This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Nowdays the critics are saying that he never was against communism in the first place. :-) This whole section kind of goes on and on. Rev. Moon's relationship with communism, as a victim, a critic, an activist against, and now as someone who is trying to reach out to the hold outs in North Korea, is a very important part of his life and why he has done the things he has done. However I don't know if making the main thing what some critics are saying is the right way to present it. Steve Dufour 04:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
==================>
Uncle Ed (Ed Poor) and Steve Dufour are BOTH *moonies*. They are turning wikipedia into nothing but a deception, and a Joke! Something thier Master Moon is good at! Like Father Moon, like *moonie* as well. How many entries of wikipedia have they edited, created, changed, or deleted because of it? Anybody know? This is just one more example of how *moonies* intend on "taking over the world" for thier Father Moon is all.
I just removed this twice. There is no proof that the UC is a "cult", since the word has no real meaning. If the person who posted this would like to come back and post some real information, or even a published opinion the would be a much more constructive thing to do.
Problem is, if your reverend is so great and infallible, then why does he need a 'watchdog' to keep him from being rightfully categorized as a megalomaniac manipulator? Anybody who bows before another is a fool, plain and simple. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 06:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way - 'Reverend' Moon is not the first person to proclaim himself as 'Father Divine' and 'Jesus Christ'. See also Jim Jones. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 06:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Roman Catholic, so perhaps were I to write piece on my church it would be tilted. I get the feeling from reading this, that the author is doing a little bit of damage control for the Moonies. And yes, they are the Moonies. That's his or her right though, and to have acknowledged the controversy is better than ignoring it. As to whether the Moonies are a cult, I think that it's open to interpretation. I would call them something of a cult, as I have first hand been approached by the clipboard carrying women when I lived in Boston (Never in New York City though, which is far superior to Boston!). I would call them a cult based on what I know of the term, but I wouldn't consider them a cult in the way I consider the People's Temple or the Raelians a cult. Hell, my religion has been called a cult. It's all good, but they are Moonies! [unsigned 13:22, 21 August 2006 170.3.8.253 ( Talk)]
I took out this paragraph, which has been floundering around being changed back and forth:
For one thing this was originally one person's opinion put in the mouth of "some critics". I know there is more of that here, from both sides, but it's not really how Wikipedia is supposed to work.
For another Rev. Moon is not literally a "billionaire"; he is not the legal owner of billions of dollars in assets. It is true that he is the leader of a group of people who among them have billions but that does not make him a billionaire.
For a third his followers are not literally "footsoldiers", unless they happen to be in the militaries of their various nations then they might be.
If someone thinks the Liberty University loan issue is important then write something about that; but in that case also the opinion of "some critics" is not the most important thing. Steve Dufour 23:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors: I have made some corrections in the section on tax crime convictions. The Reverend Moon was not convicted of tax evasion, nor was he charged with that offense. The Federal tax evasion statute is 26 U.S.C. § 7201. He was charged with and convicted of willfully filing false tax returns under 26 U.S.C. § 7206, and with conspiracy. I made the appropriate changes in the article, with a footnote citation to the court decision on appeal. I have not had a chance to fully study the Moon convictions by comparing the Wikipedia text to the actual court decision, but I wanted to at least go ahead and set the record straight on exactly what the charges and convictions were.
Actually, willfully filing a false tax return can also be the basis for a tax evasion conviction, if all the elements for tax evasion are met. The Reverend Moon simply was not charged with tax evasion, for whatever reason. Yours, Famspear 02:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Just as a follow-up I note that one of the links in the article leads to web site apparently operated by Reverend Moon's church which describes his tax problems as having involved "tax evasion" and conspiracy. Again, that description is incorrect, as explained above. Yours, Famspear 14:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I have also made some minor edits in the references to the Schengen treaty, and have moved the material down to the bottom of the section. I'm unclear exactly as to what the original author was trying to say about the Schengen treaty and Moon's travel, so I hope that my edits didn't do any damage. In any case, it's unclear from the text exactly what a travel ban in Europe under the Schengen treaty has to do with tax convictions in the United States. For example, if there is something in the treaty that restricts travel by persons convicted of crimes, or tax crimes, then that needs to be documented to make the article less vague. If another editor gets to this before I can look it up, perhaps that editor can make the "tie-in." Yours, Famspear 16:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Yours, Famspear 13:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors: I'm not sure if this is the right way to do this, but I have removed certain editorial comments hidden in the text of the article, right after the reference to the fact that the jury did not accept the defense's contention that the funds in question were being held in trust for the church Rev. Moon was building. The comments are as follows:
Without agreeing or disagreeing with the comments, I would say they are interesting, and are arguably more "viewable" here on the talk page. I haven't gone back to check and see whose comments they are. Yours, Famspear 04:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Ed Poor: What were the facts in the George Bush senior case? If it was just a case of owing money on April 15th, that's not a crime. What were the circumstances? Yours, Famspear 22:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
What do you think of the idea of making the discussion of the tax case its own article? Steve Dufour 01:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This is moving way too fast. We need to be circumspect and guard against creating POV forks that bowdlerize this article in doing these splits. I'll be contributing and keeping an eye on these splits to ensure that they are proper and do not violate WP:NPOV's provision on POV forks. FeloniousMonk 23:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You can pretty much ignore FeloniousMonk. He objects to nearly every spin-off article I've ever been involved in. He will not allow any clarity brought to topics that deal with the fine points of views and ideas that go beyond the material world.
He consistently misuses the term "POV fork" to mean "any spin-off he objects to" rather than "a spin-off which violates NPOV policy by asserting or assuming that a particular POV is true". His misbehavior is well known and he's been brought before the arbcom for it multiple times. There's a new case starting even now.
His misbehavior extends to stalking all me edits and branding any spin-off I propose on a controversial topic as a "POV fork", regardless of how well balanced and neutral the parent article and spinoff article are.
Don't be fooled by his admin status. Despite his bluster, he carries no more editorial authority than anyone else. -- Uncle Ed 15:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, this article counts Myung Hee Kim as Sun Myung Moon's second wife. However, I thought there was no proof of this. I thought that Chung Hwa Pak simply wrote about that in his book The Tragedy Of The Six Marias, but that he also wrote about many other things such as Sun Myung Moon performing sex acts with members as an indemnity sort of thing, and that there was no proof of such things. Supposedly, many people easily believed the things Chung Hwa Pak wrote since he was with Sun Myung Moon during the early years. However, I heard that Sun Myung Moon denied these claims. Therefore, I think there may be lack of evidence to say that he has 3 wives. It may be safer to say that he has 2 wives, but that there is a possibility that he has had 3, but no proof. Anyone have input about this? I won't make the edit myself, not yet at least. I'd like to see if anyone has something to say about this. Jamesters 05:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh wait, I solved this myself through further reading. Sun Myung Moon denied sex acts with multiple members thing and there was even someone else during those times that also protested that such things never happened. As for the 2nd wife thing, it seems it is true but was not an official marriage or even a relationship of any sort. Instead, some kind of providential sex thing. I don't understand it completely and will probably read up on it more. Afterall, I wonder what Sun Myung Moon considered providential about having sex with that girl. But anyways, I guess that means he really did have 3 wives (even if not all marriages were official). Problem solved! Jamesters 08:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The church itself never manufactured munitions. A business started by members did, and as far as I know continues to. Steve Dufour 12:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I've moved this quotation to the talk page until the correct translation and Wilson's commentary is added, perhaps a small section talking about mistranslations:
"But when it comes to our age, we must have an automatic theocracy to rule the world. So, we cannot separate the political field from the religious. Democracy was born because people ruled the world, like the Pope does. Then, we come to the conclusion that God has to rule the world, and God loving people have to rule the world -- and that is logical. We have to purge the corrupted politicians, and the sons of God must rule the world. The separation between religion and politics is what Satan likes most."
- Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Third Directors' Conference, Master Speaks, May 17, 1973
I've just started this article. Please check it out. Steve Dufour 13:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
This was just done. Oddly enough it seemed to be the first thing this editor did after joining Wikipedia. I don't have any real objection, however it does seem more normal for it to be on the right. Steve Dufour 10:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)p.s. I see he has also made a contribution to the Jerry Garcia article since then. :-)
Maybe the best thing to do is let anyone put in a quote but rotate them out after a week or so. That way the section would be constantly changing but always have a balance between different people's additions. Steve Dufour 22:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some problem with quoting Sun Myung Moon on his page. I think have a wikiquote page to provide many quotes is a good idea I also think any biography of a person should have quotations from that person so that a casual reader doesn't haven't wade through a lot of information."
I have put 6 quotes up while keeping the link to wikiquotes for more in depth research. I have put 3 what one might call inspiring quotes from him and 3 quotes that would be considered controversial. They are all referenced to their original webpage which is page run by a member of the Unification Church so I believe their accuracy. None is out of context but the original source can be easily accessed if anyone had a problem. I think this is a good compromise.-- Robbow123 19:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I don't think providing true quotations that are not taken out of context is controversial. Even with a reference to wikiquotes that wouldn't stop anyone from adding quotes in the future or if a quote section was removed it would not someone to create a quote section. Quote sections are common in biographies. If the quotes section is abolished in all of Wikipedia than I have no problem. After doing some research I see that there are these blue boxes that refer people to other wiki projects like wikiquotes and wikimedia.
If you could create that for Moon then I think that's what should be done. As long as there is a quote section then people will be rightly encouraged to edit it and add quotes.
So if you know how to make one of those blue boxes refering to WikiQuotes than I am all for it. Thanks-- Robbow123 20:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I just took a look at it and that's what I had in mind. That way quotes can go there and others will know where to add quotes. If I get inclined I may even organize the quotes but this is a good start. Thank you-- Robbow123 20:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I had to include that much of the speech to put the words "homosexuals" and "dung-eating dogs". He did not say, "Homosexuals are dung-eating dogs" as is often repeated by people with a lower standard of caring about facts than should be practiced here on WP. Steve Dufour 03:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the people with a lower standard got the impression that Moon said "Homosexuals and fornicators are like dirty dung eating dogs" because in his speech of May 4, 1997
The topic heading before the paragraph you quote says that exact thing.
I imagine the headings were written by someone else other than Moon. But since it is on the official Unification Website [unification.org] the statement reflects the feelings of that organization even if they were not direct quotes from Moon.
I was personally present when he gave the original speech, transcribed the audio tape and edited the speech, and added the headings to it. He spoke forcefully, and unequivocally, about his disgust for those who practice promiscuous sex and homosexuality, and compared them to dogs who eat dung. I made no effort at all to downplay or minimize what he said, as I agree with him. It originally appeared on my web site at http://www.unification.net/1997/970504.html. Damian Anderson 04:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If you like you could say "The editor of his speech on unification.org summarized Rev. Moon as saying, "Homosexuals and fornicators are like dirty dung eating dogs." However I think it is better to quote the whole part of the speech itself. Something should be said, I think, because this one remark is one of the most talked about things in Rev. Moon's whole life. Steve Dufour 01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Also note that his purpose in making the remarks was to warn members against immorality. Steve Dufour 02:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
If there is a section in this article titled "Views on Communism" then there also needs to be a section called "Views on Democracy" -- don't you think? Moon's
"critique" of Communism (a political ideology) also stems from the fact that he is proposing a political
"counterproposal" to Communism and Democracy both called "Unificationism" -- a
theocratic monarchy.
Sincerely
Marknw 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I took this out after considering it for a long time. It shouldn't be hard to find real people who have made these criticisms. Steve Dufour 10:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, although the cited article (which was initially being used an evidence that "some Christian ministers began joining" Rev Moon's crusade), does say that 'mainstream Christian leaders' plural condemned the intiative. StuartDouglas 11:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Just took it out again. I am in 100 percent agreement that the criticism (or persecution) of Rev. Moon by Christians should be covered in the article. However the material needs to be cited. After you do that you can work on "some civil libertarians", "some Jews", and "some gay rights groups". Remember that this is a biography of a living person. Steve Dufour 12:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, not all criticism is considered persecution. When it's simply a theological disagreement, the UC does not brand this a persecution. For example, hardly any other Christian church thinks the fall of man had anything to do with sex, let alone the seduction of Eve by the archangel Lucifer.
It's when they treat us differently that it's persecution, like being branded "non-Christian" by the national council of churches - or when they put our leader in jail (see Sun Myung Moon tax case) for something that Catholics do routinely.
Anyway, persecution can be a good thing: when it helps "pay indemnity". -- Uncle Ed 19:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The article states that some people consider the Unification Church to be a cult, saying it is primarily politically motivated. Islam has no divisions between state and religion, they are one and the same, but Islam is not usually referred to a as a cult. Are purely political organizations cults, or does a religious aspect have to be involved? Does the fact that one religion is against Communism as a system of evil make it a cult? There are other religions that are not too fond of Communism either. - MSTCrow 01:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I am removing this quotation as obviously inaccurate. The things that the "Concerned Women of America" state are not true are facts. It's unfortunate but the history of Christianity has indeed been marked by inquistions, crusades, forced conversions, demolition of indiginous cultures and witch hunts. And the cross was its symbol (the shields of the crusaders were painted with a large cross). To deny this is to deny history. My point in emphasising this on Moon's page is that 1) this "take down the cross" action of Moon's and the fact that many actually did it is an historical event and 2) Moon's motives for doing this are transparent and just as Gorenfeld has stated - the replacing of Jesus with himself as Messiah. 4.246.203.34 15:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Cut from article:
That's not why Father Moon and U.S. Christians began this campaign. Steve, help me out here.
Also, the observation "Moon wants you to dump Jesus and crown Moon king instead" seems very negative. It's also completely opposite to the church's view point about the relationship between Rev. Moon and Jesus. How can Gorenfield say "dump Jesus"? That's a misrepresentation.
If there is controversy, real actual dispute over why the campaign was conducted, we should cover it as a controversy - not quote some freelancer making gratuitous cracks.
Please supply some legitimate criticism from someone with a following, not some hack's personal opinion. -- Uncle Ed 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
...
I will be glad to look up some info for you.
...
...
You might need to sit down for this. Note: I am not Christian myself, however the following research was done by those who are.
"Abraham was the father of faith, Moses was a man of faith, Jesus was the son of man, trying to carry out his mission at the cost of his life. But they are, in a way, failures." (Sun Myung Moon, "Victory or Defeat," from Master Speaks, March 31, 1973, p.1.) He also teaches: "This means that the failures of Adam and of Jesus Christ have been restored by the appearance of True Parents." (Rev. Moon, Today's World, January, 1995, p.8) http://www.newcovpub.com/unification/wfwp3.html
Here Moon is quoted saying that rather than the church's immaculate conception, Jesus was illigitimate. http://www.newcovpub.com/unification/howwas.html
"I am now making a prototype of the perfect family, accomplishing what Jesus could not do." (Sun Myung Moon, Today's World, May, 1995, p.12.) http://www.newcovpub.com/unification/isrev.html
Get a load of THIS one: "Bring in the flocks. Bring in the sheep and bring them to the throne of your True Parents. Bring them to the throne of our True Parents, the mighty throne of heaven. And I will place the Crown of Glory on our True Parents' head. I will lead them. I will show them that the Lord of Lords and the Kings of Kings and the King of Glory is our precious Lord Sun Myung Moon and his beloved bride Hak Ja Han. They reign as king and queen of the entire universe. And that I, Jesus of Nazareth, known as the Christ, bow in humility before them. I bow before them. Any who will follow me must do the same. I bow before the name of True Parents. I bow before our precious Lords, our True Parents, Sun Myung Moon and Hak Ja Han." (Purportedly by the spirit of Heung Jin Nim Moon, The Victory of Love, NY, NY: The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, 1992, pp. 65-66).
"Jesus: Reverend Sun Myung Moon! Thou art the Second Coming who inaugurated the Completed Testament Age!" http://www.usasurvival.org/ck7502.shtml
"Until our mission with the Christian church is over, we must quote the Bible and use it to explain the Divine Principle. After we receive the inheritance of the Christian church, we will be free to teach without the Bible. Now, however, our primary mission is to witness to the Christian church." (Sun Myung Moon, Master Speaks-7: "Bible Interpretation," 1965, p.1.) http://www.newcovpub.com/unification/isrev.html
"The time has come when the whole world must be concerned about me. From now on, American Christianity must follow me." http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/sunmyungmo189468.html
"Am I foolish and insignificant or am I great? I gave all the individuals in the world cause to kneel down in front of me." (Rev. Moon, Today's World, March 1995 p.6)
Now I ask you, what is the difference between Moon and the lunatic in an asylum who thinks that he is God or Napolean? Besides money I mean. I'm sorry but this guy is a dangerous megalomaniac.
