![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||
|
|
|
To add the navigational Infobox to a page paste the following line of code:
{{Freemasonry2}}
For modification to the Title:
{| class="infobox" style="text-align:center;" width="230" |- | colspan="2" |<small>Part of a [[:Category:Freemasonry|series]] of articles on</small><br /><big>'''[[Freemasonry]]'''</big> |- |[[Image:Square compasses.svg|50px|Freemason]] |- | style="font-size:11px" |
For an Non-Collapsed category:
'''Title Example'''<br /> [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]]<br/>
For a Collapsed category:
{| class="toccolours collapsible {{#if: {{{expand-freefigure|}}} | | collapsed }}" style="width: 100%; border: none;" |- ! '''Title Example''' |- | [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]]<br/> |}
To end the code with the This box: view • talk • edit NavBar:
{{Tnavbar|Freemasonry2}} |}
I note that several of the articles listed under the symbolism section, specifically Pythagorean theorem, Sacred Geometry, Jacob's Ladder, and Golden ratio, do not even mention Freemasonry, and that both Pentagram and Circled dot only mention Freemasonry in passing. I know these concepts are discussed in some Masonic rituals (not all... and there is no common interpretation between various Grand Lodges, or between approved rituals, as to what the meaning of the concepts are), but I see no reason to link to articles that do not discuss the connection. I am going to cut them. Blueboar 12:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, nice work. Gives good context to [the] related articles. How about adding some [all] of the topics at [from] the earlier template.
☻ Fred|
☝ discussion|
✍ contributions
16:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | 18:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
We should separate all the Youth groups into their own section, and I'm going to prod Triangle, I think, because 13 chapters in one state does not notability make. Also, there's no need to have an officers list - it all redirs to the same article. I'll see what else can go later, but those things I've mentioned definitely need to be done. MSJapan 17:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Something is wrong - The template formats incorrectly when you try to use it on a page. First it captures any text that comes after the insertion of the template... which causes it to secondly it center across the entire page... like this:
<div align=right>{{Freemasonry2}}</div> Not even. There was a missing right bracket in the template (I must've miscounted), so it wasn't terminating. MSJapan 01:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Blueboar 00:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to question King Edward VII, Geogre Washington, and Ben Franklin under important figures... Yes, all three were prominent people who were Freemasons, but I think the info box should list people who played a roll in the developement of Freemasonry... like Anderson or Pike, not just people who were famous Freemasons. The point of the info box is to highlight important articles in the topic. Articles that will inform the reader about Freemasonry. They will not learn anything about Freemasonry from the Edward VII article other than the fact that he was one (and if we want to go this route, Edward VI was far more involved in the Craft than Edward VII was). I'm not insistant on this, so I will leave them for now... let's discuss. Blueboar 00:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Before we start with the meat of the project, lets first break the skin. What categories should there be? Should they be expanded or collapsed? So far we have:
There should be a section for offshoots, but not apart, of freemasonry. This category should be collapsed and placed just below Masonic Youth Organizations. Lets keep adding to the list above and discuss if it should be added or not. -- Zef 12:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I see your point and your right. I did add a link to the WikiProject Freemasonry at the vary bottom of the template. I would also like to add back the links to the sacred geometry and golden ratio. Within our juristriction we talk about this type of mathematics often and how it is a part of speculative Freemasonry. Maybe placing it into an area for Mathematics or Sacred Geometry.-- Zef 16:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree as to people, except for Ben, who was notable as a Freemason as he was in so many areas. Suggestion this template could have a paramater |hidden=true
so that it could be placed on pages of people who would (and often do) appear in books about Masrony, such as Geo. Washington, without messing up their articles with an infobox about an important part of their life that is not important in the greater context of their impact on society. So there.
