Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus

"Religious liberty"

@Slugger O'Toole: if you think my edit was still inaccurate, why would you revert to the more inaccurate, and less clear, version? What is it that you would like to add or clarify? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this version was more inaccurate or less clear. There is a lot more to "the free exercise of religion as it is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and other documents than just not being forced provide one specific type of insurance. Since this is the lede, though, I don't think we need to spell it out. A general statement about defending religious liberty there is fine, and the details can live below. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

But we're citing a specific source that talks about their policy goals. They do not fight for, and in fact fight against, the ability of religious same-sex couples to get married, for instance. We must be specific. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I am very much in favor of describing their specific policy goals. However, MOS:INTRO states that the lede "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article" but avoid "overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article." --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

This makes it even more important not to be misleading. "Religious liberty" is not an accurate or encyclopedic summary of their policy goals. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

How would you describe them? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean, you saw what I wrote (noting, per the source, that some of their current no-nos are health coverage and marriage - obviously this is a paraphrase of what I wrote) but didn't seem to think it was good. What do you need me to clarify? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The insurance issue is a specific, and I don't think they classify their efforts around the definition of marriage as a religious liberty issue. For the lede, though, we need a summary, not specifics. How would you summarize their efforts around what they call religious liberty (protecting persecuted minorities, not being forced to subsidize things that violate their consciences, calling on governments to recognize religious freedom as a civil right, etc)? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It's right in the source that they consider their anti-marriage activism to be a "religious liberty" issue. That source is about insurance and marriage, there are no other political issues identified as being in play. If you don't want to name those issues specifically (even though they seem to think they're important enough to name), we could say that they are active on social conservative issues. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

There are several other issues identified in that source, plus all the issues in the other sources in the body. Additionally, marriage is already discussed in that sentence. I also don't believe that protecting religious liberty is an issue just for social conservatives and, even if it was, that is far more broad and less descriptive. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

"I also don't believe that protecting religious liberty is an issue just for social conservatives" - Who said it was? I'm talking about the KoC's political activity, not someone else's political activity. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You said "they are active on social conservative issues." To move the ball forward, though, how would you describe the issues they place under the banner of religious liberty?--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I would describe them as socially conservative issues. I'm really not sure where the confusion is arising here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted. There are plenty of liberals who advocate for religious freedom. In some cases they are even more vocal about it. I think the most accurate thing to say is that they defend religious freedoms, but if you came come up with better verbiage then I would welcome it. Just saying they are active on socially conservative issues is not an improvement, though. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Slugger O'Toole: I'm not sure you understand the discussion we're having. No one is saying that religious liberty is a social conservative issue! No one is saying that. "Social conservatism" is a much more accurate and neutral way to describe the issues on which the K of C is active. Opposing same-sex marriage is social conservatism, opposing birth control is social conservatism, opposing abortion is social conservatism. These are the issues that their sources, as cited in the lede, say that they are active on. They are notably not active to defend the religious liberty of people who wish to engage in or perform same-sex marriages, for instance. It doesn't matter what language they use to describe their issues because we are not paid to promote their interests. What about this are you having trouble comprehending? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