It was said above:
This is true and is in fact the same as the Unification Church position:
This is from Wikipedia:Words to avoid:
...
Can anyone explain why edits that not were reverted according to the history tab do not show up hours later when googling the article. This is the second time I've seen this now. 4.246.205.168 13:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ...
:You might be confusing "truth" and "accuracy". As long as that guy said it, and he really is a spokesman for CWA, then the quote qualifies as verifiable
I disagree. The quote is not verifiable because it is not true. No offence with the following comments but please consider, would you use a quote from some swastica wearing neo-nazi holocaust denier stating that it never happened just because he is speaking in opposition to some other hate group which is the focus of the article? I know that sounds extreme but the cross was viewed exactly the same way by millions during the past 2,000 years. IOW, why use a quote that is obviously wrong as a counter to another wrong?? Shouldn't Wikipedia be about the facts and not about spreading revisionist misinformation? About quality information not just whatever fills up space? Should we include a quote from Bozo the Clown uttering nonsense just because he might have an opinion on some subject? Additionaly, the inclusion of this quote does an injustice to the many many who suffered and died at the hands of Christendom. Can't another quote from a Christian group objecting to the removal of the cross campaign be found? I'd think there'd be plenty. At the least a caveat ought to be added that the statement does not hold up to history. For these reasons I am again removing the quote. If someone still insists on putting it in then more power to them. 4.246.206.198 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Long winded. The short comment is, this guy from the CWA is attacking a wrong with a falsehood. How does that help the Wikipedia reader? 4.246.206.198 21:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Cut from "crowning" section:
This link has nothing about "participants ... misled". Apparently this blogger is in the process of re-arranging his web site.
On the other hand, I recall reading a year or two ago about a phone and mail campaign to get participants to recant their support. I'm not sure what percentage were persuaded to do so or on what grounds.
Frequently, supporters have changed their mind when faced by adverse publicity. Whitney Houston ditched the RFK Blessing, and Bill Cosby said he "didn't know" the Family Federation was connected to Rev. Moon! I don't know how they get to be world-class entertainers and still have no idea about groups trying to ride on their coat tails. Don't they have publicists and lawyers? -- Uncle Ed 21:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
...
About the take vs tear down the cross debate. I provided a link. This is from the Church's own publication not somebody's memory of it. Here it is "tear down" http://www.tparents.org/UNews/Unws0304/cross_bronx.htm. Now in the interests of honesty I also found a link from their publication that said "take down" [7]. The links don't take up too much room so I've included them both.
...
Wow, here I am a non-Christian arguing for them. I can't believe that polyannaish advertisment about the cross in the article. All that stuff about hw the cross is bad sure flies in the face of scripture.
"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me." Luke 9:23 New International Version
"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" 1 Corinthians 1:17-18
"May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which[a] the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." Galatians 6:14
"For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ." Phillipians 3:18 (Watch out Moon!)
"And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" Colossians 2:15
Although I might agree with you that wearing a cross would be like wearing a amulet in the shape of a gun around your neck, it is obvious from the Bible why Christians might be offended at the denigration of the cross. For them it is a symbol of redemption. 4.246.206.198 23:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. Even church scholars feel that the legalizing of Christianity in 325 C.E. was the beginning of the long slide for the church.
Interesting. No mainstream church though {and I'm not aware of any others) believes that being "washed in he blood" makes one sinless but only that ones sins are forgiven. The NT teaches that 'Christ died so you don't have to' since the "wages of sin are death" Gal. 6:23, and since everyone sins since the fall of Adam they needed this redemption to escape eternal death and/or hell. The Judaic ritual, commanded by Yahweh in the OT, of sacrificing a lamb every year before Jesus' crucifixion (though some say that he was actually impaled) is said to have forshadowed this. To denigrate Jesus' sacrifice as a failure and the cross as an object of repulsion would equally be viewed as a great heresy in Christendom. Additionally, as shown above, the Bible (NT) itself takes the view that Jesus' death was necessary and right, and we all know that the Bible is viewed as the infallible word of God by many or most Christians. To say something contrary is to invite trouble.
Good - to a point. Sometimes one needs to take a side (while being fair even to that side) especially when something is clearly wrong. It would be hard to write an article about Nazi Germany for example without making any value judgements.
As of the current edit I only want to re-add the link to who attended the crowning. I do think that Moon's controversial quotations should be added to the wikiquote page [8]. I would advocate dividing the uncontroversial quotes from the controversial ones on the page. 4.246.207.49 15:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I was trying to add back the link to who attended the crowning but the edit page contains a different page than the current page. The local edit link is different itself. Must be a wiki problem. 4.246.207.49 15:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I see that the comment from the CWA is back so I would like to put up a bit of counterweight to that.
...
Adding quotes. About the comment from the CWA, as one can see the ridiculous comment and the balancing comments I added is only serving as a wandering detour and distraction from the article. I still think it should be removed. 4.246.200.116 18:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, it says in the first paragraph that Rev. Moon has said that he is the Messiah. The article really should be about how he has tried to carry that out. Of course criticisms of him and his followers should be included in the article. But differences of opinion about religion should not take up about half of the article as they do now. Otherwise why not include a few paragraphs about how the Hindus disagree with him because he is not a vegetarian? Steve Dufour 05:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I cut out:
Generally speaking, people can make up their own minds as to how they feel about the cross without the opinions of "others", Mr. Schwartz, the WP article on the Crusades, and "the great majority of Christians". On the other hand, if the whole "take down the cross" thing is really so important then maybe it should have its own article. Steve Dufour 06:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Steve: "I don't think not displaying the cross is considered "heretical" by the great majority of Christians
That's not what I said Steve. Again:
Nevertheless, to the great majority Christians themselves the cross is revered as the symbol of Christ's sacrifice and their redemption. Any denigrating of it is considered heretical.
Moon's and the UC's comments about it can be regarded as denigrating it. However if you want We'll leave this out.
Disappointing Steve to check back and see that bit by bit the article is losing valid criticism. Examples:
1) The removing of the reference to the crowning of Jesus as the Messiah. You said "I'm not sure they intended to crown him as the Messiah", but IS clear that that is how HE perceived it. "Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent." And I doubt that they were completely unaware that that is how he sees himself. But consider, if you don't say what he was crowned as that will only beg the question in the reader's mind "okay so he was crowned but crowned as WHAT?". Obviously he was crowned as something, (and it wasn't baseball's MVP). Why not say what that was, at least in his mind. Additionally look at those bowed heads of members of congress [9].
2) The removal of the comment Many, though, see another, more suspect motive behind the campaign - it's a convienient stepping stone, they say, for the usurpation of Jesus with Moon, especially given some of Moons own comments about Jesus which you said you were removing because it was "unsourced". Yet the very next sentence provided a source.
3) The quiet removal of "Everyone I talked to was furious" said Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.) spokeswoman Chris Lisi." while removing material to the cornation page.
4) The removal of the line To the great majority Christians the cross is revered as the symbol of Christ's sacrifice and of their redemption.
In another month will the article be indistinguishable from a Moon publication? 4.246.201.106 02:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Just bringng out a small flaw. You may do with as you wish.
That's not what that sentence said. It said that the removal of the cross (and Moon's claiming to be the messiah, his put downs of Jesus etc.) is viewed "by many as a convienient stepping stone to the usurpation of Jesus with Moon". That doesn't mean that he will actually be able to accomplish this feat - except perhaps in the mind of his followers. I think this sentence should remain. If the word "many" is a stumbling block might I suggest changing it to "some"?
Might you re-add it then?
Well some people might feel that it's ALL ABOUT the cross, and the whittling away of its significance while simultaneously puffing up Moon.
As I said it's in your hands. I commend you for what you, as a Unificationist, have left in. Subjective objectivity is no easy feat itself. Just please try to keep it fair. 4.246.203.11 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The person who placed the cleanup tag seems not to have commented here, so it's impossible to know what defect he felt was present. I can make a couple suggestions, however.
1. The section Overview of the beliefs of Unificationists is too long and too uneven. The main articles for this are at Unification theology, Divine Principle, and on other pages. A church member should summarize and edit down this section, perhaps moving some things to those pages and providing a much briefer overview.
2. The section Related organizations is disorganized and does not represent the ideals or activities of the church very well. It seems to me that 3 prominent groups of related organizations are [a] philanthropic, [b] ecumenical, and [c]educational. Philanthropic organizations are not even mentioned (!!), only 1 ecumenical organization is described (!), and only 2 educational organizations are mentioned (!), one of which is listed as a business! Perhaps subsection titles could give an indication of the purpose of the church's vision for related organizations (e.g., Philanthropic, Ecumenical, Educational, Media, Business). - Exucmember 05:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I made a page on John and someone removed it. I thought he is notable enough and I tried to make the page fair. I mentioned that he is an independant journalist who specializes in reporting about Rev. Moon. I also included a link to his website. I don't see why anyone would remove it. Steve Dufour 06:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
This does not seem to be substanciated by the information in the articles cited, most of which are by Robert Parry and John Gorenfeld. The only thing close to a "political donation" is the money paid to ex-President Bush to give some speeches in South America and Japan plus a possible indirect gift to his presidental museum. Although this could be criticized, still it is not exactly a political donation since Bush was not in office at the time and is probably not going to run for office again. There is no evidence given at all for "an extensive history of making political donations". Steve Dufour 06:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I moved the info on Kahr Arms so it was next to the part on Seilo. Also my dictionary defines munitions as "war supplies, especially weapons and ammunition". I have never heard of Seilo or Kahr making ammunition so I changed the word to "guns" which more accurately describes what they do. Of course Seilo does many things in the metal working field besides that. Steve Dufour 16:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I've been meaning to look up Mr. Moon regarding his church and political activities, and find this article to be somewhat lacking in that regard. I also found a number of related articles that also suffer this imbalance: it seems to be mostly regarding Mr. Dufour's experience as a church member vs. effective collaboration. Thank you. Cwolfsheep 01:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Consistent with Moonies virulent anti-communism, allegations were made in the 70s and 80s that made Moon a close intimate of South Korean dictator Park Chung Hee and alleged that he and his close associates were intimately involved with the South Korean CIA and military leadership at whose behest they largely acted. I know they loudly defended Park before his assasination and were genuinely viewed during the height of the hubbub regarding Moonies as a fascist threat, a New Age Father Coughlin type so to speak.
In the Other Issues sections there's the following sentence "Some Jews have objected to his saying that the Holocaust is partly an indirect consequence of some important Jewish leaders, especially John the Baptist, not supporting Jesus which contributed to his murder by the Roman government".
I think that calls for greater generalization. Suggesting that only Jews object to Moon's statement, which one of the oldest anti-semitic "arguments", is offensive to non-Jews as well. I'll change the part to "There have been objections..." 87.203.85.143 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church, is portrayed in some church publications as a monarch of the nation Cheon Il Guk.
"True Love King"
"Family Federation for World Peace and Unification"
"Declaration of the Establishment of Cheon Il Guk"
Rev. Moon was also portrayed as the leader of all religions in the online article "Cloud of Witnesses" and the church website "Messages From Spirit World."
The Divine Principle asserts that existing modern democracies have been a necessary, but temporary, stage in history and politics.
"How can democracy accomplish its purpose?...We need to understand that democracy was born to undermine satanic monopolies of power for the purpose of God's final providence to restore, by the will of the people, a heavenly sovereignty under the leadership of the returning Christ."
- Divine Principle Section 7.2.6 Democracy and Socialism
"...Thus, in the ideal world, people of God led by Christ will form organizations analogous to today's political parties..."
- Divine Principle, Section 3.2 The Significance of the Separation of Powers
"If we are to realize the ideal world of one global family which can honor Christ at the Second Advent as our True Parent, surely our languages must be unified...then he will certainly use the Korean language, which will then become the mother tongue for all humanity."
- Divine Principle, Section 5
"The democratic world has come to a dead end..."
- Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Creation Of The Fatherland, January 1, 1984
"America's intellectual establishment is liberal, godless, secular, humanistic, and anti-religious. We are declaring war against three main enemies: godless communism, Christ-less American liberalism, and secular-humanistic morality. They are the enemies of God, the True Parents, the Unification Church, all of Christianity, and all religions. We are working to mobilize a united front against them."
- Rev. Sun Myung Moon, August 29, 1985
"Through True Love our family shall accomplish the True Family of the Filial Child, the Loyal Subject, the Saint and the Holy Child of the Cheon Il Guk (God's Kingdom on earth.)"
- Church Motto, Sun Myung Moon, January 1, 2003
"There is no doubt that this kingdom is one that the children of God's direct lineage can reign over by upholding the heavenly decree. In other words, it is a nation in which they rule on behalf of God's commands and kingship. Democracy and communism cannot exist in such a kingdom. Once established, it will remain as an eternal state system. Considering these things, isn't it mortifying that you have not yet become the citizens of that kingdom?"
- Sun Myung Moon, March 4, 2005
"... theocracy is commonly used to describe a form of government in which a religion or faith plays the dominant role. Properly speaking, it refers to a form of government in which the organs of the religious sphere replace or dominate the organs of the political sphere." -- Wikipedia
Historical examples of Christian theocracies are the Byzantine Empire and the Carolingian Empire.
rule of law, religious freedom, Western world values, secular democracy, separation of church and state, religious pluralism, fundamentalism, Kingdom of Heaven
Marknw 04:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the tag from this sentence:
I'm UC member and a long time contributor to this article. For the sake of fairness I have let statements like "there have been objections..." stand. This also seems to be the feeling of other contributors to the UC articles. We know there have been objections and criticisms and want them to be mentioned in the articles. I don't see the point of finding some critic's statement and changing the sentence to be "So and so said..." Nobody questions that there have been objections so a cite is not really needed for this sentence. That's my opinion anyway. Steve Dufour 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Cut from intro:
This sentence falsely asserts that Rev. Moon is calling himself the Messiah. The actual quotation in the newspaper article was:
For Christians, there is a big difference between (1) hearing someone call another person the Messiah and (2) hearing someone call himself the Messiah.
I'd like someone to double-check the facts, and if they agree with my analysis, restore the citation with the correct interpretation. Something like,
We need to distinguish between:
Clear? -- Uncle Ed 11:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Cut from "cross and crown" section:
This is an error. Rev. Moon does not say he wants to replace Jesus. We need to write about the ceremony to crown Jesus as king, which the church conducted in Jerusalem a few years ago. I believe it was connected to, or in conjunction with, this campaign.
"Jesus is, was, and always will be the source of salvation." -- Uncle Ed 15:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I notice the criticism section has been pruned, chopped back, and watered down since the last time I was here. - Exucmember 07:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I took off this comment. I don't think you could find anyone who seriously thinks that in the future human beings will no longer be individuals because of Rev. Moon. Steve Dufour 11:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Riverguy, you are not far off. You just need some relevant quotations from Rev. Moon's voluminous speeches.
His theology of salvation accepts Jesus as the pioneer of salvation, but he also says that people cannot enter Heaven as bachelors. Heaven requires marriage, but don't forget that our idea of "heaven" and "paradise" are non-traditional. In coming weeks, I'll be writing more about these topics. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 00:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster definition of propaganda: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person [10]
That's the dictionary I used in high school, so that's the definition I'll accept. I would say that every newspaper spreads ideas and information for a purpose; see advocacy journalism. This is an American tradition that goes way, way back in history. Using a newspaper to expose evils is a God-given American right. That's why dictators and totalitarian goverments always eliminate freedom of press to consolidate their power.
Part of this definition, though, implies that the information being spread could be false or mere rumor. When someone uses the term propaganda to dismiss a news report, they are emphasizing this aspect of the word. As in, "Oh, that's just propaganda. You can ignore it."
Let's take care, then, to distinguish between the two usages of the word. If the Washington Times revealed true information about communism, and if this accelerated its downfall, then this is a good thing (if you like religious freedom and the right of workers to negotiate their own wages) or a bad thing (if you like tyranny and oppression, or if you think socialism is worth giving up a little individual control).
I'd rather not see the term used in its secondary sense, unless the charge that the Times spread false info or rumors is clearly marked as someone's viewpoint. It would especially help if they gave an example.
But I suspect the complaint (oops, charge!) of critics is that the Times influenced Republican presidential policy in a way that the critics disliked. That is, they don't mind so much that Rev. Moon was influential as the fact that he lent support to the critics' opponents. But this is sheer speculation on my part. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 19:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
(Note: intro -- as this discussion (a) involves a BLP, and (b) it involves the use of a controversial term in the context of a BLP, the length of this discourse reflects the concern among editors in adhering to Wikipedia guidelines around BLP's. For those interested, a review of the Wikipedia essay Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing may also be helpful. riverguy42 ( talk) 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
In response to Ed Poor (above)...
