalism... its about Mozart. And that is most definitely coatracking. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Germany section analysis

Text

The Papal encyclical Etsi multa of Pope Pius IX in 1873 claimed that Freemasonry was the motivating force behind the Kulturkampf: "Some of you may perchance wonder that the war against the Catholic Church extends so widely. Indeed each of you knows well the nature, zeal, and intention of sects, whether called Masonic or some other name. When he compares them with the nature, purpose, and amplitude of the conflict waged nearly everywhere against the Church, he cannot doubt but that the present calamity must be attributed to their deceits and machinations for the most part. For from these the synagogue of Satan is formed which draws up its forces, advances its standards, and joins battle against the Church of Christ." The Catholic Encyclopedia also claims that the Kulturkampf was instigated by Masonic lodges.

Issues

Circular reasoning, synthesis, coatracking - The Problem here is similar to that in the Austria Section above... the argument seems to be that Kulturkampf was anticlerical because Masons instigated it, and because Freemasons supported Kulturkampf this "proves" that Freemasons are anticlerical. No discussion of the political or historical background of Kulturkampf. There is no discussion of the fact that there were multiple masonic bodies in Germany... so did they all take a stance supporting Kulturkampf?

Discussion of Germany section

Any discussion on this?

A break from the analysis to discuss Catholic Encyclopedia as a reference

Something I have just noticed... this article relies the old CE a lot... but on closer examination, the CE does not actually say that there is a connection between Freemasonry and Anticlericalism, or at least no direct connection. Yes, it hints around it by discussing supposed Masonic involvement in things that are commonly thought of as being Anticlerical... but it does not actually come out and say that A = B. I think this goes to the heart of a lot of the synthesis in this article. The connection is being made by editors, not by sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of Belgium section

Belgium

Text

The rivalry between the Catholic Church and the Grand Orient of Belgium led to the foundation of the Free University of Brussels which was founded largely by Belgian Freemasons concerned at the expansion of Catholic influence within Higher Education.

Issues

Unsourced claims, relevancy, coatracking - First there is the unsourced claim that there actually is a rivalry between the Catholic Church and the GOB. Second there is the assuption that "concern over the expansion of Catholic influence in Higher Education" is a form of Anticlericalism. We need a source that discusses the relationships between GOB, the Free University of Brussels, and the Church... one that actually makes the claim that something in those relationships indicates that GOB and its actions are in fact Anticlerical.

Comments on analysis

Any comments? Blueboar (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of Italy section

Text

In the Papal constitution Ecclesiam a Jesu Christo (1821) Pope Pius VII linked the anticlerical Italian secret society, the Carbonari to Freemasonry.

In the period between Italian unification (1870) and the Lateran Treaties (1929) there was a cold war between the Papacy and the Kingdom of Italy (see Prisoner in the Vatican). The Papal Encyclical Etsi Nos, complained about the way in which post-unification Italy denigrated the role of the church, which the Vatican blamed primarily on Freemasonry.

The hostility to Freemasonry shaped much of the Catholic Church's strategy in regard to the newly established Italian state. For example, in the encyclical Custodi di quella fede Leo XIII warned against Catholics becoming involved with liberal groups and asked Catholics to become more involved in forms of Catholic Action away from the "Masonic" state.

In 2007 Italian politicians in the Union of Christian and Centre Democrats and Forza Italia accused “radical and Masonic” groups of being behind a threatened investigation by the European Commission of whether or not the tax-exempt status of the Church’s hospitals, schools, and other social service organizations should be withdrawn.

Issues

Synthesis, coatracking, relevancy - We start off with the fact that the Church linked the Carbonari to Freemasonry... this in itself is true, but why do we mention it? And what do more reliable sources say about the matter. Earlier in the article we make a point of saying that Freemasonry and the Carbonari were not, in fact, linked. We have a conflict that needs resolving. The middle paragraphs are a discussion of the Church's attitude towards Freemasonry in the years after the Risorgimento (essentially a series of Popes saw a grand conspiracy of Freemasons as being behind everything they didn't like) but neither the text of the section, nor the sources make any connection to Anticlericalism. I think the idea was to mention that the Popes have issued lots and lots of Papal bulls that mention the fraternity... bulls that may accuse the fraternity of being Anticlerical. But even that is not clear. The final paragraph is a synthetic coatrack... We have an accusation, which is factual... but no discussion of the merits of that accusation. We also have the inference that "a threatened investigation by the European Commission of whether or not the tax-exempt status of the Church’s hospitals, schools, and other social service organizations should be withdrawn" is a form of Anticlericalism... with no supporting details that anyone has tied the two issues together. This is actually direct WP:NOR.