RiverStyx23{
talk
email}
17:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Great work with this template, a couple of things might need fixin' though:
I think this template will encourage editors to help improve articles on this topic, I know readers will find it useful. ☻ Fred| ☝ discussion| ✍ contributions 02:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added places as well - but many of these need some work! Harrypotter 17:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
They're getting so big that they're taking up too much space. Can somebody add the collapse syntax into the Bodies and Views sections? MSJapan 17:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the changes made to the collapsable navigation. Having ALL the subjects collapsed makes the project look sloppy. The reason I made this Template was for readers to navigate with ease through the Freemason pages. Just by glancing over and saying "I didn't know The Shriners were apart of Freemasonry" or "What does Solomon's Temple have to do with Freemasons?" The subject that are collapsed will be seen as less important to the craft by the public. This is unavoidable. I have already gotten feedback from some readers in my Lodge. "If Important Figures & Important Places are so important, why are they collapsed and hidden at the bottom?" and "Why is Views of Freemasonry displayed like dirty laundry?" Masonic Women's Groups, Masonic Youth Organizations and Views of Freemasonry should be collapsed but left in the current location under Masonic Bodies. Important Figures and Masonic Rites and Degrees should be viewed.-- Zef 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
MSJapan, which ones do you think should be viewed and which ones collapsed? Masonic Women's Groups & Masonic Youth Organizations could be collapsed to save space but I would like to see Important Figures expanded. Anyone else have some feedback on this subject?-- Zef 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
It may help to spell out what I envision:
Hopefully that helps people visualize what I am talking about. Blueboar 19:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Done-- Zef 15:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
There is an issue with the Nested Collapse. When the Other Mesonic Bodies is expanded, the scripting code expands all the categories within it. This may not be correctable. If anyone knows a solution, please help. -- Zef 15:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
MSJ... how does changing the wording of the section title from "Other Masonic Bodies" to "Masonic Bodies" and changing "For Masons" to "Masonic" make things clearer?
I think I understand what you are trying to do, but are you perhaps getting overly wrapped up in subtle distinctions of how these groups are connected to basic Freemasonry? Remember that we are creating this info box primarily for reader who do not know anything about Masonry ... What we want to show is that the articles in this section relate to Masonic groups not listed in the core articles... and then to indicate, when they see these articles, that some of them are for Masons (ie men), some are for Women, and some are for youth. At least that is my interpretation of what the template is designed to do. Blueboar 19:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
We have a small list of papels that could be included. Any idea where they might fit? -- Zef 14:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Should this be in the template? We could write hundreds of "Freemasonry In... " aritcles to cover every country... but I don't think we want to go that route. In fact, I could see it being incorporated into the History of Freemasonry article. Thoughts? Blueboar 15:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Zef... I understand your eagerness to propigate the template through Wikipedia, and to add lots of articles to the template... but I think you are over doing it a bit.
First, lets discuss where we should put the template. I think we should only put this on articles that primarily discuss Freemasonry... not articles that only partially discuss it (for example Eye of Providence... Freemasonry is only a small part of that article, so I don't think the template should be put there).
Second let's discuss what types of articles should listed on the template. There are a lot of articles that mention Freemasonry or discuss some aspect of Freemasonry... while I can see tagging them with the Freemasonry category tag, I don't think they all need to be listed on the Template. To me, the template should be limited to those articles that contain truely important information on the topic. Articles that only tangentially mention Freemasonry should be not be listed. Also, we should not list every group that calls itself "Masonic" ... Note that I am not saying we limit this to just "regular" UGLE type masonry... to me the criteria is size and notability.
Your thoughts are welcome Blueboar 16:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This template is currently tagged as uncategorized. The tree of navbox templates doesn't really have an appropriate category, so I'll suggest two very general: Category:Religion and belief navbox templates and Category:Organizations navbox templates. When there is sufficient need for subcategories I suppose Category:Clubs and societies navbox templates or similar will be created. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 10:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi MSJapan. You reverted my effort to categorize "tl|Freemasonry2", with the comment "incorrect categorization". That suggests that you have knowledge about those matters. Why then, did you not supply a better category? – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 20:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I did look at it, actually (I've got it watchlisted and looked at it when the uncat template went in), and there simply is no cat on WP that the template fits into properly. What I can tell you, though, is that religion is not the right category for it, and from the tone of your question (unless it's sarcasm), you seem to imply you don't know anything about Freemasonry. Why would you try to categorize something that you don't know about? MSJapan ( talk) 15:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
As of October 3, 2007, the California Court of Appeals and U.S Appeals Court have classified Freemasonry as a religion. As the original creator of Template:Freemasonry2 I say it should be "Category:Religion and belief navbox templates" Zef ( talk) 03:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
"O’Brien denied the petition on the ground that Freemasonry is not a religion.
Perluss—whose wife is a rabbi—said O’Brien was wrong to the extent that RLUIPA protects religious exercise “whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief,” but that the writ was correctly denied because the use of the facility for non-Masonic purposes is not protected by RLUIPA.