Hi Ed,
Above, you invoked a defense logical argument in favor of describing the criticism of Unification Church media above as
advocacy journalism as opposed to describing that criticism as
propaganda.
I just now had a chance to review the entry you referenced. On review, I note that this form of journalism is characerized thus:
Note the "and", which seems to imply that to qualify as "advocacy journalism", Unification Church owned/controlled/subsidized media must be practiced transparently to avoid the designation "propaganda".
Please note that Rev. Moon's statements regarding having "used the Washington Times to stop that evil attempt" were followed immediately by his further comment "...you didn't know that, did you?". I think that Rev. Moon's seemingly explicit admission that he covertly used the Washington Times to "stop" the "evil attempt" hardly qualifies as "transparency". Also, camoflaging the ownership of the Washington Times, UPI and Insight under layers of cross-ownership is anything but transparent. I wonder why the Unification Church doesn't just own and subsidize it's media directly, transparently and outright (as the Roman Catholic and other Churches do), rather than creating deceptively named sub-corporations run by highly-ranked Church Members to do the "ownership" job in the shadows?
With respect to the topic I added, I'm making a case here for reverting back to my original section title, but I respect the power of the word and do not wish to misuse it. I think I need (and will seek) an independent (no UC affiliation) editor's voice here, as I think a word like "propaganda" should only be used when, and if, it is the most accurate description of the critical charges against Rev. Moon in this regard, and where no other reasonable alternative exists.
Of course, the best way for the UC to solve it's problem here would be to (a) divest itself, or (b) publically embrace a transparency doctrine. riverguy42 ( talk) 04:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
"The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names—liberty and tyranny. The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today among us human creatures, even in the North, and all professing to love liberty. Hence we behold the process by which thousands are daily passing from under the yoke of bondage, hailed by some as the advance of liberty, and bewailed by others as the destruction of all liberty. Recently, as it seems, the people of Maryland have been doing something to define liberty [abolishing slavery in the state]; and thanks to them that, in what they have done, the wolf’s dictionary, has been repudiated."
This was all gone over 5 years ago, when Wikipedia was deciding which newspapers could be sources. The consensus then, if I recall correctly, was that the Washington Times was just as accurate and reliable as the New York Times as far as hard news goes.
The distinction between the two papers was largely to be found in columnists and of course on the editorial and op-ed pages. It was determined that the editorials and other commentary are conservative, but that the news was just regular news.
So if you know of anyone who is saying that a "truthful work" contains embedded lies and distortions, please be sure to quote that person. Fair enough? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 23:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Some people have expressed fear that Rev. Moon might make what would nowadays be called a "Taliban-style" theocracy. You know, make people believe and worship a certain way, or off with their head.
So the "fear" quotes need to balanced with the "faith & trust" quotes. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 02:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Removed from article:
Remind me to google this. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 01:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
On May 11, 1987, the APA Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) rejected the DIMPAC report because "the brainwashing theory espoused lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur." [4]
I removed this whole section, some of it could be put back however if the information is cited:
"American women have the tendency to consider that women are in the subject position. However, woman's shape is like that of a recepticle. The concave shape is a receiving shape. Whereas the convex shape symbolizes giving. When water is poured into a container does it fill from the edge of the container, or from the deepest bottom? (Deepest bottom.) Since man contains the seed of life, he should plant it in the deepest place. Does woman contain the seed of life? (No.) Absolutely not. Then if you desire to receive the seed of life you have to become an absolute object. In order to qualify as an absolute object you need to demonstrate absolute faith, love and obedience to your subject."
====Major SNIP==== ....I'm out of patience.
riverguy42 (
talk) 19:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see Theocracy section below. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 20:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I took this off:
The first part was just a rumor in a newspaper gossip column. I could also mention that even if true it tends to show Rev. Moon's lack of influence with President Bush, since the pardon was not granted. The second part is just a quoted statement, there is nothing that says it has anything to do with political influence. Thanks. Steve Dufour ( talk) 03:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I would just add this directly, but River has the article "in use" and I want to avoid an edit conflict.
The designation of men as "subject" and women as "object" has been a topic of misunderstanding and a bit of a sore point for critics. More than woman theologian within the church has tried to explain it away, but Moon clearly places women in a subordinate role. The key point is that being a subordinate in no way lessens a person's value. It all depends on how well the "subject partner" treats his "object partner".
(By the way, this also relates to the church & state thing or the "theocracy issue".)
Everyone naturally rebels against an evil, self-centered leader. If "subject" is taken to mean a person who has unlimited authority to enslave another person, then it is merely a synonym for "master" or "owner". Considering that Rev. Moon said Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is the 20th Century American he admires most, it would seem odd to say that Moon favored the kind of self-centered subjugation that Dr. King fought against.
Not to prolong this, I'll just give one example of subject-object relations. Moon said that a man's sexual organ belongs to his wife. I think that means that a man must pledge to his wife never to have sex with anyone else! Also, that he should use his sexual organ to make love to her; see absolute sex.
So a woman is not a slave, not a "thing", not property. Being an "object" does not mean that she is less of a person. She is a "daughter of God". (I spent a lot of time writing about things like honor killings and female genital mutilation partly to show the difference between the Unification/Christian view and the Arab/Muslim view.
No Taliban-style theocracy for us, please! -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 22:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad my wife doesn't read this page. "Hole in the dirt" indeed! -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 19:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
To Wndl42 or anyone else. Please name a charity that is doing good work to help people and I will donate $1000 to them if Bush-43 pardons Rev. Moon. In return if Clinton-44 does this you promise to donate $1000 to the Salvation Army. Steve Dufour ( talk) 11:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any special inside information. However, most people who are into conspiracies say the Bush and Clinton families are in cahoots. Steve Dufour ( talk) 20:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi exucmember...
I appreciate your work on Wikipedia.
For a second time, you moved an edit I made to the front of the article on Sun Myung Moon.
I absolutely agree with you, in that Moon's notability (outside of Unification Church membership) derives primarily from his controversiality, indeed I made that argument successfully in a previous series of talk page discussions arguing for expansion into some areas of criticism that I felt were a bit watered down.
I have been candid about my view that some UC members (understandably) want to promote inclusion of additional and (perhaps) unwarranted favorable viewpoints on Rev. Moon to balance the weight of all the criticism, sometimes to the point of tendentious editing. For me, I just want to see that the sections on criticism and controversy are accurate and comprehensive, and are presented in context.
Anyway, the reason I supported an earlier revert of your moving my edit was because I felt the article flowed better that way. With all of the criticism of Moon, I thought that making note of Rev. Moon's status as a highly controversial figure "fit" better in the section describing the controversies, that way readers unfamiliar with Rev. Moon will understand why so much of the article is devoted to criticism and controversy.
It seems you and I are in agreement on the basic point on Rev. Moon WRT Wikipedia, that - notability derives from controversy.
What do you think about my reasoning for wanting to place the statement (or an additional reference to it) as a leadoff to the "criticism and controversy" section? Appreciate your thoughts.
Again, thanks...
riverguy42 ( talk) 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
After thinking about it, I believe that Rev. Moon's statements about the Gulf War were not a prominent feature among all the things he's said and done in his life (and all the things that have been said about him), all of which are candidates for this article, but need to be pared down to include only the most important. So I think all mention of the Gulf War could be deleted, and I certainly don't think it's worth more than one or two sentences at the most. - Exucmember ( talk) 18:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I ended up taking the paragraph about fishing out from the 1970s section since it covered a longer period of time (1950s to present). It was also mainly about members not Rev Moon himself. Maybe a new section could be started with more information. Steve Dufour ( talk) 16:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I just posted a link to: * Article in UC sponsored wiki encyclopedia. This might be interesting, although we can not use it directly as a source. It also has more pictures, which we might want to use. Steve Dufour ( talk) 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be a need for a section on "political views", as there is so much "anti-communist" stuff, it seems like Moon's politics are therefore notable, but we also need to avoid "undue weight", perhaps by adding more on what Moon is "for" rather than just what he is against -- "one world theocracy" and such.
Thoughts? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 ( talk) 21:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's not revive the linguistic dispute over whether the Communist Party of the Soviet Union established a Communist government in Russia and the SSR's. It's fairly well known that "communism" (with a small c) is the "ideal state of affairs in which socialism has withered away". Given the small c definition, obviously, this sort of communism has never been established anwywher.
However, most political scientists and historians call the USSR a Communist country - meaning (1) that it was ruled by a Communist Party and (2) that the ruling party used Marxist-Leninist principles of politics, economics and ideology.
Rev. Moon has a strong preference for democracy over Communism. He also holds in common with most other Christians a hope for the Kingdom of God over any manmade system.
Perhaps it will help if we distinguish between the most commonly types of theocracy that have been tried (or proposed), and the "Kingdom of God" which Rev. Moon says Jesus was trying to establish. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Steve. Here is a Yahoo search for "moon anti-communist": [15] Redddogg ( talk) 02:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what "fluffed for anti-communism" means. Rev. Moon has opposed Communism for most of his life. The interesting questions for me are: (1) how intense has his opposition been? (2) What effect has this had in the world? Another interesting question is a matter of dispute between supporters and critics: (3) How much of Rev. Moon's opposition to Communism is religiously motivated? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 19:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Removed section:
Better to say that Critics X and Y claim that Rev. Moon rejects this separation. And please cite the critics who make this claim.
The church makes a distinction between "separation of church and state" and "the separation of religion and politics". As explained by longtime Moon aide Colonel Pak (paraphrasing from memory here to save time), the purpose of the separation of church and state is to prevent government from violating the freedom of religion. The US is a model of this, in the eyes of the church, with two -- count 'em, two! -- clauses in the First Amendment touching on this. (1) The government cannot establish a state religion and make people believe in it or follow it; see establishment clause. (2) The government cannot stop people from believing in or following whatever religion they choose; see free exercise clause.
On the other hand, Colonel Pak explained in Truth Is My Sword that there is nothing wrong with religion trying to influence politics. To give an example of my own, suppose I have a religious motive for opposing theft, murder, and adultery (see Ten Commandments) because I'm Jewish or Christian. I would then be inclined for religious reasons to vote for laws, lawmakers, or leaders who would support a prohibition of these crimes. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 20:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Your sandbox idea is an excellent one, but for now let's just keep going based on our mutual respect and good will, okay?
This was an improvement, I feel.
The difficult thing to express is the distinction between government and "the Kingdom of heaven". Perhaps there is something there which is too obvious for words, something which goes without saying. So let me try to say it.
"Government" implies to me the use of force to compel people to act in a certain way. "You vill eat zis and you vill LIKE it!" (if I may evoke a childish stereotype)
The kingdom of heaven, in my view, is a purely voluntary association. Kind of like an amateur baseball team sponsored by the local bowling alley. No one makes you join, and there are no penalties or rewards - other than the sheer joy of helping your teammates to win! -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 21:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Rev. Moon is not a tub of margarine. I think we all realize that paying someone to say, "I believe in him", would be seen as worthless. Both pro-church and anti-church are pretty much agreed on the worthlessness of a compensated endorsement.
On the other hand, if a major public figure gives a speech at a Moon-related event and picks up a hefty fee, that is newsworthy. I have in mind Bush Senior getting $100 thousand for a speech in the 1990s. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 18:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
. . . . . . . . . . . <= brownie points for River Guy. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 17:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed text:
I don't dispute all of this, of course. I myself added the quotation. I simply followed the link provided in the footnote. What I dispute is the interpretation of the quote.
Church critics say that Rev. Moon has "called for a one-world government", and I think that is incorrect. However, this is a subtle distinction, so I invite my collaborators to take some time to examine this closely.
"Government" involves the exercise of authority, typically with force. I immediately think of the Taliban flogging women on the street if they show their ankles even for one second, while bring their sick child from a car into a hospital emergency room. I think of some third-world country in Africa executing a girl who is accused of adultery (while hypocritically letting the man go free). Less extreme forms of theocracy would simply require people to attend church, temple, synagogue or mosque - under pain of fine or imprisonment if they skip. This is 180 degrees opposite from what Rev. Moon has in mind, unless after 30 years of studying his teachings I still just don't get it.
"Kingdom of Heaven" involves a vertical relationship with God. If the link to vertical relationship is red, that's because I haven't defined it yet; but it's a key term in Unification Theology. Along with the God-Man relationship is the horizontal relationship between "siblings". This all implies that the K of H is a "One World Family".
I maintain that family and government are distinct.
Steve, help me out here. :-) -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 17:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Steve & Ed
This is a direct quote from Moon's "Divine Principle":
"Thus, in the ideal world, people of God led by Christ will form organizations analogous to today's political parties"
I don't think it gets any clearer than that. It is a simple statement of fact that Unificationism has a clear political ideological component.
Please refer to this month's posting on the SF Bay Area website where Moon lays out the template for becoming a "citizen" of his monarchy. [16]
"Seventh, the Age After the Coming of Heaven that God and True Parents have opened is a time of dramatic change. As registered citizens of Cheon Il Guk, you have the mission to make this era blossom and bear fruit in blessing and glory. Therefore, please become Heaven’s emissaries, fulfilling the dual missions of the “Peace Kingdom Police Force” and the “Peace Kingdom Corps.” Serve humanity under the banner of the Universal Peace Federation, which is working to establish the position of the Abel-type United Nations. Worthy countrymen and women, if not you, then who, will nurture and protect the blessed families and this blessed planet Earth that God has given us?"
My question is, when Moon uses words like "citizen", "police force" and "Kingdom" on this site, is he speaking metaphorically about some "spiritual" idea like the Kingdom of God in the Bible? Or, in his mind, and the mind of the followers, is the idea of "citizen" and "Kingdom" a literal and political reality? If so, documenting these political goals here is "more facts and less opinions", isn't it?
This kind of information is extremely relevant.
Please also refer to the Oath of citizenship (United States) where it clearly states that we pledge to have no "allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;"
Speculating on whether or not "people of God led by Christ (Moon's family?) will form organizations analogous to today's political parties" ever comes to pass isn't the point really. An article like this, in Wiki, should make all of the societal goals of his organizations clear for the sake of the readers. Isn't this at the heart of what people want to get out of an encyclopedia article? Real information and not just PR "fluff."
I think a possible illustrative example is the history section of the article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints where there is a discussion of how the church gave up its theocracy and the notion of a literal kingdom and became highly productive members of American society.
Documenting these facts doesn't necessarily mean you are a "church critic."
Another example might be the discussion about the political activities of Father Divine who, with Mother Divine, founded the International Peace Mission movement.
Respectfully Marknw ( talk) 03:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we are all making valid points here, which leads to the question of how to describe Moon's political views. As a follower, I believe he is first and foremost a religious leader.
Moon told Frederick Sontag:
Marknw quoted from Exposition of the Principle, and here is the same quote with more preceding context:
Moon also told Sontag:
So there is really a dispute between Moon opponents and Moon followers as to how God's will (as seen by Moon) is going to be manifested in society:
I see no way for either side to convince the other. Moon followers (like me) are convinced that they have the inside track on what Moon means. Moon critics are convinced that they understand Moon better than his own followers.
As Wikipedians, I would like to suggest that we simply describe this split, rather than trying to say that one side is right and the other wrong. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 01:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I made extensive changes to the politics and controversies sections. I may have been sloppy, so I invite a simple revert (with no danger of it sparking an edit war) if I've made a mess of it. We can always go back to the article history. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 02:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Ed, Steve and Exucmember. I led an extended discussion on why it is important to characterize the criticism explicitly using the word "propaganda". I recognized then and do now that the term is a pejorative, and I invested extraordinary effort here at the talk page in discussions including all here and in offline research before finally using the term in the article, and it has remained there until last night, removed without discussion.
This thirty-year timeline of news items from Google's news archives (not just a "web search") explicitly associates Rev. Moon with the word "propaganda". A similar search substituting "Unification Church" for "Myung Moon" gives the same length of history but only half as many news items, which illustrates why the critics who describe this "propaganda" should be represented here.