My concern is that you are applying a label that I don't think is appropriate. That is why I think in this case that it is better to show and not tell. You have changed "More recently it has been active in defense of religious liberty" to "More recently it has been active on social conservative issues." I am not sure why you would change "defense of religious liberty" to "active on social conservative issues" unless you were trying to say that religious liberty is a conservative issue. Additionally, I think the people at Democrats for Life of America, to give just one example, would disagree with you that opposing abortion is an issue just for social conservatives. Finally, I believe the Knights would defend the rights of any religion or denomination to marry any two individuals they want, or teach anything they want on the matter. That is religious freedom. It is government recognition that is the issue for them. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why "these religious people can't have their marriage recognized" isn't supposed to be a religious liberty issue. This isn't a "show and not tell" issue, this is basic encyclopedia writing. We have to write content that is neutral, accurate, and that conveys information to the reader. We could say that the K of C claim to be active on religious liberty or that they describe their scope as religious liberty, but that doesn't tell anyone what their issues actually are. I feel like we're at a standstill because for some reason you persistently refuse to understand that the problem is not "religious liberty is a social conservative issue". If you agree that you are unable to understand the discussion and it is not useful to proceed, we can seek out a 3O or something like that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The source you are using talks about more than just abortion and marriage, and when it does mention them it does so in the context of having the government force individuals and organizations to violate their consciences. It does not say, for example, that no insurance program should have to cover the morning after pill. It says that employers should not be required to carry it if it violates their religious beliefs. The source also talks about the importance of the free exercise of religion and more. I believe that calling it religious liberty is a neutral and accurate way to describe these activities, and is sufficient for the lede. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

In light of the continued WP:IDHT I've gone ahead and requested a third opinion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

I have read the comments by both of the participants in this dispute. After reviewing them, I am going to concur with Roscelese. The sentence under dispute in the lead reads, "More recently it has been active in defense of religious liberty, promoting faithful citizenship, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and building a culture of life." That could be considered promotional language, in that it tends to support a particular, controversial, point of view. If a statement that a group defends "religious liberty" is immediately followed by one stating that it supports defining marriage as between one man and one woman, that could be understood to imply that "religious liberty" includes defining marriage in that fashion, which lends Wikipedia's support to a given, controversial social stance. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, @FreeKnowledgeCreator:. Those two issues, like the several in that sentence, are supported with different citations which I thought was sufficient. To make it more clear, though, I have broken the sentence up into two. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Breaking up the sentence does absolutely nothing to address the issue. If you want to pursue this issue further, I would suggest starting an RFC. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The 3O addressed the issue of "social conservative issues." Though I disagree, I will abide by the consensus. It did not address the issues relating to wording relating to abortion, marriage, or birth control, though. I believe your edits to those sections were wanting for reasons I explained in the edit summaries. I'd be glad to discus them more with you if you like. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Those are the social conservative issues in question. If I've somehow catastrophically misunderstood FreeKnowledgeCreator I'd welcome correction, but this persistent attempt to push your own point of view through by pretending that you don't understand what people are talking about is growing increasingly tiresome. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I did my best to explain my point of view to you, but you persistently accuse me of deliberately misunderstanding what you are saying. I assure you that is not the case. You also implied that I was being paid by the Knights to promote their interests here. I let the slight go at the the time in case it was inadvertent and I should be assuming good faith, but I did not appreciate it. That said, your 3O asked about how those issues should be described in the aggregate. It did not address changing the language around each individual issue. As I pointed out in the edit summary, the way you described one of them was just plain wrong. For the other two, there has been extensive discussion here and on the main article's talk about how they should be described. A consensus version has been settled upon. I hope you can understand that. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, given that we are discussing the lead, it should be sufficient to say "social conservative issues", and expand upon that in the body of the text? If the KoC have been active in issues that are not typically considered socially conservative, those could be called out in the lead. DonIago (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I've followed changes in the lead. I don't consider it an improvement to change "opposition to same-sex marriage" to "supporting efforts to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman". It is too much like euphemism, and suggests an effort to focus on something that sounds positive and upbeat (supporting something) rather than something negative (opposing something). "Opposition to same-sex marriage" is much clearer and less euphemistic. Opposing same-sex marriage is the point of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, so we need to state clearly that the Knights of Columbus is active in opposing same-sex marriage. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

A similar point applies to the expression "culture of life". If what that means in this context is opposing birth control and abortion, then we should simply say that the organization opposes birth control and abortion, instead of using in-group jargon. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. DonIago (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

