Talk:Knights of Columbus
 | Knights of Columbus is currently a good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at an unspecified date. To complete the template use: {{GA nominee|~~~~~|nominator=~~~|page=1|status=|subtopic=}} Please use the
|
New comments at the bottom please. --SarekOfVulcan 17:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
masons go home!
I am truly annoyed with the tactics that confirmed masons are using to frustrate and interfere with this article and talk page! I wish these freemasons would just dry up and build a wall or something. Honestly, I've never seen anything like it. It's not enough to just write about their own organization, they want to come around and write their propaganda here too! The Knights of Columbus is a great organization that follows Christianity. The masons that have been posting here are little people and certainly don't give themselves a good name. Knights of Columbus members don't swear to protect their organization by any means necessary and it does not print special versions of the bible in order for the bible to be in line with masonic beliefs as Dr. Albert G. Mackey, a mason and an expert on masonry states. He further states that Freemasonry is a religion. The Knights don't use pentagrams as part of their symbolism either! Then some Vulcan want-a-be attacks the Jewish religion, showing his true bigotry, trying to defend the pentagram. What's a vulcan freemason look like by the way? Does he have pentagrams for ears? This link here lets freemasons talk for themselves and gives examples of why freemasonry is its own religion and not in line with Christianity: [1] Sniptilgrab 17:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- I totally agree with you!!! And thanks for the link it is a good one. It certainly exposes the group for what they are!!! I know exactly who you are talking about don't like him get you. I also want to point out the fact that they will lie to protect their group as do the Scientologists or any of these fringe/cultic groups. I believe that any articles that memebers of these type of groups touch are tainted with their biases and propaganda. The Knights are a good organization they raise a lot of money for charity and don't advertise as much as some of these groups. Are yu a member? You are right, I can't beleieve how this guy comes right out and shws his prejudice against the Jews like that!!! That is only just scratching the surface. Don't keep talking to these guys thow because it nly encourages them!!! Dwain
- Actually, I am writing about my own organization. I'm a 3rd-degree Knight, and a 3rd-degree Freemason. Masons don't swear to protect the organization by any means necessary, and a typical "Masonic" bible is just a King James edition with frontispieces for signatures of the presiding officers along with supplemental material on King Solomon's Temple. It is not modified, and Mackey does not state that it is, even in the DoUKnow link that you post.
- Mackey may have stated that Freemasonry is a religion, but that's one man's opinion: millions of Masons would state otherwise. Every Mason brings his own religion to the Lodge, and prays to God in his own way. I know Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish Masons personally.
- You complain about Masons using pentagrams (which isn't particularly accurate): I've read books about cults that state that hexagrams are worse than pentagrams. Does that mean that Judaism is worse than Freemasonry? (BTW, thanks for the idea for my Halloween costume!) --SarekOfVulcan 17:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
You CANNOT be a Mason and a Knight of Columbus. You can be a Mason and a Knight Templar.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.231.199.201 (talk • contribs) .
- If one really wants to learn more about this issue, and why there is no statement on this in the article, go to Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry and read the ensuing discussion on KofC/masonic membership. Besides, the article here makes the one and only point necessary; a member must be a practising Catholic - that is really all it needs to state.DonaNobisPacem 09:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
"Strong right arm"
Nice edit, EKMichigan. That's better phrasing for that point in the article, IMHO.--SarekOfVulcan 16:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Practical Catholics
I agree with the anon deletion: we don't need that level of detail in an encyclopedia.--SarekOfVulcan 04:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Particularly as the intro already states that membership is open to "practical Catholics." The definition of what a practical Catholic does not need to be spelled out term by term - someone can go look the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or some such resource, if they need the specifics.DonaNobisPacem 06:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the wikifying, Sarek.DonaNobisPacem 07:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- NP. I figured it had to be an article, so I wanted to save the next person to come along the lookup effort. Suppose I could have posted a reply instead of changing yours, but it seemed more efficient.--SarekOfVulcan 07:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- So, what is a "practical Catholic"? How do you expect anyone who doesn't have extensive knowledge of Catholicism to know? This is a very weird part of the article and at the very beginning too. There at least needs to be some sort of link to an explanation if it isn't explained in the article. Theshibboleth 10:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- A "practical," or practicing Catholic is one who abides by all of the teaching of the Magisterium - ie, one who follows all dogmatic teachings of the Church (as are detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church).DonaNobisPacem 22:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- So much for not contributing any more over the holidays (that lasted what, 30 sec?) - I added the definition of practical Catholic after the comment by Theshibboleth, but I agree with Sarek and my earlier comments - it's too much detail to have, particularly in the intro. Could we footnote it (if so, I would not be sure how)? Or the fact that it's on the talk page is perhaps enough?DonaNobisPacem 06:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- You do it with the {{note|refID}} and {{ref|refID}} pair of tags. (I can never remember which goes where, but the footnote is the one that gives a carat pointing up.) If I can dig out my "Welcome to the KofC" brochure, I'll quote exactly what it says about practical Catholics, unless you beat me to it.--SarekOfVulcan 07:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- There. How do you like that phrasing?--SarekOfVulcan 07:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- I love indenting! That's great Sarek - mighty impressed. I think that the info provided is good, KofC supplied, and not mucking up the intro. Excellent work!DonaNobisPacem 08:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
The KofC and the UN
I just removed the reference in the article to the Knights of Columbus being an observer to the United Nations. Although the KofC is registered with the UN as an non-governmental organization [2], it is not on the list of non-member observers [3] -- perhaps the poster was mistaking the Knights of Columbus with the Knights of Malta. — Eoghanacht talk 14:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, ok - I just wikifed the link, I hadn't heard of them being an observer but I just wikified it anyway. Thanks for correcting. JG of Borg 16:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Suggestion on terminology?