I am changing the heading back, and will welcome whatever discussion follows. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 ( talk) 19:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that this section has been removed. I really think that this point should at least be mentioned. For instance the Yoido Island speech in 1975. I would think that for most people speaking to an audience of a million people would be a notable event in a life. Steve Dufour ( talk) 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed this as a reason for controversy and criticism from the intro. The UC is a very small group of people. Rev. Moon's controversy mainly comes from his political stance against communism and secondarily from his interpretation of the Bible which fundamentalist Christians disagree with, not from being the leader of the UC. Steve Dufour ( talk) 16:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Nowdays the critics are saying that he never was against communism in the first place. :-) This whole section kind of goes on and on. Rev. Moon's relationship with communism, as a victim, a critic, an activist against, and now as someone who is trying to reach out to the hold outs in North Korea, is a very important part of his life and why he has done the things he has done. However I don't know if making the main thing what some critics are saying is the right way to present it. Steve Dufour 04:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
==================>
Uncle Ed (Ed Poor) and Steve Dufour are BOTH *moonies*. They are turning wikipedia into nothing but a deception, and a Joke! Something thier Master Moon is good at! Like Father Moon, like *moonie* as well. How many entries of wikipedia have they edited, created, changed, or deleted because of it? Anybody know? This is just one more example of how *moonies* intend on "taking over the world" for thier Father Moon is all.
Problem is, if your reverend is so great and infallible, then why does he need a 'watchdog' to keep him from being rightfully categorized as a megalomaniac manipulator? Anybody who bows before another is a fool, plain and simple. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 06:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way - 'Reverend' Moon is not the first person to proclaim himself as 'Father Divine' and 'Jesus Christ'. See also Jim Jones. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 06:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Roman Catholic, so perhaps were I to write piece on my church it would be tilted. I get the feeling from reading this, that the author is doing a little bit of damage control for the Moonies. And yes, they are the Moonies. That's his or her right though, and to have acknowledged the controversy is better than ignoring it. As to whether the Moonies are a cult, I think that it's open to interpretation. I would call them something of a cult, as I have first hand been approached by the clipboard carrying women when I lived in Boston (Never in New York City though, which is far superior to Boston!). I would call them a cult based on what I know of the term, but I wouldn't consider them a cult in the way I consider the People's Temple or the Raelians a cult. Hell, my religion has been called a cult. It's all good, but they are Moonies! [unsigned 13:22, 21 August 2006 170.3.8.253 ( Talk)]
I took out this paragraph, which has been floundering around being changed back and forth:
For one thing this was originally one person's opinion put in the mouth of "some critics". I know there is more of that here, from both sides, but it's not really how Wikipedia is supposed to work.
For another Rev. Moon is not literally a "billionaire"; he is not the legal owner of billions of dollars in assets. It is true that he is the leader of a group of people who among them have billions but that does not make him a billionaire.
For a third his followers are not literally "footsoldiers", unless they happen to be in the militaries of their various nations then they might be.
If someone thinks the Liberty University loan issue is important then write something about that; but in that case also the opinion of "some critics" is not the most important thing. Steve Dufour 23:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors: I have made some corrections in the section on tax crime convictions. The Reverend Moon was not convicted of tax evasion, nor was he charged with that offense. The Federal tax evasion statute is 26 U.S.C. § 7201. He was charged with and convicted of willfully filing false tax returns under 26 U.S.C. § 7206, and with conspiracy. I made the appropriate changes in the article, with a footnote citation to the court decision on appeal. I have not had a chance to fully study the Moon convictions by comparing the Wikipedia text to the actual court decision, but I wanted to at least go ahead and set the record straight on exactly what the charges and convictions were.
Actually, willfully filing a false tax return can also be the basis for a tax evasion conviction, if all the elements for tax evasion are met. The Reverend Moon simply was not charged with tax evasion, for whatever reason. Yours, Famspear 02:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Just as a follow-up I note that one of the links in the article leads to web site apparently operated by Reverend Moon's church which describes his tax problems as having involved "tax evasion" and conspiracy. Again, that description is incorrect, as explained above. Yours, Famspear 14:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I have also made some minor edits in the references to the Schengen treaty, and have moved the material down to the bottom of the section. I'm unclear exactly as to what the original author was trying to say about the Schengen treaty and Moon's travel, so I hope that my edits didn't do any damage. In any case, it's unclear from the text exactly what a travel ban in Europe under the Schengen treaty has to do with tax convictions in the United States. For example, if there is something in the treaty that restricts travel by persons convicted of crimes, or tax crimes, then that needs to be documented to make the article less vague. If another editor gets to this before I can look it up, perhaps that editor can make the "tie-in." Yours, Famspear 16:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Yours, Famspear 13:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors: I'm not sure if this is the right way to do this, but I have removed certain editorial comments hidden in the text of the article, right after the reference to the fact that the jury did not accept the defense's contention that the funds in question were being held in trust for the church Rev. Moon was building. The comments are as follows:
Without agreeing or disagreeing with the comments, I would say they are interesting, and are arguably more "viewable" here on the talk page. I haven't gone back to check and see whose comments they are. Yours, Famspear 04:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Ed Poor: What were the facts in the George Bush senior case? If it was just a case of owing money on April 15th, that's not a crime. What were the circumstances? Yours, Famspear 22:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
What do you think of the idea of making the discussion of the tax case its own article? Steve Dufour 01:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This is moving way too fast. We need to be circumspect and guard against creating POV forks that bowdlerize this article in doing these splits. I'll be contributing and keeping an eye on these splits to ensure that they are proper and do not violate WP:NPOV's provision on POV forks. FeloniousMonk 23:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You can pretty much ignore FeloniousMonk. He objects to nearly every spin-off article I've ever been involved in. He will not allow any clarity brought to topics that deal with the fine points of views and ideas that go beyond the material world.
He consistently misuses the term "POV fork" to mean "any spin-off he objects to" rather than "a spin-off which violates NPOV policy by asserting or assuming that a particular POV is true". His misbehavior is well known and he's been brought before the arbcom for it multiple times. There's a new case starting even now.
His misbehavior extends to stalking all me edits and branding any spin-off I propose on a controversial topic as a "POV fork", regardless of how well balanced and neutral the parent article and spinoff article are.
Don't be fooled by his admin status. Despite his bluster, he carries no more editorial authority than anyone else. -- Uncle Ed 15:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, this article counts Myung Hee Kim as Sun Myung Moon's second wife. However, I thought there was no proof of this. I thought that Chung Hwa Pak simply wrote about that in his book The Tragedy Of The Six Marias, but that he also wrote about many other things such as Sun Myung Moon performing sex acts with members as an indemnity sort of thing, and that there was no proof of such things. Supposedly, many people easily believed the things Chung Hwa Pak wrote since he was with Sun Myung Moon during the early years. However, I heard that Sun Myung Moon denied these claims. Therefore, I think there may be lack of evidence to say that he has 3 wives. It may be safer to say that he has 2 wives, but that there is a possibility that he has had 3, but no proof. Anyone have input about this? I won't make the edit myself, not yet at least. I'd like to see if anyone has something to say about this. Jamesters 05:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh wait, I solved this myself through further reading. Sun Myung Moon denied sex acts with multiple members thing and there was even someone else during those times that also protested that such things never happened. As for the 2nd wife thing, it seems it is true but was not an official marriage or even a relationship of any sort. Instead, some kind of providential sex thing. I don't understand it completely and will probably read up on it more. Afterall, I wonder what Sun Myung Moon considered providential about having sex with that girl. But anyways, I guess that means he really did have 3 wives (even if not all marriages were official). Problem solved! Jamesters 08:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The church itself never manufactured munitions. A business started by members did, and as far as I know continues to. Steve Dufour 12:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I've just started this article. Please check it out. Steve Dufour 13:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
This was just done. Oddly enough it seemed to be the first thing this editor did after joining Wikipedia. I don't have any real objection, however it does seem more normal for it to be on the right. Steve Dufour 10:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)p.s. I see he has also made a contribution to the Jerry Garcia article since then. :-)
Maybe the best thing to do is let anyone put in a quote but rotate them out after a week or so. That way the section would be constantly changing but always have a balance between different people's additions. Steve Dufour 22:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some problem with quoting Sun Myung Moon on his page. I think have a wikiquote page to provide many quotes is a good idea I also think any biography of a person should have quotations from that person so that a casual reader doesn't haven't wade through a lot of information."
I have put 6 quotes up while keeping the link to wikiquotes for more in depth research. I have put 3 what one might call inspiring quotes from him and 3 quotes that would be considered controversial. They are all referenced to their original webpage which is page run by a member of the Unification Church so I believe their accuracy. None is out of context but the original source can be easily accessed if anyone had a problem. I think this is a good compromise.-- Robbow123 19:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I don't think providing true quotations that are not taken out of context is controversial. Even with a reference to wikiquotes that wouldn't stop anyone from adding quotes in the future or if a quote section was removed it would not someone to create a quote section. Quote sections are common in biographies. If the quotes section is abolished in all of Wikipedia than I have no problem. After doing some research I see that there are these blue boxes that refer people to other wiki projects like wikiquotes and wikimedia.
If you could create that for Moon then I think that's what should be done. As long as there is a quote section then people will be rightly encouraged to edit it and add quotes.
So if you know how to make one of those blue boxes refering to WikiQuotes than I am all for it. Thanks-- Robbow123 20:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I just took a look at it and that's what I had in mind. That way quotes can go there and others will know where to add quotes. If I get inclined I may even organize the quotes but this is a good start. Thank you-- Robbow123 20:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I had to include that much of the speech to put the words "homosexuals" and "dung-eating dogs". He did not say, "Homosexuals are dung-eating dogs" as is often repeated by people with a lower standard of caring about facts than should be practiced here on WP. Steve Dufour 03:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the people with a lower standard got the impression that Moon said "Homosexuals and fornicators are like dirty dung eating dogs" because in his speech of May 4, 1997
The topic heading before the paragraph you quote says that exact thing.
I imagine the headings were written by someone else other than Moon. But since it is on the official Unification Website [unification.org] the statement reflects the feelings of that organization even if they were not direct quotes from Moon.
I was personally present when he gave the original speech, transcribed the audio tape and edited the speech, and added the headings to it. He spoke forcefully, and unequivocally, about his disgust for those who practice promiscuous sex and homosexuality, and compared them to dogs who eat dung. I made no effort at all to downplay or minimize what he said, as I agree with him. It originally appeared on my web site at http://www.unification.net/1997/970504.html. Damian Anderson 04:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If you like you could say "The editor of his speech on unification.org summarized Rev. Moon as saying, "Homosexuals and fornicators are like dirty dung eating dogs." However I think it is better to quote the whole part of the speech itself. Something should be said, I think, because this one remark is one of the most talked about things in Rev. Moon's whole life. Steve Dufour 01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Also note that his purpose in making the remarks was to warn members against immorality. Steve Dufour 02:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
If there is a section in this article titled "Views on Communism" then there also needs to be a section called "Views on Democracy" -- don't you think? Moon's
"critique" of Communism (a political ideology) also stems from the fact that he is proposing a political
"counterproposal" to Communism and Democracy both called "Unificationism" -- a
theocratic monarchy.
Sincerely
Marknw 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I took this out after considering it for a long time. It shouldn't be hard to find real people who have made these criticisms. Steve Dufour 10:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, although the cited article (which was initially being used an evidence that "some Christian ministers began joining" Rev Moon's crusade), does say that 'mainstream Christian leaders' plural condemned the intiative. StuartDouglas 11:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Just took it out again. I am in 100 percent agreement that the criticism (or persecution) of Rev. Moon by Christians should be covered in the article. However the material needs to be cited. After you do that you can work on "some civil libertarians", "some Jews", and "some gay rights groups". Remember that this is a biography of a living person. Steve Dufour 12:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, not all criticism is considered persecution. When it's simply a theological disagreement, the UC does not brand this a persecution. For example, hardly any other Christian church thinks the fall of man had anything to do with sex, let alone the seduction of Eve by the archangel Lucifer.
It's when they treat us differently that it's persecution, like being branded "non-Christian" by the national council of churches - or when they put our leader in jail (see Sun Myung Moon tax case) for something that Catholics do routinely.
Anyway, persecution can be a good thing: when it helps "pay indemnity". -- Uncle Ed 19:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The article states that some people consider the Unification Church to be a cult, saying it is primarily politically motivated. Islam has no divisions between state and religion, they are one and the same, but Islam is not usually referred to a as a cult. Are purely political organizations cults, or does a religious aspect have to be involved? Does the fact that one religion is against Communism as a system of evil make it a cult? There are other religions that are not too fond of Communism either. - MSTCrow 01:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I am removing this quotation as obviously inaccurate. The things that the "Concerned Women of America" state are not true are facts. It's unfortunate but the history of Christianity has indeed been marked by inquistions, crusades, forced conversions, demolition of indiginous cultures and witch hunts. And the cross was its symbol (the shields of the crusaders were painted with a large cross). To deny this is to deny history. My point in emphasising this on Moon's page is that 1) this "take down the cross" action of Moon's and the fact that many actually did it is an historical event and 2) Moon's motives for doing this are transparent and just as Gorenfeld has stated - the replacing of Jesus with himself as Messiah. 4.246.203.34 15:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Cut from article:
That's not why Father Moon and U.S. Christians began this campaign. Steve, help me out here.
Also, the observation "Moon wants you to dump Jesus and crown Moon king instead" seems very negative. It's also completely opposite to the church's view point about the relationship between Rev. Moon and Jesus. How can Gorenfield say "dump Jesus"? That's a misrepresentation.
If there is controversy, real actual dispute over why the campaign was conducted, we should cover it as a controversy - not quote some freelancer making gratuitous cracks.
Please supply some legitimate criticism from someone with a following, not some hack's personal opinion. -- Uncle Ed 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
...
I will be glad to look up some info for you.
...
...
You might need to sit down for this. Note: I am not Christian myself, however the following research was done by those who are.
"Abraham was the father of faith, Moses was a man of faith, Jesus was the son of man, trying to carry out his mission at the cost of his life. But they are, in a way, failures." (Sun Myung Moon, "Victory or Defeat," from Master Speaks, March 31, 1973, p.1.) He also teaches: "This means that the failures of Adam and of Jesus Christ have been restored by the appearance of True Parents." (Rev. Moon, Today's World, January, 1995, p.8) http://www.newcovpub.com/unification/wfwp3.html
Here Moon is quoted saying that rather than the church's immaculate conception, Jesus was illigitimate. http://www.newcovpub.com/unification/howwas.html
"I am now making a prototype of the perfect family, accomplishing what Jesus could not do." (Sun Myung Moon, Today's World, May, 1995, p.12.) http://www.newcovpub.com/unification/isrev.html
Get a load of THIS one: "Bring in the flocks. Bring in the sheep and bring them to the throne of your True Parents. Bring them to the throne of our True Parents, the mighty throne of heaven. And I will place the Crown of Glory on our True Parents' head. I will lead them. I will show them that the Lord of Lords and the Kings of Kings and the King of Glory is our precious Lord Sun Myung Moon and his beloved bride Hak Ja Han. They reign as king and queen of the entire universe. And that I, Jesus of Nazareth, known as the Christ, bow in humility before them. I bow before them. Any who will follow me must do the same. I bow before the name of True Parents. I bow before our precious Lords, our True Parents, Sun Myung Moon and Hak Ja Han." (Purportedly by the spirit of Heung Jin Nim Moon, The Victory of Love, NY, NY: The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, 1992, pp. 65-66).
"Jesus: Reverend Sun Myung Moon! Thou art the Second Coming who inaugurated the Completed Testament Age!" http://www.usasurvival.org/ck7502.shtml
"Until our mission with the Christian church is over, we must quote the Bible and use it to explain the Divine Principle. After we receive the inheritance of the Christian church, we will be free to teach without the Bible. Now, however, our primary mission is to witness to the Christian church." (Sun Myung Moon, Master Speaks-7: "Bible Interpretation," 1965, p.1.) http://www.newcovpub.com/unification/isrev.html
"The time has come when the whole world must be concerned about me. From now on, American Christianity must follow me." http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/sunmyungmo189468.html
"Am I foolish and insignificant or am I great? I gave all the individuals in the world cause to kneel down in front of me." (Rev. Moon, Today's World, March 1995 p.6)
Now I ask you, what is the difference between Moon and the lunatic in an asylum who thinks that he is God or Napolean? Besides money I mean. I'm sorry but this guy is a dangerous megalomaniac.
It was said above:
This is true and is in fact the same as the Unification Church position:
This is from Wikipedia:Words to avoid:
...
Can anyone explain why edits that not were reverted according to the history tab do not show up hours later when googling the article. This is the second time I've seen this now. 4.246.205.168 13:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ...
