This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Freemasonry High‑importance This redirect is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freemasonry articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to join us in our labors, please join the discussion and add your name to the list of participants. The "Top of the Trestleboard" section below can offer some ideas on where to start and what to do.FreemasonryWikipedia:WikiProject FreemasonryTemplate:WikiProject FreemasonryFreemasonry High This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. ◆  WikiProject Freemasonry's "Top of the Trestleboard": Improve to Featured Article status Freemasonry Tracing board Isaac Newton University Lodge Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia Operative Masonry Primitive Scottish Rite Add content to stubs… Check recently changed articles for possible improvement, to remove vandalism, etc. Requests [Watch this list] Articles for all United Grand Lodge of England-recognized Grand Lodges (if notable) Participate in articles listed for deletion Need images Scottish Rite York Rite Sovereign Grand Lodge of Malta New Article to be created Adonhiramite Rite Portuguese Rite Brazilian Rite Irish Rite Moorish Rite Rite Français Moderne Rétabli

"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: [1]. 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)[reply]

Further, Freemasonry was most definitely supressed in Communist Romania, the National Grnad Lodge there being reconstituted only after the revolution of '89. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.132.187 (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best idea I thikn is to let this sit until Wegian gets back, but I know Quisling dismantled Freemasonry in Norway as either appeasement of or an alliance with the Nazis. So, do we want to consider it a separate item, or part of the Germany section? MSJapan 03:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

whoops, didn't notice someone had asked. I seem to rememeber that the occuping germans closed down the logdes _before_ Quisling became "Minister President". The lodges was shut down in the summer of 1940, AFAIR, and Quisling wasn't allowed by the Germans to 'take over' until 1942 (well, he tried to establish himself as the Fører of Norway right after the invation, but the Germans didn't let him). However, I'll visit the Museum of the Order next time I'm in Oslo and see if I can't find the date (or I'll email the curator and ask) Masonry was ordered to shut down in Norway. WegianWarrior 03:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could have looked in the bookshelf in the first place... okay, here is the facts, as given in Den Norske Store Landsloge 1891-1966, by Kr. Thorbjørnsen, printed by Merkur Boktrykkeri, Oslo 1966 (freely translated and summarised):

The 'Stamhuset' (Masonic hall in Oslo) was occupied by german troops on April 9th, 1940 (the day the germans invaded Norway, see Operation Weserübung). They pillaged, burned and vandalised, and keept this up during the summer. After negotiations between Br. Larurantzon (on behalf of the High Concil) and the Wehrmacht, the german troops vacanted the building in July, offering 4.500 kroners as 'reimbursemt' for the wantom destruction. There was some hope that the lodgework could be continued, but on 20th September 1940 Reichskommissar Josef Terboven ordered all the lodged closed and disolved, and the assets owned by the Grand Lodge of Norway seized. The Masonic hall in Oslo (and presumably elsewhere) was handed over to Nasjonal Samling (norwegian nazi-party, known as NS). On 1st December 1940 a 'revealing' exhibition was opened in part of the masonic hall to 'reveal' the 'terrible' secrets of Masonry. THe exhibit was held open for a month. In June 1941, the Reichskommissar formaly handed the seized assets from the Grand Lodge to NS.

Without going into furhter details (like the grand plans the NS had to turn the Masonic Hall in Oslo into a resturant complex, which really messed up the inside of the building), it is quite clear that it was the German occupants who dismantled the Norwegian Grand Lodge (allthought NS later tried to claim the glory), and not Quisling. In fact, there are some passages in the book I've taken this information from that might suggest that Quisling on his own wasn't terrible opposed to Masonry, and that he activly tried to recruit former Masons to NS.

I hope someone else can incorporate this into the proper place in the article, I'm not sure where this should best be placed either. WegianWarrior 06:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• There is nothing in the article that says the three OP GLs were allowed to continue operating because of the letters they sent. Being Nationalist and Christian, they weren't particularly at odds with Nazi ideals.

• There is also no support of anything in the paragraph after that point. There is nothing about industrialist Masons or Masons on the General Staff in the Bernheim article, and it's not like the names were secret. Why weren't they listed in the article, then? Uncited, thus removed.

• Sebottendorff was at best an irregular Freemason, and was not initiated in Turkey, (as per my earlier provided citation). As this is uncited weaseling to create a nonexistent connection between Masonry and the Thule, and otherwise has no relation to the article whatsoever, it has been removed.

_________________ There is no verifiable claim that 80,000 or more Masons were killed during World War Two. The website that quotes this number itself does not have any proper citation for where this number was gotten either (a source with no source itself or with no cited research done by its author is just as bad/suspect as a single source with no proper attribution. There is no verifiable record of any Mason being killed or put in a concentration camp just because he was a Freemason; there are plenty of records for men who were put in concentration camps because they were Jews and/or socialists and who happened to be Freemasons. ATK66 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATK66 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