I am going to suggest possibly listing the Knights under the list of Friendly Societies, and maybe add something to that effect in the main article. By the way, so you know my POV, I WAS a member of the Knights of Columbus, and GK of my college council, and did a little bit of research about. I am now a Mason, and I am not here to push a Masonic diatribe. What I will suggest, is a look at Faith and Fraternalism (the name of the author escapes me right now). The issues regarding sick benefits, death and burial benfits, and support for widows and orphans, would put the Knights more in line with the Friendly Societies that existed in the 1800's in the US (Oddfellows etc), than in direct opposition to the Masons, who did NOT offer those sort of supports for members. I recognize that the accepted commentary is that "the Knights were made so Catholics wouldn't join the Masons," but that doesn't fit the facts of the lack of insurance companies, HMO's and paid sick time, which resulted in the creation of mutual benfit societies, many of which Catholics were forbidden to join. The issues regarding Catholics being forbidden by the Church to become Masons is such a long and tedious one, with neither side really agreeing that the other side even has a valid POV, but it doesn't really answer the mail on what was happening with the Foresters, the Sarsfield Guards etc.--Vidkun 15:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Topics for inclusion
JFK? Bush?
Would it be worth mentioning somewhere that President John F. Kennedy was a Knight? Also, I am confused about the section on Politics. How is it that the KofC can claim to be unbaised toward any one candidate or party, yet invite Bush to speak at their annual convenion just months before the 2004 election. It seems to me to be a clear-cut endorsement of the President's candidacy for a second term. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Anyone know how Anderson juxtaposed this event with the Knight's rules regarding this matter?
- The KofC invites the head of state of every country it operates in to come and address the annual supreme convention. Most of the time, they send a recorded message, but Bush decided to actually show up in 2004. His decision to show up was probibly politically motivated, but the decision to invite him was just normal operating procedure. Clinton sent eight video tapes, which were played to the annual conventions during his presidency, but he could have chosen to show up, if he wanted to. The same is true for the Governor-General of Canada, the President of the Philipines, and the President of Mexico, among others. Gentgeen 08:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- I added a section for famous Knights... I only know of a couple (listed), but a friend of mine knows several others. I'll see what I can do to get them added to the list. From what I've heard, all male Catholics on the Supreme Court are currently KOC members, but that's not verified... Clint 08:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Squires
The squires are actually a part of (in that they are administered by) the KofC - so they should probably not be under "similar Organisations." DonaNobisPacem 05:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Is Supreme organizing the Squirettes, or are just some local councils doing so? If it is not a Supreme initiative, it should be removed.
- I'm not actually aware of a Squirettes program - I didn't know anything, positive or negative, about them being formed, so I didn't remove it from the article. Perhaps the KofC website could offer more info?DonaNobisPacem 23:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- From what I understand, the Squirettes aren't officially condoned by Supreme but were tolerated due to the lack of Catholic Daughter youth organizations. In light of the developing CDA youth groups, the Squirettes will probably fade out... Clint 08:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I added a seperate pages for the Columbian Squires.
Fourth Degree
I am not sure demoting the 4th degree to a subsection was a good move. It seems to me (as a 4th degree Knight, but one not active in the assembly) that the 4th degree is distinct enough to merit its own section.
- I understand where you're coming from (as a fourth degree knight myself), but from the way I originally reworked that section of the page, it seemed better for organizational purposes to put the fourth degree under the other degrees. Clint 08:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
College Councils
I think we are getting close to the point when we can break off thed College Councils section into its own article. Its not quite there yet, but I think it has potential. Briancua 13:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
famous knights
I alphabatized and legthened the list of famous Knights. I included everyone in the K of C category, except minor politicians. If it grows any longer I think we should move it into its own category. Briancua 20:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Secret Society?
THere is no indication in this article that the organization is a secret society, I think it should be substantiated or the categorization should be removed. Judgesurreal777 21:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- A secret society isn't one where no one is to know you are a member, a secret society, according to wikipedia, anyway, is one where some aspects of it are a secret. All the cerimonies of the K of C are restricted to the membership, and so it does qualify as a secret society. I added that info in the top paragraph. Briancua 02:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- According to the "wikipedia" definition, the U.S. Congress is a secret society (national security briefings are closed-door), as is the College of Cardinals. — Eoghanacht talk 13:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Now that opens a interesting can of worms. Coca Cola? Microsoft? Virtualy any business that keeps trade secrets would then fall into this category as well.Ultimate ed 01:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- According to the "wikipedia" definition, the U.S. Congress is a secret society (national security briefings are closed-door), as is the College of Cardinals. — Eoghanacht talk 13:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)