:You might be confusing "truth" and "accuracy". As long as that guy said it, and he really is a spokesman for CWA, then the quote qualifies as verifiable
I disagree. The quote is not verifiable because it is not true. No offence with the following comments but please consider, would you use a quote from some swastica wearing neo-nazi holocaust denier stating that it never happened just because he is speaking in opposition to some other hate group which is the focus of the article? I know that sounds extreme but the cross was viewed exactly the same way by millions during the past 2,000 years. IOW, why use a quote that is obviously wrong as a counter to another wrong?? Shouldn't Wikipedia be about the facts and not about spreading revisionist misinformation? About quality information not just whatever fills up space? Should we include a quote from Bozo the Clown uttering nonsense just because he might have an opinion on some subject? Additionaly, the inclusion of this quote does an injustice to the many many who suffered and died at the hands of Christendom. Can't another quote from a Christian group objecting to the removal of the cross campaign be found? I'd think there'd be plenty. At the least a caveat ought to be added that the statement does not hold up to history. For these reasons I am again removing the quote. If someone still insists on putting it in then more power to them. 4.246.206.198 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Long winded. The short comment is, this guy from the CWA is attacking a wrong with a falsehood. How does that help the Wikipedia reader? 4.246.206.198 21:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Cut from "crowning" section:
This link has nothing about "participants ... misled". Apparently this blogger is in the process of re-arranging his web site.
On the other hand, I recall reading a year or two ago about a phone and mail campaign to get participants to recant their support. I'm not sure what percentage were persuaded to do so or on what grounds.
Frequently, supporters have changed their mind when faced by adverse publicity. Whitney Houston ditched the RFK Blessing, and Bill Cosby said he "didn't know" the Family Federation was connected to Rev. Moon! I don't know how they get to be world-class entertainers and still have no idea about groups trying to ride on their coat tails. Don't they have publicists and lawyers? -- Uncle Ed 21:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
...
About the take vs tear down the cross debate. I provided a link. This is from the Church's own publication not somebody's memory of it. Here it is "tear down" http://www.tparents.org/UNews/Unws0304/cross_bronx.htm. Now in the interests of honesty I also found a link from their publication that said "take down" [25]. The links don't take up too much room so I've included them both.
...
Wow, here I am a non-Christian arguing for them. I can't believe that polyannaish advertisment about the cross in the article. All that stuff about hw the cross is bad sure flies in the face of scripture.
"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me." Luke 9:23 New International Version
"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" 1 Corinthians 1:17-18
"May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which[a] the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." Galatians 6:14
"For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ." Phillipians 3:18 (Watch out Moon!)
"And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" Colossians 2:15
Although I might agree with you that wearing a cross would be like wearing a amulet in the shape of a gun around your neck, it is obvious from the Bible why Christians might be offended at the denigration of the cross. For them it is a symbol of redemption. 4.246.206.198 23:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. Even church scholars feel that the legalizing of Christianity in 325 C.E. was the beginning of the long slide for the church.
Interesting. No mainstream church though {and I'm not aware of any others) believes that being "washed in he blood" makes one sinless but only that ones sins are forgiven. The NT teaches that 'Christ died so you don't have to' since the "wages of sin are death" Gal. 6:23, and since everyone sins since the fall of Adam they needed this redemption to escape eternal death and/or hell. The Judaic ritual, commanded by Yahweh in the OT, of sacrificing a lamb every year before Jesus' crucifixion (though some say that he was actually impaled) is said to have forshadowed this. To denigrate Jesus' sacrifice as a failure and the cross as an object of repulsion would equally be viewed as a great heresy in Christendom. Additionally, as shown above, the Bible (NT) itself takes the view that Jesus' death was necessary and right, and we all know that the Bible is viewed as the infallible word of God by many or most Christians. To say something contrary is to invite trouble.
Good - to a point. Sometimes one needs to take a side (while being fair even to that side) especially when something is clearly wrong. It would be hard to write an article about Nazi Germany for example without making any value judgements.
As of the current edit I only want to re-add the link to who attended the crowning. I do think that Moon's controversial quotations should be added to the wikiquote page [26]. I would advocate dividing the uncontroversial quotes from the controversial ones on the page. 4.246.207.49 15:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I was trying to add back the link to who attended the crowning but the edit page contains a different page than the current page. The local edit link is different itself. Must be a wiki problem. 4.246.207.49 15:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I see that the comment from the CWA is back so I would like to put up a bit of counterweight to that.
...
Adding quotes. About the comment from the CWA, as one can see the ridiculous comment and the balancing comments I added is only serving as a wandering detour and distraction from the article. I still think it should be removed. 4.246.200.116 18:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, it says in the first paragraph that Rev. Moon has said that he is the Messiah. The article really should be about how he has tried to carry that out. Of course criticisms of him and his followers should be included in the article. But differences of opinion about religion should not take up about half of the article as they do now. Otherwise why not include a few paragraphs about how the Hindus disagree with him because he is not a vegetarian? Steve Dufour 05:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I cut out:
Generally speaking, people can make up their own minds as to how they feel about the cross without the opinions of "others", Mr. Schwartz, the WP article on the Crusades, and "the great majority of Christians". On the other hand, if the whole "take down the cross" thing is really so important then maybe it should have its own article. Steve Dufour 06:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Steve: "I don't think not displaying the cross is considered "heretical" by the great majority of Christians
That's not what I said Steve. Again:
Nevertheless, to the great majority Christians themselves the cross is revered as the symbol of Christ's sacrifice and their redemption. Any denigrating of it is considered heretical.
Moon's and the UC's comments about it can be regarded as denigrating it. However if you want We'll leave this out.
Disappointing Steve to check back and see that bit by bit the article is losing valid criticism. Examples:
1) The removing of the reference to the crowning of Jesus as the Messiah. You said "I'm not sure they intended to crown him as the Messiah", but IS clear that that is how HE perceived it. "Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent." And I doubt that they were completely unaware that that is how he sees himself. But consider, if you don't say what he was crowned as that will only beg the question in the reader's mind "okay so he was crowned but crowned as WHAT?". Obviously he was crowned as something, (and it wasn't baseball's MVP). Why not say what that was, at least in his mind. Additionally look at those bowed heads of members of congress [27].
2) The removal of the comment Many, though, see another, more suspect motive behind the campaign - it's a convienient stepping stone, they say, for the usurpation of Jesus with Moon, especially given some of Moons own comments about Jesus which you said you were removing because it was "unsourced". Yet the very next sentence provided a source.
3) The quiet removal of "Everyone I talked to was furious" said Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.) spokeswoman Chris Lisi." while removing material to the cornation page.
4) The removal of the line To the great majority Christians the cross is revered as the symbol of Christ's sacrifice and of their redemption.
In another month will the article be indistinguishable from a Moon publication? 4.246.201.106 02:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Just bringng out a small flaw. You may do with as you wish.
That's not what that sentence said. It said that the removal of the cross (and Moon's claiming to be the messiah, his put downs of Jesus etc.) is viewed "by many as a convienient stepping stone to the usurpation of Jesus with Moon". That doesn't mean that he will actually be able to accomplish this feat - except perhaps in the mind of his followers. I think this sentence should remain. If the word "many" is a stumbling block might I suggest changing it to "some"?
Might you re-add it then?
Well some people might feel that it's ALL ABOUT the cross, and the whittling away of its significance while simultaneously puffing up Moon.
As I said it's in your hands. I commend you for what you, as a Unificationist, have left in. Subjective objectivity is no easy feat itself. Just please try to keep it fair. 4.246.203.11 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Nowdays the critics are saying that he never was against communism in the first place. :-) This whole section kind of goes on and on. Rev. Moon's relationship with communism, as a victim, a critic, an activist against, and now as someone who is trying to reach out to the hold outs in North Korea, is a very important part of his life and why he has done the things he has done. However I don't know if making the main thing what some critics are saying is the right way to present it. Steve Dufour 04:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
==================>
Uncle Ed (Ed Poor) and Steve Dufour are BOTH *moonies*. They are turning wikipedia into nothing but a deception, and a Joke! Something thier Master Moon is good at! Like Father Moon, like *moonie* as well. How many entries of wikipedia have they edited, created, changed, or deleted because of it? Anybody know? This is just one more example of how *moonies* intend on "taking over the world" for thier Father Moon is all.
I just removed this twice. There is no proof that the UC is a "cult", since the word has no real meaning. If the person who posted this would like to come back and post some real information, or even a published opinion the would be a much more constructive thing to do.
Problem is, if your reverend is so great and infallible, then why does he need a 'watchdog' to keep him from being rightfully categorized as a megalomaniac manipulator? Anybody who bows before another is a fool, plain and simple. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 06:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way - 'Reverend' Moon is not the first person to proclaim himself as 'Father Divine' and 'Jesus Christ'. See also Jim Jones. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 06:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Roman Catholic, so perhaps were I to write piece on my church it would be tilted. I get the feeling from reading this, that the author is doing a little bit of damage control for the Moonies. And yes, they are the Moonies. That's his or her right though, and to have acknowledged the controversy is better than ignoring it. As to whether the Moonies are a cult, I think that it's open to interpretation. I would call them something of a cult, as I have first hand been approached by the clipboard carrying women when I lived in Boston (Never in New York City though, which is far superior to Boston!). I would call them a cult based on what I know of the term, but I wouldn't consider them a cult in the way I consider the People's Temple or the Raelians a cult. Hell, my religion has been called a cult. It's all good, but they are Moonies! [unsigned 13:22, 21 August 2006 170.3.8.253 ( Talk)]
I took out this paragraph, which has been floundering around being changed back and forth:
For one thing this was originally one person's opinion put in the mouth of "some critics". I know there is more of that here, from both sides, but it's not really how Wikipedia is supposed to work.
For another Rev. Moon is not literally a "billionaire"; he is not the legal owner of billions of dollars in assets. It is true that he is the leader of a group of people who among them have billions but that does not make him a billionaire.
For a third his followers are not literally "footsoldiers", unless they happen to be in the militaries of their various nations then they might be.
If someone thinks the Liberty University loan issue is important then write something about that; but in that case also the opinion of "some critics" is not the most important thing. Steve Dufour 23:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors: I have made some corrections in the section on tax crime convictions. The Reverend Moon was not convicted of tax evasion, nor was he charged with that offense. The Federal tax evasion statute is 26 U.S.C. § 7201. He was charged with and convicted of willfully filing false tax returns under 26 U.S.C. § 7206, and with conspiracy. I made the appropriate changes in the article, with a footnote citation to the court decision on appeal. I have not had a chance to fully study the Moon convictions by comparing the Wikipedia text to the actual court decision, but I wanted to at least go ahead and set the record straight on exactly what the charges and convictions were.
Actually, willfully filing a false tax return can also be the basis for a tax evasion conviction, if all the elements for tax evasion are met. The Reverend Moon simply was not charged with tax evasion, for whatever reason. Yours, Famspear 02:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Just as a follow-up I note that one of the links in the article leads to web site apparently operated by Reverend Moon's church which describes his tax problems as having involved "tax evasion" and conspiracy. Again, that description is incorrect, as explained above. Yours, Famspear 14:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I have also made some minor edits in the references to the Schengen treaty, and have moved the material down to the bottom of the section. I'm unclear exactly as to what the original author was trying to say about the Schengen treaty and Moon's travel, so I hope that my edits didn't do any damage. In any case, it's unclear from the text exactly what a travel ban in Europe under the Schengen treaty has to do with tax convictions in the United States. For example, if there is something in the treaty that restricts travel by persons convicted of crimes, or tax crimes, then that needs to be documented to make the article less vague. If another editor gets to this before I can look it up, perhaps that editor can make the "tie-in." Yours, Famspear 16:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Yours, Famspear 13:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors: I'm not sure if this is the right way to do this, but I have removed certain editorial comments hidden in the text of the article, right after the reference to the fact that the jury did not accept the defense's contention that the funds in question were being held in trust for the church Rev. Moon was building. The comments are as follows:
Without agreeing or disagreeing with the comments, I would say they are interesting, and are arguably more "viewable" here on the talk page. I haven't gone back to check and see whose comments they are. Yours, Famspear 04:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Ed Poor: What were the facts in the George Bush senior case? If it was just a case of owing money on April 15th, that's not a crime. What were the circumstances? Yours, Famspear 22:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
What do you think of the idea of making the discussion of the tax case its own article? Steve Dufour 01:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This is moving way too fast. We need to be circumspect and guard against creating POV forks that bowdlerize this article in doing these splits. I'll be contributing and keeping an eye on these splits to ensure that they are proper and do not violate WP:NPOV's provision on POV forks. FeloniousMonk 23:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You can pretty much ignore FeloniousMonk. He objects to nearly every spin-off article I've ever been involved in. He will not allow any clarity brought to topics that deal with the fine points of views and ideas that go beyond the material world.
He consistently misuses the term "POV fork" to mean "any spin-off he objects to" rather than "a spin-off which violates NPOV policy by asserting or assuming that a particular POV is true". His misbehavior is well known and he's been brought before the arbcom for it multiple times. There's a new case starting even now.
His misbehavior extends to stalking all me edits and branding any spin-off I propose on a controversial topic as a "POV fork", regardless of how well balanced and neutral the parent article and spinoff article are.
Don't be fooled by his admin status. Despite his bluster, he carries no more editorial authority than anyone else. -- Uncle Ed 15:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, this article counts Myung Hee Kim as Sun Myung Moon's second wife. However, I thought there was no proof of this. I thought that Chung Hwa Pak simply wrote about that in his book The Tragedy Of The Six Marias, but that he also wrote about many other things such as Sun Myung Moon performing sex acts with members as an indemnity sort of thing, and that there was no proof of such things. Supposedly, many people easily believed the things Chung Hwa Pak wrote since he was with Sun Myung Moon during the early years. However, I heard that Sun Myung Moon denied these claims. Therefore, I think there may be lack of evidence to say that he has 3 wives. It may be safer to say that he has 2 wives, but that there is a possibility that he has had 3, but no proof. Anyone have input about this? I won't make the edit myself, not yet at least. I'd like to see if anyone has something to say about this. Jamesters 05:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh wait, I solved this myself through further reading. Sun Myung Moon denied sex acts with multiple members thing and there was even someone else during those times that also protested that such things never happened. As for the 2nd wife thing, it seems it is true but was not an official marriage or even a relationship of any sort. Instead, some kind of providential sex thing. I don't understand it completely and will probably read up on it more. Afterall, I wonder what Sun Myung Moon considered providential about having sex with that girl. But anyways, I guess that means he really did have 3 wives (even if not all marriages were official). Problem solved! Jamesters 08:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The church itself never manufactured munitions. A business started by members did, and as far as I know continues to. Steve Dufour 12:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I've moved this quotation to the talk page until the correct translation and Wilson's commentary is added, perhaps a small section talking about mistranslations:
"But when it comes to our age, we must have an automatic theocracy to rule the world. So, we cannot separate the political field from the religious. Democracy was born because people ruled the world, like the Pope does. Then, we come to the conclusion that God has to rule the world, and God loving people have to rule the world -- and that is logical. We have to purge the corrupted politicians, and the sons of God must rule the world. The separation between religion and politics is what Satan likes most."
- Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Third Directors' Conference, Master Speaks, May 17, 1973
I've just started this article. Please check it out. Steve Dufour 13:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
This was just done. Oddly enough it seemed to be the first thing this editor did after joining Wikipedia. I don't have any real objection, however it does seem more normal for it to be on the right. Steve Dufour 10:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)p.s. I see he has also made a contribution to the Jerry Garcia article since then. :-)
Maybe the best thing to do is let anyone put in a quote but rotate them out after a week or so. That way the section would be constantly changing but always have a balance between different people's additions. Steve Dufour 22:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some problem with quoting Sun Myung Moon on his page. I think have a wikiquote page to provide many quotes is a good idea I also think any biography of a person should have quotations from that person so that a casual reader doesn't haven't wade through a lot of information."
I have put 6 quotes up while keeping the link to wikiquotes for more in depth research. I have put 3 what one might call inspiring quotes from him and 3 quotes that would be considered controversial. They are all referenced to their original webpage which is page run by a member of the Unification Church so I believe their accuracy. None is out of context but the original source can be easily accessed if anyone had a problem. I think this is a good compromise.-- Robbow123 19:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I don't think providing true quotations that are not taken out of context is controversial. Even with a reference to wikiquotes that wouldn't stop anyone from adding quotes in the future or if a quote section was removed it would not someone to create a quote section. Quote sections are common in biographies. If the quotes section is abolished in all of Wikipedia than I have no problem. After doing some research I see that there are these blue boxes that refer people to other wiki projects like wikiquotes and wikimedia.
If you could create that for Moon then I think that's what should be done. As long as there is a quote section then people will be rightly encouraged to edit it and add quotes.