Discussion of section and analysis

Comments? Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Analysis on Spain section

Text

Freemasonry was banned in Spain in the Eighteenth Century due to the Papal ban. It became the focus of liberal and anticlerical feeling. During the Spanish Civil War the church named Masonic support of the Republic as one of the reasons it backed the Nationalists.

In 2004, the president of Spain's Union of Catholic Professional Fraternities blamed the anti-clerical measures of the Socialist government on a "tremendous crusade by Masonry against the Church".

Issues

Quoting sources out of context, Synthesis, Coatracking - Here at least we have a reference to a non-biased historian. However if you read the actual text being cited, the quote only partly supports the text (the bit about Freemasonry being liberal). The author is discussing politics and does not mention Anticlericalism. The tie to Anticlericalism is assumed by a wikipedia editor. That is OR. What is needed is a source which directly links liberal politics during the Spanish Civil War with Anticlericalism. The second paragraph is simply an antimasonic conspiracy rant coatracked on to the (slightly) more acceptable first paragraph.

Discussion of analysis

Any discussion? Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of section on Portugal

Text

By the 1830s Freemasonry was seen as a driving force in the anti-clericalism of Portugal's liberals.

The Grande Oriente Lusitano supported the Radical Republicans of Afonso Costa who pursued a strongly anti-clerical programme. Catholic sources attributed the apparent obstruction of Artur Santos, the mayor of Ourem, to the Fatima apparitions in 1917 to his Masonic membership.

Issues

Coatracking, cherry picking and synthesis - Here at last we have a direct statement in an academic source that says Freemasonry was at one time Anticlerical. The first sentence is acceptable, but incomplete. While the author does indeed state that Freemasonry was anticlerical, he does not discuss how or why it was so. It is essentially a passing mention. He also notes that Freemasonry split over the issue. This is not mentioned in the article, an omission that is typical of how statements have been cherry picked from sources to support arguments not made by the sources themselves. Of course a more complete account of what this academic source actually says would highlight how the second sentence is coatracked in to add a "guilt by association" argument to "prove" that the anticlericalism of the 1830s was still there in 1917. The second sentence also assumes that the GOL supported Costa because he was Anticlerical. It does not take into account the possibility that there were Freemasons who did not support Costa. The third sentence is a coatracked statement of opinion which needs to be directly attributed to it's author (instead of the plural "Catholic sources" which make it seem as if everyone agrees with this opinion).

Discussion

In this case, I think it proper to expand on the first sentence, correcting it's incompleteness, instead of cutting it completely. I think the rest must go. Any further discussion? Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of section on Ecuador

Text

Some attributed to Freemasonry the assassination of Gabriel Garcia Moreno who twice served as President of Ecuador (1859-1865 and 1869-1875) and was assassinated during his second term, just days before he was to take office in his third term. He is noted for his conservatism and Catholic religious perspective.

Part of the animosity García Moreno generated was because of his friendship toward the Society of Jesus, and during a period of their exile, he helped a group of displaced Jesuits find refuge in Ecuador. He had also advocated legislation which would outlaw secret societies. This action and many similar ones encouraged the anti-Catholic parties of Ecuador, especially the Masons, to see in him an inveterate enemy. The 1869 constitution made Catholicism the established religion of the state. He was the only ruler in the world to protest the Pope's loss of the Papal States, and two years later had the legislature consecrate Ecuador to the Sacred Heart. One of his biographers writes that after the public consecration, he was condemned to die by German Freemasonry.

When he was elected a third time in 1875, he and many of his supporters considered it to be a death warrant. He wrote immediately to Pope Pius IX asking for his blessing before inauguration day on August 30:

I wish to obtain your blessing before that day, so that I may have the strength and light which I need so much in order to be unto the end a faithful son of our Redeemer, and a loyal and obedient servant of His Infallible Vicar. Now that the Masonic Lodges of the neighboring countries, instigated by Germany, are vomiting against me all sorts of atrocious insults and horrible calumnies, now that the Lodges are secretly arranging for my assassination, I have more need than ever of the divine protection so that I may live and die in defense of our holy religion and the beloved republic which I am called once more to rule.