Perluss explained:
“The broad sweep of this statutory mandate has been applied to activities as divergent as religiously affiliated schools...nonprofit hospitals...and faith-based crisis centers....At the same time, we share the Second Circuit’s misgivings about RLUIPA’s apparent reach insofar as it purports to favor all religiously oriented uses over identical secular uses: ‘RLUIPA occupies a treacherous narrow zone between the Free Exercise Clause, which seeks to assure that government does not interfere with the exercise of religion, and the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from becoming entwined with religion in a manner that would express preference for one religion over another, or religion over irreligion.’”
All, The articles that are against Freemasonry are interesting and informative, but I wonder why this whole family of Freemasonry articles is so skewed to the negative side. In fact, there are many Christians who support Freemasonry and their affiliated bodies. Shouldn't there be articles noting this? I'd write it myself, except that I am not a Mason (I am female), however my entire family is involved with the Masonic bodies. I am also studying to be a pastor and have found that the Masonic teachings have enforced, rather than contradict, my Christian beliefs. For example, because of Eastern Star, I feel closer to and understand more about the heroines of the Bible that many churches seem to overlook or downplay their involvement in the Jewish/Christian story. I'm sure that there are some brothers out there who can back me up on this.
Hediru ( talk) 15:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Hediru
This link has been re-added twice to the template by the person who created the article. We do not have Masonic museums and libraries linked as part of the "People and Places" in Freemasonry, because that section is for more universal items, as is readily apparent. I would therefore like to get a consensus as to what to do, keeping in mind that the article on the MONH is likely going to go the way of other ones, and become a subsection in another article. MSJapan ( talk) 01:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I just reread your post and have an issue with one statement...
such as not bothering to fact check enough to know the correct name of the National Heritage Museum, for example
And again, fact check yourself. IT WAS NOT ME THAT ADDED THE MUSEUM LINK. Remove it from the list. I don't care. I don't think it belongs there either. Reading the Wiki page on this Museum, it sucks. There no good information regarding the masons. Who cares. It's not notable. You get an idea stuck in your mind that you believe to be true and never back down. That's why I suggested Conflict Resolution classes. Being able to listen to all sides of an issue and come to a resolusion is a great skill to have.
Again I repeat... ready for it... here it come... I DID NOT EDIT THE &%$#ING PAGE AND ADD THE &%$#ING MUSEUM. I live in Canada. Why should I give a %*$! about some museum in Lexington, MA. Go attack someone else for a change. &%$# Zef ( talk) 14:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This infobox is huge. It is pushing images and "Edit" links into weird places on the articles in which it's used. For instance, see:
You'll see that the "Edit" link which is usually on the right side of the page gets shoved way down to the bottom or some other strange place. Is there anything that can be done to this template to fix this problem? SnottyWong talk 23:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
After recieving the warrant in 1787 al459 was organized in 1787 not 1781 65.113.107.33 ( talk) 21:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
What does {{Freemasonry2}}
do, other than force the non-collapsible infobox? Can I go and replace gobally all {{Freemasonry2}}'s with {{Freemasonry}}?
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The most relevant of all information falling under the subject of Islam and Freemasonry seems to be missing, which is that there is ijma or scholarly consensus that affirming certain values required by Freemason membership is considered disbelief. Paramount of these beliefs is that they validate other forms of religious worship of God (Allah), and it is the widely known belief of all Muslim scholars that Islam abrogated all religion which preceded it. It should also also be mentioned that the Islamic world's oldest and most prestigious institution of higher learning, Al-Azhar University has ruled that membership it such organizations is considered disbelief. http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=4326 Zwest1 ( talk) 04:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
While the Template used for the Freemasonry topic has many helpful links, I find it odd that it is missing the link to List of Masonic Grand Lodges, which would be a useful and often-used reference for those browsing this topic. Any reason why not to add it? Jax MN ( talk) 04:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. ( non-admin closure) – Ammarpad ( talk) 07:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Freemasonry → Template:Freemasonry sidebar – Conventional sidebar template naming, in order to distinguish from Template:Freemasonry footer. PPEMES ( talk) 19:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Template function should be clear from the template name"). Uncontroversial, so speedy close. -- Netoholic @ 09:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add
S.R.I.A. and
Royal Order of Eri to the list of organizations. While 'Societas Rosicruciana' is there the organizations are separate all be it recognize each other. They also have separate Wikipedia pages.
86.1.108.214 (
talk) 21:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Not done - Does not match with the scope of the template.