So if you know how to make one of those blue boxes refering to WikiQuotes than I am all for it. Thanks-- Robbow123 20:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I just took a look at it and that's what I had in mind. That way quotes can go there and others will know where to add quotes. If I get inclined I may even organize the quotes but this is a good start. Thank you-- Robbow123 20:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I had to include that much of the speech to put the words "homosexuals" and "dung-eating dogs". He did not say, "Homosexuals are dung-eating dogs" as is often repeated by people with a lower standard of caring about facts than should be practiced here on WP. Steve Dufour 03:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the people with a lower standard got the impression that Moon said "Homosexuals and fornicators are like dirty dung eating dogs" because in his speech of May 4, 1997
The topic heading before the paragraph you quote says that exact thing.
I imagine the headings were written by someone else other than Moon. But since it is on the official Unification Website [unification.org] the statement reflects the feelings of that organization even if they were not direct quotes from Moon.
I was personally present when he gave the original speech, transcribed the audio tape and edited the speech, and added the headings to it. He spoke forcefully, and unequivocally, about his disgust for those who practice promiscuous sex and homosexuality, and compared them to dogs who eat dung. I made no effort at all to downplay or minimize what he said, as I agree with him. It originally appeared on my web site at http://www.unification.net/1997/970504.html. Damian Anderson 04:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If you like you could say "The editor of his speech on unification.org summarized Rev. Moon as saying, "Homosexuals and fornicators are like dirty dung eating dogs." However I think it is better to quote the whole part of the speech itself. Something should be said, I think, because this one remark is one of the most talked about things in Rev. Moon's whole life. Steve Dufour 01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Also note that his purpose in making the remarks was to warn members against immorality. Steve Dufour 02:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
If there is a section in this article titled "Views on Communism" then there also needs to be a section called "Views on Democracy" -- don't you think? Moon's
"critique" of Communism (a political ideology) also stems from the fact that he is proposing a political
"counterproposal" to Communism and Democracy both called "Unificationism" -- a
theocratic monarchy.
Sincerely
Marknw 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I took this out after considering it for a long time. It shouldn't be hard to find real people who have made these criticisms. Steve Dufour 10:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, although the cited article (which was initially being used an evidence that "some Christian ministers began joining" Rev Moon's crusade), does say that 'mainstream Christian leaders' plural condemned the intiative. StuartDouglas 11:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Just took it out again. I am in 100 percent agreement that the criticism (or persecution) of Rev. Moon by Christians should be covered in the article. However the material needs to be cited. After you do that you can work on "some civil libertarians", "some Jews", and "some gay rights groups". Remember that this is a biography of a living person. Steve Dufour 12:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, not all criticism is considered persecution. When it's simply a theological disagreement, the UC does not brand this a persecution. For example, hardly any other Christian church thinks the fall of man had anything to do with sex, let alone the seduction of Eve by the archangel Lucifer.
It's when they treat us differently that it's persecution, like being branded "non-Christian" by the national council of churches - or when they put our leader in jail (see Sun Myung Moon tax case) for something that Catholics do routinely.
Anyway, persecution can be a good thing: when it helps "pay indemnity". -- Uncle Ed 19:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The article states that some people consider the Unification Church to be a cult, saying it is primarily politically motivated. Islam has no divisions between state and religion, they are one and the same, but Islam is not usually referred to a as a cult. Are purely political organizations cults, or does a religious aspect have to be involved? Does the fact that one religion is against Communism as a system of evil make it a cult? There are other religions that are not too fond of Communism either. - MSTCrow 01:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I am removing this quotation as obviously inaccurate. The things that the "Concerned Women of America" state are not true are facts. It's unfortunate but the history of Christianity has indeed been marked by inquistions, crusades, forced conversions, demolition of indiginous cultures and witch hunts. And the cross was its symbol (the shields of the crusaders were painted with a large cross). To deny this is to deny history. My point in emphasising this on Moon's page is that 1) this "take down the cross" action of Moon's and the fact that many actually did it is an historical event and 2) Moon's motives for doing this are transparent and just as Gorenfeld has stated - the replacing of Jesus with himself as Messiah. 4.246.203.34 15:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Cut from article:
That's not why Father Moon and U.S. Christians began this campaign. Steve, help me out here.
Also, the observation "Moon wants you to dump Jesus and crown Moon king instead" seems very negative. It's also completely opposite to the church's view point about the relationship between Rev. Moon and Jesus. How can Gorenfield say "dump Jesus"? That's a misrepresentation.
If there is controversy, real actual dispute over why the campaign was conducted, we should cover it as a controversy - not quote some freelancer making gratuitous cracks.
Please supply some legitimate criticism from someone with a following, not some hack's personal opinion. -- Uncle Ed 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
...
I will be glad to look up some info for you.
...
...
You might need to sit down for this. Note: I am not Christian myself, however the following research was done by those who are.
"Abraham was the father of faith, Moses was a man of faith, Jesus was the son of man, trying to carry out his mission at the cost of his life. But they are, in a way, failures." (Sun Myung Moon, "Victory or Defeat," from Master Speaks, March 31, 1973, p.1.) He also teaches: "This means that the failures of Adam and of Jesus Christ have been restored by the appearance of True Parents." (Rev. Moon, Today's World, January, 1995, p.8) http://www.newcovpub.com/unification/wfwp3.html
Here Moon is quoted saying that rather than the church's immaculate conception, Jesus was illigitimate. http://www.newcovpub.com/unification/howwas.html
"I am now making a prototype of the perfect family, accomplishing what Jesus could not do." (Sun Myung Moon, Today's World, May, 1995, p.12.) http://www.newcovpub.com/unification/isrev.html
Get a load of THIS one: "Bring in the flocks. Bring in the sheep and bring them to the throne of your True Parents. Bring them to the throne of our True Parents, the mighty throne of heaven. And I will place the Crown of Glory on our True Parents' head. I will lead them. I will show them that the Lord of Lords and the Kings of Kings and the King of Glory is our precious Lord Sun Myung Moon and his beloved bride Hak Ja Han. They reign as king and queen of the entire universe. And that I, Jesus of Nazareth, known as the Christ, bow in humility before them. I bow before them. Any who will follow me must do the same. I bow before the name of True Parents. I bow before our precious Lords, our True Parents, Sun Myung Moon and Hak Ja Han." (Purportedly by the spirit of Heung Jin Nim Moon, The Victory of Love, NY, NY: The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, 1992, pp. 65-66).
"Jesus: Reverend Sun Myung Moon! Thou art the Second Coming who inaugurated the Completed Testament Age!" http://www.usasurvival.org/ck7502.shtml
"Until our mission with the Christian church is over, we must quote the Bible and use it to explain the Divine Principle. After we receive the inheritance of the Christian church, we will be free to teach without the Bible. Now, however, our primary mission is to witness to the Christian church." (Sun Myung Moon, Master Speaks-7: "Bible Interpretation," 1965, p.1.) http://www.newcovpub.com/unification/isrev.html
"The time has come when the whole world must be concerned about me. From now on, American Christianity must follow me." http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/sunmyungmo189468.html
"Am I foolish and insignificant or am I great? I gave all the individuals in the world cause to kneel down in front of me." (Rev. Moon, Today's World, March 1995 p.6)
Now I ask you, what is the difference between Moon and the lunatic in an asylum who thinks that he is God or Napolean? Besides money I mean. I'm sorry but this guy is a dangerous megalomaniac.
It was said above:
This is true and is in fact the same as the Unification Church position:
This is from Wikipedia:Words to avoid:
...
Can anyone explain why edits that not were reverted according to the history tab do not show up hours later when googling the article. This is the second time I've seen this now. 4.246.205.168 13:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ...
:You might be confusing "truth" and "accuracy". As long as that guy said it, and he really is a spokesman for CWA, then the quote qualifies as verifiable
I disagree. The quote is not verifiable because it is not true. No offence with the following comments but please consider, would you use a quote from some swastica wearing neo-nazi holocaust denier stating that it never happened just because he is speaking in opposition to some other hate group which is the focus of the article? I know that sounds extreme but the cross was viewed exactly the same way by millions during the past 2,000 years. IOW, why use a quote that is obviously wrong as a counter to another wrong?? Shouldn't Wikipedia be about the facts and not about spreading revisionist misinformation? About quality information not just whatever fills up space? Should we include a quote from Bozo the Clown uttering nonsense just because he might have an opinion on some subject? Additionaly, the inclusion of this quote does an injustice to the many many who suffered and died at the hands of Christendom. Can't another quote from a Christian group objecting to the removal of the cross campaign be found? I'd think there'd be plenty. At the least a caveat ought to be added that the statement does not hold up to history. For these reasons I am again removing the quote. If someone still insists on putting it in then more power to them. 4.246.206.198 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Long winded. The short comment is, this guy from the CWA is attacking a wrong with a falsehood. How does that help the Wikipedia reader? 4.246.206.198 21:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Cut from "crowning" section:
This link has nothing about "participants ... misled". Apparently this blogger is in the process of re-arranging his web site.
On the other hand, I recall reading a year or two ago about a phone and mail campaign to get participants to recant their support. I'm not sure what percentage were persuaded to do so or on what grounds.
Frequently, supporters have changed their mind when faced by adverse publicity. Whitney Houston ditched the RFK Blessing, and Bill Cosby said he "didn't know" the Family Federation was connected to Rev. Moon! I don't know how they get to be world-class entertainers and still have no idea about groups trying to ride on their coat tails. Don't they have publicists and lawyers? -- Uncle Ed 21:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
...
About the take vs tear down the cross debate. I provided a link. This is from the Church's own publication not somebody's memory of it. Here it is "tear down" http://www.tparents.org/UNews/Unws0304/cross_bronx.htm. Now in the interests of honesty I also found a link from their publication that said "take down" [7]. The links don't take up too much room so I've included them both.
...
Wow, here I am a non-Christian arguing for them. I can't believe that polyannaish advertisment about the cross in the article. All that stuff about hw the cross is bad sure flies in the face of scripture.
"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me." Luke 9:23 New International Version
"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" 1 Corinthians 1:17-18
"May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which[a] the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." Galatians 6:14
"For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ." Phillipians 3:18 (Watch out Moon!)
"And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" Colossians 2:15
Although I might agree with you that wearing a cross would be like wearing a amulet in the shape of a gun around your neck, it is obvious from the Bible why Christians might be offended at the denigration of the cross. For them it is a symbol of redemption. 4.246.206.198 23:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. Even church scholars feel that the legalizing of Christianity in 325 C.E. was the beginning of the long slide for the church.
Interesting. No mainstream church though {and I'm not aware of any others) believes that being "washed in he blood" makes one sinless but only that ones sins are forgiven. The NT teaches that 'Christ died so you don't have to' since the "wages of sin are death" Gal. 6:23, and since everyone sins since the fall of Adam they needed this redemption to escape eternal death and/or hell. The Judaic ritual, commanded by Yahweh in the OT, of sacrificing a lamb every year before Jesus' crucifixion (though some say that he was actually impaled) is said to have forshadowed this. To denigrate Jesus' sacrifice as a failure and the cross as an object of repulsion would equally be viewed as a great heresy in Christendom. Additionally, as shown above, the Bible (NT) itself takes the view that Jesus' death was necessary and right, and we all know that the Bible is viewed as the infallible word of God by many or most Christians. To say something contrary is to invite trouble.
Good - to a point. Sometimes one needs to take a side (while being fair even to that side) especially when something is clearly wrong. It would be hard to write an article about Nazi Germany for example without making any value judgements.
As of the current edit I only want to re-add the link to who attended the crowning. I do think that Moon's controversial quotations should be added to the wikiquote page [8]. I would advocate dividing the uncontroversial quotes from the controversial ones on the page. 4.246.207.49 15:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I was trying to add back the link to who attended the crowning but the edit page contains a different page than the current page. The local edit link is different itself. Must be a wiki problem. 4.246.207.49 15:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I see that the comment from the CWA is back so I would like to put up a bit of counterweight to that.
...
Adding quotes. About the comment from the CWA, as one can see the ridiculous comment and the balancing comments I added is only serving as a wandering detour and distraction from the article. I still think it should be removed. 4.246.200.116 18:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, it says in the first paragraph that Rev. Moon has said that he is the Messiah. The article really should be about how he has tried to carry that out. Of course criticisms of him and his followers should be included in the article. But differences of opinion about religion should not take up about half of the article as they do now. Otherwise why not include a few paragraphs about how the Hindus disagree with him because he is not a vegetarian? Steve Dufour 05:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I cut out:
Generally speaking, people can make up their own minds as to how they feel about the cross without the opinions of "others", Mr. Schwartz, the WP article on the Crusades, and "the great majority of Christians". On the other hand, if the whole "take down the cross" thing is really so important then maybe it should have its own article. Steve Dufour 06:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Steve: "I don't think not displaying the cross is considered "heretical" by the great majority of Christians
That's not what I said Steve. Again:
Nevertheless, to the great majority Christians themselves the cross is revered as the symbol of Christ's sacrifice and their redemption. Any denigrating of it is considered heretical.
Moon's and the UC's comments about it can be regarded as denigrating it. However if you want We'll leave this out.
Disappointing Steve to check back and see that bit by bit the article is losing valid criticism. Examples:
1) The removing of the reference to the crowning of Jesus as the Messiah. You said "I'm not sure they intended to crown him as the Messiah", but IS clear that that is how HE perceived it. "Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent." And I doubt that they were completely unaware that that is how he sees himself. But consider, if you don't say what he was crowned as that will only beg the question in the reader's mind "okay so he was crowned but crowned as WHAT?". Obviously he was crowned as something, (and it wasn't baseball's MVP). Why not say what that was, at least in his mind. Additionally look at those bowed heads of members of congress [9].
2) The removal of the comment Many, though, see another, more suspect motive behind the campaign - it's a convienient stepping stone, they say, for the usurpation of Jesus with Moon, especially given some of Moons own comments about Jesus which you said you were removing because it was "unsourced". Yet the very next sentence provided a source.
3) The quiet removal of "Everyone I talked to was furious" said Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.) spokeswoman Chris Lisi." while removing material to the cornation page.
4) The removal of the line To the great majority Christians the cross is revered as the symbol of Christ's sacrifice and of their redemption.
In another month will the article be indistinguishable from a Moon publication? 4.246.201.106 02:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Just bringng out a small flaw. You may do with as you wish.
That's not what that sentence said. It said that the removal of the cross (and Moon's claiming to be the messiah, his put downs of Jesus etc.) is viewed "by many as a convienient stepping stone to the usurpation of Jesus with Moon". That doesn't mean that he will actually be able to accomplish this feat - except perhaps in the mind of his followers. I think this sentence should remain. If the word "many" is a stumbling block might I suggest changing it to "some"?
Might you re-add it then?
Well some people might feel that it's ALL ABOUT the cross, and the whittling away of its significance while simultaneously puffing up Moon.
As I said it's in your hands. I commend you for what you, as a Unificationist, have left in. Subjective objectivity is no easy feat itself. Just please try to keep it fair. 4.246.203.11 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The person who placed the cleanup tag seems not to have commented here, so it's impossible to know what defect he felt was present. I can make a couple suggestions, however.
1. The section Overview of the beliefs of Unificationists is too long and too uneven. The main articles for this are at Unification theology, Divine Principle, and on other pages. A church member should summarize and edit down this section, perhaps moving some things to those pages and providing a much briefer overview.
2. The section Related organizations is disorganized and does not represent the ideals or activities of the church very well. It seems to me that 3 prominent groups of related organizations are [a] philanthropic, [b] ecumenical, and [c]educational. Philanthropic organizations are not even mentioned (!!), only 1 ecumenical organization is described (!), and only 2 educational organizations are mentioned (!), one of which is listed as a business! Perhaps subsection titles could give an indication of the purpose of the church's vision for related organizations (e.g., Philanthropic, Ecumenical, Educational, Media, Business). - Exucmember 05:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I made a page on John and someone removed it. I thought he is notable enough and I tried to make the page fair. I mentioned that he is an independant journalist who specializes in reporting about Rev. Moon. I also included a link to his website. I don't see why anyone would remove it. Steve Dufour 06:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
This does not seem to be substanciated by the information in the articles cited, most of which are by Robert Parry and John Gorenfeld. The only thing close to a "political donation" is the money paid to ex-President Bush to give some speeches in South America and Japan plus a possible indirect gift to his presidental museum. Although this could be criticized, still it is not exactly a political donation since Bush was not in office at the time and is probably not going to run for office again. There is no evidence given at all for "an extensive history of making political donations". Steve Dufour 06:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I moved the info on Kahr Arms so it was next to the part on Seilo. Also my dictionary defines munitions as "war supplies, especially weapons and ammunition". I have never heard of Seilo or Kahr making ammunition so I changed the word to "guns" which more accurately describes what they do. Of course Seilo does many things in the metal working field besides that. Steve Dufour 16:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I've been meaning to look up Mr. Moon regarding his church and political activities, and find this article to be somewhat lacking in that regard. I also found a number of related articles that also suffer this imbalance: it seems to be mostly regarding Mr. Dufour's experience as a church member vs. effective collaboration. Thank you. Cwolfsheep 01:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Consistent with Moonies virulent anti-communism, allegations were made in the 70s and 80s that made Moon a close intimate of South Korean dictator Park Chung Hee and alleged that he and his close associates were intimately involved with the South Korean CIA and military leadership at whose behest they largely acted. I know they loudly defended Park before his assasination and were genuinely viewed during the height of the hubbub regarding Moonies as a fascist threat, a New Age Father Coughlin type so to speak.