There has been extensive discussion around these topics in the past. There are a couple issues here. First is that the Knights' don't (to my knowledge) oppose birth control, per se. They oppose a mandate requiring religious employers such as themselves to provide it when it violates their religious beliefs. Secondly, while abortion is a culture of life issue, it is not the only issue encompassed in it. Just saying they oppose abortion and birth control is thus inaccurate and incomplete. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

If the K of C don't actually oppose the use of contraception and just don't want it to be covered by insurance, you should tell that to the people who write content for their website, who seem to have made an important mistake! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for not being clearer. I meant it in the context of their political activities. To my knowledge, they don't support a legal ban on the use of contraception. They may have a moral objection, but that isn't the same thing. If you have a source that contradicts this, I would be glad to see it. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, it's all immaterial. The reason they do not want insurance to cover contraception is because they are opposed to contraception. Preventing insurance coverage of contraception is an issue on which they are active. This is a social conservative issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree with Roscelese. But my experience of Slugger O'Toole (formerly BrianCUA) suggests that trying to seek a sensible compromise to ensure articles are politically neutral is a tiresome and bitter process. You end up going in circles. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That may be true, but to just say they are opposed to contraception sounds as if they are seeking a legislative ban on it. To my knowledge they have not done that. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/knights_of_columbus_rallying_against_immoral_philippines_contraception_campaign Contaldo80 (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Additionally "Using the Little Sisters of the Poor as the face of their most recent court campaign, conservatives argue that it would impede the religious liberty of the sisters and other institutions to offer employees seamless access to contraception in their insurance plans. Never mind the religious liberties or consciences of the employees.Catholics should note that a prominent funder of the organizations involved in the recent court case against women's equal health access is the Knights of Columbus. The organization's leadership has significantly funded key players within the current Supreme Court case over many years. Knights officials have repeatedly financially backed the Little Sisters of the Poor who are the face of the lawsuit. In 2013 alone, the year in which the case was first filed in a Colorado court, the Knights of Columbus contributed $100,000 to the Little Sisters of the Poor for a building renovation." https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/young-voices/while-court-prepares-contraception-decision-catholic-women-already-decided Contaldo80 (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, the Little Sisters of the Poor case was about requiring employers, like a group of nuns, to provide contraception to employees against their religious beliefs. It wasn't about banning contraception. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

This goalpost-moving is getting really tedious. No one is suggesting that we either state or imply that they are actively campaigning to ban contraception. Only that we sum up their opposition to contraception, abortion, and marriage as social conservative issues. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I have already said at 7:02 pm on 27 December 2018 that though I disagree, I will abide by the consensus on using the phrase social conservative issues. My later comments were about how we describe their approach towards contraception. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Well I suggest we don't use the term "enlightened" in describing their approach. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Slugger, given that you re-added your promotional jargon in flat defiance of the above consensus against the use of those terms, I've reverted again. Please stop wasting the time of those editors who are interested in building an encyclopedia rather than writing PR material for the church. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Pledge of allegiance

I believe the section on the pledge of allegiance is misleading and does not reflect the actual facts. It suggests the Knights played a more significant role than they did but leaving out crucial details.

The current text says "The Order was influential in the early stages of the movement that eventually led to the decision by the US Congress to add the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. Though others had proposed the idea before, the idea bubbled up in the order from Fourth Degree assemblies. In April 1951, the Supreme Board of Directors adopted a resolution directing the Fourth Degree to add the words to their recitations. The Knights were the first group to voluntarily do so on a regular basis. The Knights also began lobbying Congress to make the change. At the urging of five state councils, the Supreme Council adopted a resolution in 1952 encouraging Congress to officially insert the words into the pledge. Adding the phrase, the Order believed, would acknowledge "the dependence of our Nation and its people upon the Creator of the Universe." New York Congressman Edmund Radwan entered the resolution into the Congressional Record on March 25, 1953. Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart, the then-president of the National Fraternal Congress, got the other 110 fraternal societies to adopt the resolution as well. After signing the change into law, Eisenhower wrote to Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart thanking the Knights for their efforts to get the phrase added. In his letter, Eisenhower praised the order's patriotism and said "For the contribution which your organization has made to this cause, we must be genuinely grateful." In October 1954, the National Executive Committee of the American Legion adopted a resolution thanking the Knights for initiating, sponsoring, and bringing about the amendment."