Equal
width (
C)
14:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||
|
|
|
To add the navigational Infobox to a page paste the following line of code:
{{Freemasonry2}}
For modification to the Title:
{| class="infobox" style="text-align:center;" width="230" |- | colspan="2" |<small>Part of a [[:Category:Freemasonry|series]] of articles on</small><br /><big>'''[[Freemasonry]]'''</big> |- |[[Image:Square compasses.svg|50px|Freemason]] |- | style="font-size:11px" |
For an Non-Collapsed category:
'''Title Example'''<br /> [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]]<br/>
For a Collapsed category:
{| class="toccolours collapsible {{#if: {{{expand-freefigure|}}} | | collapsed }}" style="width: 100%; border: none;" |- ! '''Title Example''' |- | [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]]<br/> |}
To end the code with the This box: view • talk • edit NavBar:
{{Tnavbar|Freemasonry2}} |}
I note that several of the articles listed under the symbolism section, specifically Pythagorean theorem, Sacred Geometry, Jacob's Ladder, and Golden ratio, do not even mention Freemasonry, and that both Pentagram and Circled dot only mention Freemasonry in passing. I know these concepts are discussed in some Masonic rituals (not all... and there is no common interpretation between various Grand Lodges, or between approved rituals, as to what the meaning of the concepts are), but I see no reason to link to articles that do not discuss the connection. I am going to cut them. Blueboar 12:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, nice work. Gives good context to [the] related articles. How about adding some [all] of the topics at [from] the earlier template.
☻ Fred|
☝ discussion|
✍ contributions
16:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | 18:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
We should separate all the Youth groups into their own section, and I'm going to prod Triangle, I think, because 13 chapters in one state does not notability make. Also, there's no need to have an officers list - it all redirs to the same article. I'll see what else can go later, but those things I've mentioned definitely need to be done. MSJapan 17:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Something is wrong - The template formats incorrectly when you try to use it on a page. First it captures any text that comes after the insertion of the template... which causes it to secondly it center across the entire page... like this:
<div align=right>{{Freemasonry2}}</div> Not even. There was a missing right bracket in the template (I must've miscounted), so it wasn't terminating. MSJapan 01:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Blueboar 00:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to question King Edward VII, Geogre Washington, and Ben Franklin under important figures... Yes, all three were prominent people who were Freemasons, but I think the info box should list people who played a roll in the developement of Freemasonry... like Anderson or Pike, not just people who were famous Freemasons. The point of the info box is to highlight important articles in the topic. Articles that will inform the reader about Freemasonry. They will not learn anything about Freemasonry from the Edward VII article other than the fact that he was one (and if we want to go this route, Edward VI was far more involved in the Craft than Edward VII was). I'm not insistant on this, so I will leave them for now... let's discuss. Blueboar 00:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Before we start with the meat of the project, lets first break the skin. What categories should there be? Should they be expanded or collapsed? So far we have:
There should be a section for offshoots, but not apart, of freemasonry. This category should be collapsed and placed just below Masonic Youth Organizations. Lets keep adding to the list above and discuss if it should be added or not. -- Zef 12:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I see your point and your right. I did add a link to the WikiProject Freemasonry at the vary bottom of the template. I would also like to add back the links to the sacred geometry and golden ratio. Within our juristriction we talk about this type of mathematics often and how it is a part of speculative Freemasonry. Maybe placing it into an area for Mathematics or Sacred Geometry.-- Zef 16:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree as to people, except for Ben, who was notable as a Freemason as he was in so many areas. Suggestion this template could have a paramater |hidden=true
so that it could be placed on pages of people who would (and often do) appear in books about Masrony, such as Geo. Washington, without messing up their articles with an infobox about an important part of their life that is not important in the greater context of their impact on society. So there.