In the Other Issues sections there's the following sentence "Some Jews have objected to his saying that the Holocaust is partly an indirect consequence of some important Jewish leaders, especially John the Baptist, not supporting Jesus which contributed to his murder by the Roman government".
I think that calls for greater generalization. Suggesting that only Jews object to Moon's statement, which one of the oldest anti-semitic "arguments", is offensive to non-Jews as well. I'll change the part to "There have been objections..." 87.203.85.143 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church, is portrayed in some church publications as a monarch of the nation Cheon Il Guk.
"True Love King"
"Family Federation for World Peace and Unification"
"Declaration of the Establishment of Cheon Il Guk"
Rev. Moon was also portrayed as the leader of all religions in the online article "Cloud of Witnesses" and the church website "Messages From Spirit World."
The Divine Principle asserts that existing modern democracies have been a necessary, but temporary, stage in history and politics.
"How can democracy accomplish its purpose?...We need to understand that democracy was born to undermine satanic monopolies of power for the purpose of God's final providence to restore, by the will of the people, a heavenly sovereignty under the leadership of the returning Christ."
- Divine Principle Section 7.2.6 Democracy and Socialism
"...Thus, in the ideal world, people of God led by Christ will form organizations analogous to today's political parties..."
- Divine Principle, Section 3.2 The Significance of the Separation of Powers
"If we are to realize the ideal world of one global family which can honor Christ at the Second Advent as our True Parent, surely our languages must be unified...then he will certainly use the Korean language, which will then become the mother tongue for all humanity."
- Divine Principle, Section 5
"The democratic world has come to a dead end..."
- Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Creation Of The Fatherland, January 1, 1984
"America's intellectual establishment is liberal, godless, secular, humanistic, and anti-religious. We are declaring war against three main enemies: godless communism, Christ-less American liberalism, and secular-humanistic morality. They are the enemies of God, the True Parents, the Unification Church, all of Christianity, and all religions. We are working to mobilize a united front against them."
- Rev. Sun Myung Moon, August 29, 1985
"Through True Love our family shall accomplish the True Family of the Filial Child, the Loyal Subject, the Saint and the Holy Child of the Cheon Il Guk (God's Kingdom on earth.)"
- Church Motto, Sun Myung Moon, January 1, 2003
"There is no doubt that this kingdom is one that the children of God's direct lineage can reign over by upholding the heavenly decree. In other words, it is a nation in which they rule on behalf of God's commands and kingship. Democracy and communism cannot exist in such a kingdom. Once established, it will remain as an eternal state system. Considering these things, isn't it mortifying that you have not yet become the citizens of that kingdom?"
- Sun Myung Moon, March 4, 2005
"... theocracy is commonly used to describe a form of government in which a religion or faith plays the dominant role. Properly speaking, it refers to a form of government in which the organs of the religious sphere replace or dominate the organs of the political sphere." -- Wikipedia
Historical examples of Christian theocracies are the Byzantine Empire and the Carolingian Empire.
rule of law, religious freedom, Western world values, secular democracy, separation of church and state, religious pluralism, fundamentalism, Kingdom of Heaven
Marknw 04:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the tag from this sentence:
I'm UC member and a long time contributor to this article. For the sake of fairness I have let statements like "there have been objections..." stand. This also seems to be the feeling of other contributors to the UC articles. We know there have been objections and criticisms and want them to be mentioned in the articles. I don't see the point of finding some critic's statement and changing the sentence to be "So and so said..." Nobody questions that there have been objections so a cite is not really needed for this sentence. That's my opinion anyway. Steve Dufour 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Cut from intro:
This sentence falsely asserts that Rev. Moon is calling himself the Messiah. The actual quotation in the newspaper article was:
For Christians, there is a big difference between (1) hearing someone call another person the Messiah and (2) hearing someone call himself the Messiah.
I'd like someone to double-check the facts, and if they agree with my analysis, restore the citation with the correct interpretation. Something like,
We need to distinguish between:
Clear? -- Uncle Ed 11:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Cut from "cross and crown" section:
This is an error. Rev. Moon does not say he wants to replace Jesus. We need to write about the ceremony to crown Jesus as king, which the church conducted in Jerusalem a few years ago. I believe it was connected to, or in conjunction with, this campaign.
"Jesus is, was, and always will be the source of salvation." -- Uncle Ed 15:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I notice the criticism section has been pruned, chopped back, and watered down since the last time I was here. - Exucmember 07:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I took off this comment. I don't think you could find anyone who seriously thinks that in the future human beings will no longer be individuals because of Rev. Moon. Steve Dufour 11:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Riverguy, you are not far off. You just need some relevant quotations from Rev. Moon's voluminous speeches.
His theology of salvation accepts Jesus as the pioneer of salvation, but he also says that people cannot enter Heaven as bachelors. Heaven requires marriage, but don't forget that our idea of "heaven" and "paradise" are non-traditional. In coming weeks, I'll be writing more about these topics. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 00:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster definition of propaganda: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person [10]
That's the dictionary I used in high school, so that's the definition I'll accept. I would say that every newspaper spreads ideas and information for a purpose; see advocacy journalism. This is an American tradition that goes way, way back in history. Using a newspaper to expose evils is a God-given American right. That's why dictators and totalitarian goverments always eliminate freedom of press to consolidate their power.
Part of this definition, though, implies that the information being spread could be false or mere rumor. When someone uses the term propaganda to dismiss a news report, they are emphasizing this aspect of the word. As in, "Oh, that's just propaganda. You can ignore it."
Let's take care, then, to distinguish between the two usages of the word. If the Washington Times revealed true information about communism, and if this accelerated its downfall, then this is a good thing (if you like religious freedom and the right of workers to negotiate their own wages) or a bad thing (if you like tyranny and oppression, or if you think socialism is worth giving up a little individual control).
I'd rather not see the term used in its secondary sense, unless the charge that the Times spread false info or rumors is clearly marked as someone's viewpoint. It would especially help if they gave an example.
But I suspect the complaint (oops, charge!) of critics is that the Times influenced Republican presidential policy in a way that the critics disliked. That is, they don't mind so much that Rev. Moon was influential as the fact that he lent support to the critics' opponents. But this is sheer speculation on my part. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 19:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
(Note: intro -- as this discussion (a) involves a BLP, and (b) it involves the use of a controversial term in the context of a BLP, the length of this discourse reflects the concern among editors in adhering to Wikipedia guidelines around BLP's. For those interested, a review of the Wikipedia essay Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing may also be helpful. riverguy42 ( talk) 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
In response to Ed Poor (above)...
Hi Ed,
Above, you invoked a defense logical argument in favor of describing the criticism of Unification Church media above as
advocacy journalism as opposed to describing that criticism as
propaganda.
I just now had a chance to review the entry you referenced. On review, I note that this form of journalism is characerized thus:
Note the "and", which seems to imply that to qualify as "advocacy journalism", Unification Church owned/controlled/subsidized media must be practiced transparently to avoid the designation "propaganda".
Please note that Rev. Moon's statements regarding having "used the Washington Times to stop that evil attempt" were followed immediately by his further comment "...you didn't know that, did you?". I think that Rev. Moon's seemingly explicit admission that he covertly used the Washington Times to "stop" the "evil attempt" hardly qualifies as "transparency". Also, camoflaging the ownership of the Washington Times, UPI and Insight under layers of cross-ownership is anything but transparent. I wonder why the Unification Church doesn't just own and subsidize it's media directly, transparently and outright (as the Roman Catholic and other Churches do), rather than creating deceptively named sub-corporations run by highly-ranked Church Members to do the "ownership" job in the shadows?
With respect to the topic I added, I'm making a case here for reverting back to my original section title, but I respect the power of the word and do not wish to misuse it. I think I need (and will seek) an independent (no UC affiliation) editor's voice here, as I think a word like "propaganda" should only be used when, and if, it is the most accurate description of the critical charges against Rev. Moon in this regard, and where no other reasonable alternative exists.
Of course, the best way for the UC to solve it's problem here would be to (a) divest itself, or (b) publically embrace a transparency doctrine. riverguy42 ( talk) 04:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
"The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names—liberty and tyranny. The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today among us human creatures, even in the North, and all professing to love liberty. Hence we behold the process by which thousands are daily passing from under the yoke of bondage, hailed by some as the advance of liberty, and bewailed by others as the destruction of all liberty. Recently, as it seems, the people of Maryland have been doing something to define liberty [abolishing slavery in the state]; and thanks to them that, in what they have done, the wolf’s dictionary, has been repudiated."
This was all gone over 5 years ago, when Wikipedia was deciding which newspapers could be sources. The consensus then, if I recall correctly, was that the Washington Times was just as accurate and reliable as the New York Times as far as hard news goes.
The distinction between the two papers was largely to be found in columnists and of course on the editorial and op-ed pages. It was determined that the editorials and other commentary are conservative, but that the news was just regular news.
So if you know of anyone who is saying that a "truthful work" contains embedded lies and distortions, please be sure to quote that person. Fair enough? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 23:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Some people have expressed fear that Rev. Moon might make what would nowadays be called a "Taliban-style" theocracy. You know, make people believe and worship a certain way, or off with their head.
So the "fear" quotes need to balanced with the "faith & trust" quotes. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 02:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Removed from article:
Remind me to google this. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 01:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
On May 11, 1987, the APA Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) rejected the DIMPAC report because "the brainwashing theory espoused lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur." [4]
I removed this whole section, some of it could be put back however if the information is cited:
"American women have the tendency to consider that women are in the subject position. However, woman's shape is like that of a recepticle. The concave shape is a receiving shape. Whereas the convex shape symbolizes giving. When water is poured into a container does it fill from the edge of the container, or from the deepest bottom? (Deepest bottom.) Since man contains the seed of life, he should plant it in the deepest place. Does woman contain the seed of life? (No.) Absolutely not. Then if you desire to receive the seed of life you have to become an absolute object. In order to qualify as an absolute object you need to demonstrate absolute faith, love and obedience to your subject."
====Major SNIP==== ....I'm out of patience.
riverguy42 (
talk) 19:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see Theocracy section below. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 20:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I took this off:
The first part was just a rumor in a newspaper gossip column. I could also mention that even if true it tends to show Rev. Moon's lack of influence with President Bush, since the pardon was not granted. The second part is just a quoted statement, there is nothing that says it has anything to do with political influence. Thanks. Steve Dufour ( talk) 03:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I would just add this directly, but River has the article "in use" and I want to avoid an edit conflict.
The designation of men as "subject" and women as "object" has been a topic of misunderstanding and a bit of a sore point for critics. More than woman theologian within the church has tried to explain it away, but Moon clearly places women in a subordinate role. The key point is that being a subordinate in no way lessens a person's value. It all depends on how well the "subject partner" treats his "object partner".
(By the way, this also relates to the church & state thing or the "theocracy issue".)
Everyone naturally rebels against an evil, self-centered leader. If "subject" is taken to mean a person who has unlimited authority to enslave another person, then it is merely a synonym for "master" or "owner". Considering that Rev. Moon said Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is the 20th Century American he admires most, it would seem odd to say that Moon favored the kind of self-centered subjugation that Dr. King fought against.
Not to prolong this, I'll just give one example of subject-object relations. Moon said that a man's sexual organ belongs to his wife. I think that means that a man must pledge to his wife never to have sex with anyone else! Also, that he should use his sexual organ to make love to her; see absolute sex.
So a woman is not a slave, not a "thing", not property. Being an "object" does not mean that she is less of a person. She is a "daughter of God". (I spent a lot of time writing about things like honor killings and female genital mutilation partly to show the difference between the Unification/Christian view and the Arab/Muslim view.
No Taliban-style theocracy for us, please! -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 22:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad my wife doesn't read this page. "Hole in the dirt" indeed! -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 19:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
To Wndl42 or anyone else. Please name a charity that is doing good work to help people and I will donate $1000 to them if Bush-43 pardons Rev. Moon. In return if Clinton-44 does this you promise to donate $1000 to the Salvation Army. Steve Dufour ( talk) 11:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any special inside information. However, most people who are into conspiracies say the Bush and Clinton families are in cahoots. Steve Dufour ( talk) 20:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi exucmember...
I appreciate your work on Wikipedia.
For a second time, you moved an edit I made to the front of the article on Sun Myung Moon.
I absolutely agree with you, in that Moon's notability (outside of Unification Church membership) derives primarily from his controversiality, indeed I made that argument successfully in a previous series of talk page discussions arguing for expansion into some areas of criticism that I felt were a bit watered down.
I have been candid about my view that some UC members (understandably) want to promote inclusion of additional and (perhaps) unwarranted favorable viewpoints on Rev. Moon to balance the weight of all the criticism, sometimes to the point of tendentious editing. For me, I just want to see that the sections on criticism and controversy are accurate and comprehensive, and are presented in context.
Anyway, the reason I supported an earlier revert of your moving my edit was because I felt the article flowed better that way. With all of the criticism of Moon, I thought that making note of Rev. Moon's status as a highly controversial figure "fit" better in the section describing the controversies, that way readers unfamiliar with Rev. Moon will understand why so much of the article is devoted to criticism and controversy.
It seems you and I are in agreement on the basic point on Rev. Moon WRT Wikipedia, that - notability derives from controversy.
What do you think about my reasoning for wanting to place the statement (or an additional reference to it) as a leadoff to the "criticism and controversy" section? Appreciate your thoughts.
Again, thanks...
riverguy42 ( talk) 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
After thinking about it, I believe that Rev. Moon's statements about the Gulf War were not a prominent feature among all the things he's said and done in his life (and all the things that have been said about him), all of which are candidates for this article, but need to be pared down to include only the most important. So I think all mention of the Gulf War could be deleted, and I certainly don't think it's worth more than one or two sentences at the most. - Exucmember ( talk) 18:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I ended up taking the paragraph about fishing out from the 1970s section since it covered a longer period of time (1950s to present). It was also mainly about members not Rev Moon himself. Maybe a new section could be started with more information. Steve Dufour ( talk) 16:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I just posted a link to: * Article in UC sponsored wiki encyclopedia. This might be interesting, although we can not use it directly as a source. It also has more pictures, which we might want to use. Steve Dufour ( talk) 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be a need for a section on "political views", as there is so much "anti-communist" stuff, it seems like Moon's politics are therefore notable, but we also need to avoid "undue weight", perhaps by adding more on what Moon is "for" rather than just what he is against -- "one world theocracy" and such.
Thoughts? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 ( talk) 21:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's not revive the linguistic dispute over whether the Communist Party of the Soviet Union established a Communist government in Russia and the SSR's. It's fairly well known that "communism" (with a small c) is the "ideal state of affairs in which socialism has withered away". Given the small c definition, obviously, this sort of communism has never been established anwywher.
However, most political scientists and historians call the USSR a Communist country - meaning (1) that it was ruled by a Communist Party and (2) that the ruling party used Marxist-Leninist principles of politics, economics and ideology.
Rev. Moon has a strong preference for democracy over Communism. He also holds in common with most other Christians a hope for the Kingdom of God over any manmade system.
Perhaps it will help if we distinguish between the most commonly types of theocracy that have been tried (or proposed), and the "Kingdom of God" which Rev. Moon says Jesus was trying to establish. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Steve. Here is a Yahoo search for "moon anti-communist": [15] Redddogg ( talk) 02:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what "fluffed for anti-communism" means. Rev. Moon has opposed Communism for most of his life. The interesting questions for me are: (1) how intense has his opposition been? (2) What effect has this had in the world? Another interesting question is a matter of dispute between supporters and critics: (3) How much of Rev. Moon's opposition to Communism is religiously motivated? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 19:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Removed section:
Better to say that Critics X and Y claim that Rev. Moon rejects this separation. And please cite the critics who make this claim.