García Moreno's prediction was correct; he was assassinated exiting the Cathedral in Quito, struck down with knives and revolvers, his last words being: "¡Dios no muere!" ("God does not die!")

On August 5, shortly before his assassination, a priest visited García Moreno and warned him, "You have been warned that your death was decreed by the Freemasons; but you have not been told when. I have just heard that the assassins are going to try and carry out their plot at once. For God's sake, take your measures accordingly!" García Moreno replied that he had already received similar warnings and after calm reflection concluded that the only measure he could take was to prepare himself to appear before God.

"It appears he was assassinated by members of a secret society," observed a contemporary review of public events.

Issues

Weasle wording, relevance, coatracking and synthesis - Even if "some" (not clear who) attributed Moreno's death to the Masons, the sources do not support the idea that this act had anything to do with Anticlericalism. The section simply accepts a conspiracy theory accusation that he was killed by the Masons as "proven", and then goes on to assume that the Masons did this because of his support for the Church.

Discussion of analysis

Seems clear to me. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And finally... Mexico

Text

The Mexican Revolution was seen by the leadership of the Catholic Church to be both masonically inspired and anti-clerical with Cardinal William Henry O'Connell in 1914 claiming that there was a Masonic conspiracy to spread atheism and anarchy.

The Mexican government's anticlerical stance after the Mexican Revolution coincided with a succession of presidents who were "Masons and strongly anticlerical". Even recent President Vicente Fox stated, "After 1917, Mexico was led by anti-Catholic Freemasons who tried to evoke the anticlerical spirit of popular indigenous President Benito Juarez of the 1880s. But the military dictators of the 1920s were a more savage lot than Juarez."

President Plutarco Elías Calles, a Freemason sought to vigorously enforce the secularising provisions of the constitution and enacted additional anti-Catholic legislation known as the Calles Law, which enacted a number of anti-clerical provisions, for example fining priests for wearing clerical dress. Many Catholics rebelled against the oppression in the conflict which is known as the Cristero War. On May 28, 1926, Calles was awarded a medal of merit from the head of Mexico's Scottish rite for his actions against the Catholics.

In August 2007 Pedro Marquez of the Grand Lodge of the Valley of Mexico, in discussing a call by the Church to lift the ban in the Mexican constitution against Catholic schools and newspapars, stated "The Catholic hierarchy wants to dictate a political policy and that is a very grave error, as our society is no longer in the era of Christianity and priests are no longer viceroys of New Spain," and that "There is a tendency in the Church to meddle in the social and political affairs of Mexico, but the priests should return to their Churches".

Issues

Synthesis, Coatracking, POV "Guilt by association" arguments, Cherry picking of quotes - This section essentially assumes that any politician who happened to be a Freemason and took a political stance that the Church thought was Anticlerical, did so because he was a Freemason. The section also assumes that all Freemasons think alike... they don't. The history of Freemasonry is Mexico is not dissimilar that country's tortured political history... a never ending series of revolutions, counter revolutions, schisms and counter schisms. From the early 19th century on, there were multiple competing Masonic organizations in Mexico... some large, some tiny (as few as 100 members)... some supporting Liberal ideals, others supporting Conservative ideals. With every change of government, with every new political issue, these competing organizations split apart, realigned and formed new Grand Lodges and Grand Orients... and each time the various Grand bodies would issue political statements, claiming to speak for Freemasonry as a whole when, in fact, they did not.

Discussion

Anything? Blueboar (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Page Move?

WP:Article titles tells us to avoid titles containing "and"... among the things it says is:

• Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased. For example, use Islamic terrorism, not "Islam and terrorism"; however, "Media's coupling of Islam and terrorism" may be acceptable. Avoid the use of "and" to combine concepts that are not commonly combined in reliable sources.

Based on this, I think we need to retitle this article. Would Anticlericalism in Freemasonry (or perhaps the more accurate: Accusations that Freemasonry is Anticlerical) work? Other ideas are welcome. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Virtual <references/>:

Larkin, Church and State

See Talk:Louis André#Larkin, Church and State -- PBS (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anticlericalism and Freemasonry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615063850/http://www.yorkrite.com/gcmx/os1999.html to http://www.yorkrite.com/gcmx/os1999.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)