RiverStyx23{
talk
email}
17:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Great work with this template, a couple of things might need fixin' though:
I think this template will encourage editors to help improve articles on this topic, I know readers will find it useful. ☻ Fred| ☝ discussion| ✍ contributions 02:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added places as well - but many of these need some work! Harrypotter 17:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
They're getting so big that they're taking up too much space. Can somebody add the collapse syntax into the Bodies and Views sections? MSJapan 17:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the changes made to the collapsable navigation. Having ALL the subjects collapsed makes the project look sloppy. The reason I made this Template was for readers to navigate with ease through the Freemason pages. Just by glancing over and saying "I didn't know The Shriners were apart of Freemasonry" or "What does Solomon's Temple have to do with Freemasons?" The subject that are collapsed will be seen as less important to the craft by the public. This is unavoidable. I have already gotten feedback from some readers in my Lodge. "If Important Figures & Important Places are so important, why are they collapsed and hidden at the bottom?" and "Why is Views of Freemasonry displayed like dirty laundry?" Masonic Women's Groups, Masonic Youth Organizations and Views of Freemasonry should be collapsed but left in the current location under Masonic Bodies. Important Figures and Masonic Rites and Degrees should be viewed.-- Zef 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
MSJapan, which ones do you think should be viewed and which ones collapsed? Masonic Women's Groups & Masonic Youth Organizations could be collapsed to save space but I would like to see Important Figures expanded. Anyone else have some feedback on this subject?-- Zef 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
It may help to spell out what I envision:
Hopefully that helps people visualize what I am talking about. Blueboar 19:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Done-- Zef 15:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
There is an issue with the Nested Collapse. When the Other Mesonic Bodies is expanded, the scripting code expands all the categories within it. This may not be correctable. If anyone knows a solution, please help. -- Zef 15:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
MSJ... how does changing the wording of the section title from "Other Masonic Bodies" to "Masonic Bodies" and changing "For Masons" to "Masonic" make things clearer?
I think I understand what you are trying to do, but are you perhaps getting overly wrapped up in subtle distinctions of how these groups are connected to basic Freemasonry? Remember that we are creating this info box primarily for reader who do not know anything about Masonry ... What we want to show is that the articles in this section relate to Masonic groups not listed in the core articles... and then to indicate, when they see these articles, that some of them are for Masons (ie men), some are for Women, and some are for youth. At least that is my interpretation of what the template is designed to do. Blueboar 19:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
We have a small list of papels that could be included. Any idea where they might fit? -- Zef 14:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Should this be in the template? We could write hundreds of "Freemasonry In... " aritcles to cover every country... but I don't think we want to go that route. In fact, I could see it being incorporated into the History of Freemasonry article. Thoughts? Blueboar 15:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Zef... I understand your eagerness to propigate the template through Wikipedia, and to add lots of articles to the template... but I think you are over doing it a bit.
First, lets discuss where we should put the template. I think we should only put this on articles that primarily discuss Freemasonry... not articles that only partially discuss it (for example Eye of Providence... Freemasonry is only a small part of that article, so I don't think the template should be put there).
Second let's discuss what types of articles should listed on the template. There are a lot of articles that mention Freemasonry or discuss some aspect of Freemasonry... while I can see tagging them with the Freemasonry category tag, I don't think they all need to be listed on the Template. To me, the template should be limited to those articles that contain truely important information on the topic. Articles that only tangentially mention Freemasonry should be not be listed. Also, we should not list every group that calls itself "Masonic" ... Note that I am not saying we limit this to just "regular" UGLE type masonry... to me the criteria is size and notability.
Your thoughts are welcome Blueboar 16:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This template is currently tagged as uncategorized. The tree of navbox templates doesn't really have an appropriate category, so I'll suggest two very general: Category:Religion and belief navbox templates and Category:Organizations navbox templates. When there is sufficient need for subcategories I suppose Category:Clubs and societies navbox templates or similar will be created. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 10:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi MSJapan. You reverted my effort to categorize "tl|Freemasonry2", with the comment "incorrect categorization". That suggests that you have knowledge about those matters. Why then, did you not supply a better category? – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 20:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I did look at it, actually (I've got it watchlisted and looked at it when the uncat template went in), and there simply is no cat on WP that the template fits into properly. What I can tell you, though, is that religion is not the right category for it, and from the tone of your question (unless it's sarcasm), you seem to imply you don't know anything about Freemasonry. Why would you try to categorize something that you don't know about? MSJapan ( talk) 15:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
As of October 3, 2007, the California Court of Appeals and U.S Appeals Court have classified Freemasonry as a religion. As the original creator of Template:Freemasonry2 I say it should be "Category:Religion and belief navbox templates" Zef ( talk) 03:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
"O’Brien denied the petition on the ground that Freemasonry is not a religion.
Perluss—whose wife is a rabbi—said O’Brien was wrong to the extent that RLUIPA protects religious exercise “whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief,” but that the writ was correctly denied because the use of the facility for non-Masonic purposes is not protected by RLUIPA.