80.000 - 200.000 killed masons is still unproved. Sorry for writing here on the discussion-Site. My English is too bad and I am not familiar with Wiki-Editing. The citation "Hodapp - Freemasons for Dummies" may be wrong. In its german translation it gives no number of victims. There is a recent german Quartuor Coronati work about it, which figures about 100-300 masons being killed because of being a mason (about 600 being killed if you add those who were "jew" and masons). (as far as I do remember, it was released about 2005 - 2010, but I cannot look it up at the moment) "Lennhoff - Posner - Binder 'Internationales Freimaurerlexikon' Herbig-Verlag 2002" seems to have the right numbers for Germany (keyword "Nationalsozialisten"): - before 1933 there were about 80.000 Masons (as far as I know this was in 1927, in the years 1928 - 1932, those who were masons for their carrer left the lodges, when the NSDAP-fraction in the Parliament increased) However: Following Lennhoff-Posner-Binder, from this huge amount of 80.000 german Masons - 62 Masons were killed by Nazis and/or authorities e.g. Trade-Union-Leader Wilhelm Leuschner (or peace-activist and "irregular" mason Carl von Ossietzky) - 238 Masons expelled out of Germany (and survived ?) - 53 Masons arrested in concentration camps (I understand: But survived) - 377 Masons being dismissed from their job / professional carrer I think the relation of members / victims should be the same in the occopied contires. 80.000 - 200.000 seems to be completely wrong, but nevertheless is cited again and again in anglo-saxon medias. The question seems to be: What was the main reason for persecution / prosecution: Political persecution or membership in a masonic lodge, racistic persecution oder membership in a masonic lodge, persecution of partisans oder being a member of a masonic lodge. And at least a lot of masons lost their life because of war (soldier and civilians). So: How tight-knotted was the victim's masonic mind-set and his other occupations/engagements (politics, resistance...)

By the way: It should be considered, that before 1933 a lot of german masons were part of middle-class and upper-class establishment (army-officiers, higher administration, industry). From the today point of view, these men were often strictly nationalists, not seldom racistic and anti-Semitic. If they left their lodges and could show credibly that they changed the sides, they were part of the State / Nazi-Administration - and changed from victims to . As for exampel Hjalmar Schacht, the President of German Reichsbank. Could anybody bring this theme in a acceptable form? CHF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.92.51.120 (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bold textThe claim of 80 to 200 000 freemasons being killed by the nazis is still in the article, but i can't find any sources supporting this. There is a striking contrast here to German Wikipedia's article "Geschichte der Freimaurerei" which says that of the 80 000 German Free masons 62 were murdered, among them writer Car von Ossietzky, Julius Leber and other politicians on the left (obviously not prisoned primarily because they were freemasons). There is no doubt that anti-freemasonry was an essential part of nazi ideology, but at the same time it is of great interest to know if there was a genocidal-like purge against them (which the numbers 80-200 000 indicates) or not. I have not the qualifications to decide about this, but it should be a prioritized task for Wikipedia to get this as correct as possible. Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.140.69 (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Some editing done to this section. Imacomp 10:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some stuff moved to this article from Freemasonry "Holocaust". Imacomp 19:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That would certainly work for me. WegianWarrior 11:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquizard (talk • contribs)

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![2]. 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 [3]. 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 [4]. I do question that the lodge is currently working in Iraq exists at all. Aquizard 18:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In answer to your question, today it is a banned organisation and it is possible that laws have been introduced prohibiting meetings. Now there was a time when there were lodges in Indonesia, but they were all banned in 1965 by President Soekarno.--Aquizard 10:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquizard (talk • contribs)

We problably need a better source, but this might be of interest

President Sukarno was the founding president of Indonesia from 1949 to 1965. During the last few years of his presidency the he & his government became increasingly paranoid about ‘Subversives’, with Sukarno issuing a Presidential Decree in 1962 that declared illegal many organisations that could potentially be used by these Subversives. This included: The Dutch Grand Lodge, Rotary, Lions Club and a range of other similar organisations. In 2002, President ‘Gus Dur’ Wahid, decided that banning organisations of this kind was a breech of basic human rights and against the principles of democracy. Consequently he rescinded the Presidential Decree of 1962. As far as I have found, Freemasonry has not yet restarted in that country^[1] I will try to remember to do some research into the 2002 action of President Wahid unless someone can jump in with more information.. Melbournemason (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting information as to why the closures happened. Often it is recorded that the State has changed its view on Masonic practise and banned it, introducing laws to enforce this, as was the case with a number of the Gulf States. Interestingly Masonry although banned in Uganda in the 1970's under the Idi Amin government has re-established itself in Uganda, with a new lodge opening up in 1985. This was after a period of time when the Amin government was ousted. Whilst you state that the Wahid government has overturned this original ban, have the laws been recinded? It will take some time before masonic activity gets re-established in Indonesia once again. Well done on bringing this to our attention. Aquizard (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.94.153 (talk) [reply]

I have included some important laws that were introduced and repealed in the UK that established a crude system of registration that affected Freemasonry. Aquizard 15:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquizard (talk • contribs)

According to the Guardian, Jack Straw, who introduced the rule saying that members of the UK Judiciary must declare their Masonic membership, has seen the error of his ways, and the rule has been recinded. I have therefor cut the material on it. I suppose it could be added back if placed in a historical context. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any mention of the rationale behind why masons now don't have to announce their membership. Also what influenced Straw to remove the law? Important considerations for that section IMO. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article, (link is given above) gives the reasons for the removal of the need to declare membership. However, for completeness I feel that the material stating that membership needs to be declared should be reinstated. A form of words also needs to be included to detail the date and reasons for the change would suffice.

I would also add that there is a need to revise the Welsh governments requirement to declare membership as there was threat of legal action on the grounds of discrimination by Europe. This prompted the Welsh government to include membership to be declared in a register of members interests. Aquizard (talk) 19:40, 02 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

this reference to an "islamic jurisdictional college" is amiss since there doesn't appear to be anything called that at al-azhar. maybe the council of senior scholars is meant? it is worth bearing in mind, though, that al-azhar is not a muslim vatican. -- chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4000:2D5C:E6CE:8FFF:FE5E:4F7C (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]