My alternative wording would say: "The Order was influential in the early stages of the movement that eventually led to the decision by the US Congress to add the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. Louis Albert Bowman, an attorney from Illinois, was actually the first to suggest this addition and it was used in the 1940s at meetings of the Illinois Society of the Sons of the American Revolution. However, the Knights also adopted the practice following the Fourth Degree Assemblies in April 1951. Though the words had not yet officially been added nationally, the order added the phrase to their recitations, the first group to voluntarily do so on a regular basis. Doing so, the Order believed, would acknowledge "the dependence of our Nation and its people upon the Creator of the Universe." The Knights forwarded a resolution advocating for the addition to New York Congressman Edmund Radwan, and Radwan entered it into the Congressional Record on March 25, 1953. The Presbyterian minister, George MacPherson Docherty, was nevertheless the instrumental figure in getting Congress ultimately to act - giving a sermon in 1954 which captured the political attention President Dwight Eisenhower. But it was Rep. Charles Oakman (R-Mich.), who introduced a bill into Congress in 1954. After signing the change into law, Eisenhower wrote to Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart thanking the Knights for their part."

I would appreciate thoughts from other editors. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

As we have discussed before, this is good information. However, the things you want to add are not about the Knights and the information you wish to take away is. George MacPherson Docherty, to give one example, was not a Knight. Why include information about him here? This extra information is better suited for the article on the Pledge of Allegiance article. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Slugger. I am aware of your thoughts on this matter as you are the editor that favours the first set of wording. I am interested hearing, however, from other editors. The problem I have raised is that we need to avoid wording that is misleading. I accept that the focus - in this article - needs to be on the role of the knights. But it needs to be correct. If this requires brief reference to the bigger picture then we need to include it. My concern with this article generally is that is looks like it's been written by a PR company for the knights - I don't think this does readers any favours. Can I remind editors of the importance of balance and neutrality and to avoid getting too closely identified with the subject of an article. If editors start to slip into that then they need to step back so we avoid unconscious bias.Contaldo80 (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Blatant Knights of Columbus astroturfing by multiple users

I know it's kind of arrogant to say this as a brand new user, but looking at the history and discussion of the main KoC page and this one, it's clear that multiple users have been using these pages as advertising for the organization. The language of both pages is incredibly loaded, statistics are mostly mentioned to highlight how wonderful they are (isn't "protecting the sanctity of marriage" great?!) and this page in particular captions all its images like they're on a portfolio. When I have more time, I'll have to undo this all myself. 00Hello19 (talk) 06:34, December 2, 2019

I'm afraid I'm not really seeing what it seems you're seeing. Could you cite specific examples from the article illustrating your concerns? DonIago (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the minute details of all the praise the Knights received exceeds what one should expect in an encyclopedia. I've taken to editing out some of the details that are more appropriate in a book written in praise of all the Knights' work. Jzsj (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Achieving consensus

I've made some significant changes to this article to remove material that I thought was not rigorously independent or self-promotional or that is peripheral. I know want to move to make this a stable version. I'd like to invite other editors to feed in thoughts over the next week. At the end of that period we will assume that consensus has been achieved and we have a stable article. This avoids the risk of future edit warring and to show that we can all work collaboratively and openly. Thanks in advance. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

"Order"

The article fails to identify the group as a Fraternal Order. Since it's a Catholic association, it almost implicitly suggests a religious order. "Organization" would be more precise. Manannan67 (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Excessive reliance on primary sources?

Is that still an issue? That tag has been there for three years now. If I'm counting anywhere near correctly, there have been over 300 edits to the page since that tag was put there. Novellasyes (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)