Perluss explained:
“The broad sweep of this statutory mandate has been applied to activities as divergent as religiously affiliated schools...nonprofit hospitals...and faith-based crisis centers....At the same time, we share the Second Circuit’s misgivings about RLUIPA’s apparent reach insofar as it purports to favor all religiously oriented uses over identical secular uses: ‘RLUIPA occupies a treacherous narrow zone between the Free Exercise Clause, which seeks to assure that government does not interfere with the exercise of religion, and the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from becoming entwined with religion in a manner that would express preference for one religion over another, or religion over irreligion.’”
All, The articles that are against Freemasonry are interesting and informative, but I wonder why this whole family of Freemasonry articles is so skewed to the negative side. In fact, there are many Christians who support Freemasonry and their affiliated bodies. Shouldn't there be articles noting this? I'd write it myself, except that I am not a Mason (I am female), however my entire family is involved with the Masonic bodies. I am also studying to be a pastor and have found that the Masonic teachings have enforced, rather than contradict, my Christian beliefs. For example, because of Eastern Star, I feel closer to and understand more about the heroines of the Bible that many churches seem to overlook or downplay their involvement in the Jewish/Christian story. I'm sure that there are some brothers out there who can back me up on this.
Hediru ( talk) 15:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Hediru
This link has been re-added twice to the template by the person who created the article. We do not have Masonic museums and libraries linked as part of the "People and Places" in Freemasonry, because that section is for more universal items, as is readily apparent. I would therefore like to get a consensus as to what to do, keeping in mind that the article on the MONH is likely going to go the way of other ones, and become a subsection in another article. MSJapan ( talk) 01:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I just reread your post and have an issue with one statement...
such as not bothering to fact check enough to know the correct name of the National Heritage Museum, for example
And again, fact check yourself. IT WAS NOT ME THAT ADDED THE MUSEUM LINK. Remove it from the list. I don't care. I don't think it belongs there either. Reading the Wiki page on this Museum, it sucks. There no good information regarding the masons. Who cares. It's not notable. You get an idea stuck in your mind that you believe to be true and never back down. That's why I suggested Conflict Resolution classes. Being able to listen to all sides of an issue and come to a resolusion is a great skill to have.
Again I repeat... ready for it... here it come... I DID NOT EDIT THE &%$#ING PAGE AND ADD THE &%$#ING MUSEUM. I live in Canada. Why should I give a %*$! about some museum in Lexington, MA. Go attack someone else for a change. &%$# Zef ( talk) 14:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This infobox is huge. It is pushing images and "Edit" links into weird places on the articles in which it's used. For instance, see:
You'll see that the "Edit" link which is usually on the right side of the page gets shoved way down to the bottom or some other strange place. Is there anything that can be done to this template to fix this problem? SnottyWong talk 23:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
After recieving the warrant in 1787 al459 was organized in 1787 not 1781 65.113.107.33 ( talk) 21:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
What does {{Freemasonry2}}
do, other than force the non-collapsible infobox? Can I go and replace gobally all {{Freemasonry2}}'s with {{Freemasonry}}?
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The most relevant of all information falling under the subject of Islam and Freemasonry seems to be missing, which is that there is ijma or scholarly consensus that affirming certain values required by Freemason membership is considered disbelief. Paramount of these beliefs is that they validate other forms of religious worship of God (Allah), and it is the widely known belief of all Muslim scholars that Islam abrogated all religion which preceded it. It should also also be mentioned that the Islamic world's oldest and most prestigious institution of higher learning, Al-Azhar University has ruled that membership it such organizations is considered disbelief. http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=4326 Zwest1 ( talk) 04:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
While the Template used for the Freemasonry topic has many helpful links, I find it odd that it is missing the link to List of Masonic Grand Lodges, which would be a useful and often-used reference for those browsing this topic. Any reason why not to add it? Jax MN ( talk) 04:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. ( non-admin closure) – Ammarpad ( talk) 07:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Freemasonry → Template:Freemasonry sidebar – Conventional sidebar template naming, in order to distinguish from Template:Freemasonry footer. PPEMES ( talk) 19:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Template function should be clear from the template name"). Uncontroversial, so speedy close. -- Netoholic @ 09:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add
S.R.I.A. and
Royal Order of Eri to the list of organizations. While 'Societas Rosicruciana' is there the organizations are separate all be it recognize each other. They also have separate Wikipedia pages.
86.1.108.214 (
talk) 21:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Not done - Does not match with the scope of the template.
Equal
width (
C)
14:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)