The church makes a distinction between "separation of church and state" and "the separation of religion and politics". As explained by longtime Moon aide Colonel Pak (paraphrasing from memory here to save time), the purpose of the separation of church and state is to prevent government from violating the freedom of religion. The US is a model of this, in the eyes of the church, with two -- count 'em, two! -- clauses in the First Amendment touching on this. (1) The government cannot establish a state religion and make people believe in it or follow it; see establishment clause. (2) The government cannot stop people from believing in or following whatever religion they choose; see free exercise clause.
On the other hand, Colonel Pak explained in Truth Is My Sword that there is nothing wrong with religion trying to influence politics. To give an example of my own, suppose I have a religious motive for opposing theft, murder, and adultery (see Ten Commandments) because I'm Jewish or Christian. I would then be inclined for religious reasons to vote for laws, lawmakers, or leaders who would support a prohibition of these crimes. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 20:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Your sandbox idea is an excellent one, but for now let's just keep going based on our mutual respect and good will, okay?
This was an improvement, I feel.
The difficult thing to express is the distinction between government and "the Kingdom of heaven". Perhaps there is something there which is too obvious for words, something which goes without saying. So let me try to say it.
"Government" implies to me the use of force to compel people to act in a certain way. "You vill eat zis and you vill LIKE it!" (if I may evoke a childish stereotype)
The kingdom of heaven, in my view, is a purely voluntary association. Kind of like an amateur baseball team sponsored by the local bowling alley. No one makes you join, and there are no penalties or rewards - other than the sheer joy of helping your teammates to win! -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 21:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Rev. Moon is not a tub of margarine. I think we all realize that paying someone to say, "I believe in him", would be seen as worthless. Both pro-church and anti-church are pretty much agreed on the worthlessness of a compensated endorsement.
On the other hand, if a major public figure gives a speech at a Moon-related event and picks up a hefty fee, that is newsworthy. I have in mind Bush Senior getting $100 thousand for a speech in the 1990s. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 18:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
. . . . . . . . . . . <= brownie points for River Guy. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 17:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed text:
I don't dispute all of this, of course. I myself added the quotation. I simply followed the link provided in the footnote. What I dispute is the interpretation of the quote.
Church critics say that Rev. Moon has "called for a one-world government", and I think that is incorrect. However, this is a subtle distinction, so I invite my collaborators to take some time to examine this closely.
"Government" involves the exercise of authority, typically with force. I immediately think of the Taliban flogging women on the street if they show their ankles even for one second, while bring their sick child from a car into a hospital emergency room. I think of some third-world country in Africa executing a girl who is accused of adultery (while hypocritically letting the man go free). Less extreme forms of theocracy would simply require people to attend church, temple, synagogue or mosque - under pain of fine or imprisonment if they skip. This is 180 degrees opposite from what Rev. Moon has in mind, unless after 30 years of studying his teachings I still just don't get it.
"Kingdom of Heaven" involves a vertical relationship with God. If the link to vertical relationship is red, that's because I haven't defined it yet; but it's a key term in Unification Theology. Along with the God-Man relationship is the horizontal relationship between "siblings". This all implies that the K of H is a "One World Family".
I maintain that family and government are distinct.
Steve, help me out here. :-) -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 17:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Steve & Ed
This is a direct quote from Moon's "Divine Principle":
"Thus, in the ideal world, people of God led by Christ will form organizations analogous to today's political parties"
I don't think it gets any clearer than that. It is a simple statement of fact that Unificationism has a clear political ideological component.
Please refer to this month's posting on the SF Bay Area website where Moon lays out the template for becoming a "citizen" of his monarchy. [16]
"Seventh, the Age After the Coming of Heaven that God and True Parents have opened is a time of dramatic change. As registered citizens of Cheon Il Guk, you have the mission to make this era blossom and bear fruit in blessing and glory. Therefore, please become Heaven’s emissaries, fulfilling the dual missions of the “Peace Kingdom Police Force” and the “Peace Kingdom Corps.” Serve humanity under the banner of the Universal Peace Federation, which is working to establish the position of the Abel-type United Nations. Worthy countrymen and women, if not you, then who, will nurture and protect the blessed families and this blessed planet Earth that God has given us?"
My question is, when Moon uses words like "citizen", "police force" and "Kingdom" on this site, is he speaking metaphorically about some "spiritual" idea like the Kingdom of God in the Bible? Or, in his mind, and the mind of the followers, is the idea of "citizen" and "Kingdom" a literal and political reality? If so, documenting these political goals here is "more facts and less opinions", isn't it?
This kind of information is extremely relevant.
Please also refer to the Oath of citizenship (United States) where it clearly states that we pledge to have no "allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;"
Speculating on whether or not "people of God led by Christ (Moon's family?) will form organizations analogous to today's political parties" ever comes to pass isn't the point really. An article like this, in Wiki, should make all of the societal goals of his organizations clear for the sake of the readers. Isn't this at the heart of what people want to get out of an encyclopedia article? Real information and not just PR "fluff."
I think a possible illustrative example is the history section of the article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints where there is a discussion of how the church gave up its theocracy and the notion of a literal kingdom and became highly productive members of American society.
Documenting these facts doesn't necessarily mean you are a "church critic."
Another example might be the discussion about the political activities of Father Divine who, with Mother Divine, founded the International Peace Mission movement.
Respectfully Marknw ( talk) 03:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we are all making valid points here, which leads to the question of how to describe Moon's political views. As a follower, I believe he is first and foremost a religious leader.
Moon told Frederick Sontag:
Marknw quoted from Exposition of the Principle, and here is the same quote with more preceding context:
Moon also told Sontag:
So there is really a dispute between Moon opponents and Moon followers as to how God's will (as seen by Moon) is going to be manifested in society:
I see no way for either side to convince the other. Moon followers (like me) are convinced that they have the inside track on what Moon means. Moon critics are convinced that they understand Moon better than his own followers.
As Wikipedians, I would like to suggest that we simply describe this split, rather than trying to say that one side is right and the other wrong. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 01:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I made extensive changes to the politics and controversies sections. I may have been sloppy, so I invite a simple revert (with no danger of it sparking an edit war) if I've made a mess of it. We can always go back to the article history. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 02:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Ed, Steve and Exucmember. I led an extended discussion on why it is important to characterize the criticism explicitly using the word "propaganda". I recognized then and do now that the term is a pejorative, and I invested extraordinary effort here at the talk page in discussions including all here and in offline research before finally using the term in the article, and it has remained there until last night, removed without discussion.
This thirty-year timeline of news items from Google's news archives (not just a "web search") explicitly associates Rev. Moon with the word "propaganda". A similar search substituting "Unification Church" for "Myung Moon" gives the same length of history but only half as many news items, which illustrates why the critics who describe this "propaganda" should be represented here.
I am changing the heading back, and will welcome whatever discussion follows. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 ( talk) 19:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that this section has been removed. I really think that this point should at least be mentioned. For instance the Yoido Island speech in 1975. I would think that for most people speaking to an audience of a million people would be a notable event in a life. Steve Dufour ( talk) 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed this as a reason for controversy and criticism from the intro. The UC is a very small group of people. Rev. Moon's controversy mainly comes from his political stance against communism and secondarily from his interpretation of the Bible which fundamentalist Christians disagree with, not from being the leader of the UC. Steve Dufour ( talk) 16:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Nowdays the critics are saying that he never was against communism in the first place. :-) This whole section kind of goes on and on. Rev. Moon's relationship with communism, as a victim, a critic, an activist against, and now as someone who is trying to reach out to the hold outs in North Korea, is a very important part of his life and why he has done the things he has done. However I don't know if making the main thing what some critics are saying is the right way to present it. Steve Dufour 04:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
==================>
Uncle Ed (Ed Poor) and Steve Dufour are BOTH *moonies*. They are turning wikipedia into nothing but a deception, and a Joke! Something thier Master Moon is good at! Like Father Moon, like *moonie* as well. How many entries of wikipedia have they edited, created, changed, or deleted because of it? Anybody know? This is just one more example of how *moonies* intend on "taking over the world" for thier Father Moon is all.
Problem is, if your reverend is so great and infallible, then why does he need a 'watchdog' to keep him from being rightfully categorized as a megalomaniac manipulator? Anybody who bows before another is a fool, plain and simple. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 06:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way - 'Reverend' Moon is not the first person to proclaim himself as 'Father Divine' and 'Jesus Christ'. See also Jim Jones. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 06:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Roman Catholic, so perhaps were I to write piece on my church it would be tilted. I get the feeling from reading this, that the author is doing a little bit of damage control for the Moonies. And yes, they are the Moonies. That's his or her right though, and to have acknowledged the controversy is better than ignoring it. As to whether the Moonies are a cult, I think that it's open to interpretation. I would call them something of a cult, as I have first hand been approached by the clipboard carrying women when I lived in Boston (Never in New York City though, which is far superior to Boston!). I would call them a cult based on what I know of the term, but I wouldn't consider them a cult in the way I consider the People's Temple or the Raelians a cult. Hell, my religion has been called a cult. It's all good, but they are Moonies! [unsigned 13:22, 21 August 2006 170.3.8.253 ( Talk)]
I took out this paragraph, which has been floundering around being changed back and forth:
For one thing this was originally one person's opinion put in the mouth of "some critics". I know there is more of that here, from both sides, but it's not really how Wikipedia is supposed to work.
For another Rev. Moon is not literally a "billionaire"; he is not the legal owner of billions of dollars in assets. It is true that he is the leader of a group of people who among them have billions but that does not make him a billionaire.
For a third his followers are not literally "footsoldiers", unless they happen to be in the militaries of their various nations then they might be.
If someone thinks the Liberty University loan issue is important then write something about that; but in that case also the opinion of "some critics" is not the most important thing. Steve Dufour 23:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors: I have made some corrections in the section on tax crime convictions. The Reverend Moon was not convicted of tax evasion, nor was he charged with that offense. The Federal tax evasion statute is 26 U.S.C. § 7201. He was charged with and convicted of willfully filing false tax returns under 26 U.S.C. § 7206, and with conspiracy. I made the appropriate changes in the article, with a footnote citation to the court decision on appeal. I have not had a chance to fully study the Moon convictions by comparing the Wikipedia text to the actual court decision, but I wanted to at least go ahead and set the record straight on exactly what the charges and convictions were.
Actually, willfully filing a false tax return can also be the basis for a tax evasion conviction, if all the elements for tax evasion are met. The Reverend Moon simply was not charged with tax evasion, for whatever reason. Yours, Famspear 02:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Just as a follow-up I note that one of the links in the article leads to web site apparently operated by Reverend Moon's church which describes his tax problems as having involved "tax evasion" and conspiracy. Again, that description is incorrect, as explained above. Yours, Famspear 14:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I have also made some minor edits in the references to the Schengen treaty, and have moved the material down to the bottom of the section. I'm unclear exactly as to what the original author was trying to say about the Schengen treaty and Moon's travel, so I hope that my edits didn't do any damage. In any case, it's unclear from the text exactly what a travel ban in Europe under the Schengen treaty has to do with tax convictions in the United States. For example, if there is something in the treaty that restricts travel by persons convicted of crimes, or tax crimes, then that needs to be documented to make the article less vague. If another editor gets to this before I can look it up, perhaps that editor can make the "tie-in." Yours, Famspear 16:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Yours, Famspear 13:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors: I'm not sure if this is the right way to do this, but I have removed certain editorial comments hidden in the text of the article, right after the reference to the fact that the jury did not accept the defense's contention that the funds in question were being held in trust for the church Rev. Moon was building. The comments are as follows:
Without agreeing or disagreeing with the comments, I would say they are interesting, and are arguably more "viewable" here on the talk page. I haven't gone back to check and see whose comments they are. Yours, Famspear 04:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Ed Poor: What were the facts in the George Bush senior case? If it was just a case of owing money on April 15th, that's not a crime. What were the circumstances? Yours, Famspear 22:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
What do you think of the idea of making the discussion of the tax case its own article? Steve Dufour 01:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This is moving way too fast. We need to be circumspect and guard against creating POV forks that bowdlerize this article in doing these splits. I'll be contributing and keeping an eye on these splits to ensure that they are proper and do not violate WP:NPOV's provision on POV forks. FeloniousMonk 23:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You can pretty much ignore FeloniousMonk. He objects to nearly every spin-off article I've ever been involved in. He will not allow any clarity brought to topics that deal with the fine points of views and ideas that go beyond the material world.
He consistently misuses the term "POV fork" to mean "any spin-off he objects to" rather than "a spin-off which violates NPOV policy by asserting or assuming that a particular POV is true". His misbehavior is well known and he's been brought before the arbcom for it multiple times. There's a new case starting even now.
His misbehavior extends to stalking all me edits and branding any spin-off I propose on a controversial topic as a "POV fork", regardless of how well balanced and neutral the parent article and spinoff article are.
Don't be fooled by his admin status. Despite his bluster, he carries no more editorial authority than anyone else. -- Uncle Ed 15:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, this article counts Myung Hee Kim as Sun Myung Moon's second wife. However, I thought there was no proof of this. I thought that Chung Hwa Pak simply wrote about that in his book The Tragedy Of The Six Marias, but that he also wrote about many other things such as Sun Myung Moon performing sex acts with members as an indemnity sort of thing, and that there was no proof of such things. Supposedly, many people easily believed the things Chung Hwa Pak wrote since he was with Sun Myung Moon during the early years. However, I heard that Sun Myung Moon denied these claims. Therefore, I think there may be lack of evidence to say that he has 3 wives. It may be safer to say that he has 2 wives, but that there is a possibility that he has had 3, but no proof. Anyone have input about this? I won't make the edit myself, not yet at least. I'd like to see if anyone has something to say about this. Jamesters 05:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh wait, I solved this myself through further reading. Sun Myung Moon denied sex acts with multiple members thing and there was even someone else during those times that also protested that such things never happened. As for the 2nd wife thing, it seems it is true but was not an official marriage or even a relationship of any sort. Instead, some kind of providential sex thing. I don't understand it completely and will probably read up on it more. Afterall, I wonder what Sun Myung Moon considered providential about having sex with that girl. But anyways, I guess that means he really did have 3 wives (even if not all marriages were official). Problem solved! Jamesters 08:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The church itself never manufactured munitions. A business started by members did, and as far as I know continues to. Steve Dufour 12:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I've just started this article. Please check it out. Steve Dufour 13:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
This was just done. Oddly enough it seemed to be the first thing this editor did after joining Wikipedia. I don't have any real objection, however it does seem more normal for it to be on the right. Steve Dufour 10:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)p.s. I see he has also made a contribution to the Jerry Garcia article since then. :-)
Maybe the best thing to do is let anyone put in a quote but rotate them out after a week or so. That way the section would be constantly changing but always have a balance between different people's additions. Steve Dufour 22:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some problem with quoting Sun Myung Moon on his page. I think have a wikiquote page to provide many quotes is a good idea I also think any biography of a person should have quotations from that person so that a casual reader doesn't haven't wade through a lot of information."
I have put 6 quotes up while keeping the link to wikiquotes for more in depth research. I have put 3 what one might call inspiring quotes from him and 3 quotes that would be considered controversial. They are all referenced to their original webpage which is page run by a member of the Unification Church so I believe their accuracy. None is out of context but the original source can be easily accessed if anyone had a problem. I think this is a good compromise.-- Robbow123 19:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I don't think providing true quotations that are not taken out of context is controversial. Even with a reference to wikiquotes that wouldn't stop anyone from adding quotes in the future or if a quote section was removed it would not someone to create a quote section. Quote sections are common in biographies. If the quotes section is abolished in all of Wikipedia than I have no problem. After doing some research I see that there are these blue boxes that refer people to other wiki projects like wikiquotes and wikimedia.
If you could create that for Moon then I think that's what should be done. As long as there is a quote section then people will be rightly encouraged to edit it and add quotes.
So if you know how to make one of those blue boxes refering to WikiQuotes than I am all for it. Thanks-- Robbow123 20:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I just took a look at it and that's what I had in mind. That way quotes can go there and others will know where to add quotes. If I get inclined I may even organize the quotes but this is a good start. Thank you-- Robbow123 20:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I had to include that much of the speech to put the words "homosexuals" and "dung-eating dogs". He did not say, "Homosexuals are dung-eating dogs" as is often repeated by people with a lower standard of caring about facts than should be practiced here on WP. Steve Dufour 03:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the people with a lower standard got the impression that Moon said "Homosexuals and fornicators are like dirty dung eating dogs" because in his speech of May 4, 1997
The topic heading before the paragraph you quote says that exact thing.
I imagine the headings were written by someone else other than Moon. But since it is on the official Unification Website [unification.org] the statement reflects the feelings of that organization even if they were not direct quotes from Moon.
I was personally present when he gave the original speech, transcribed the audio tape and edited the speech, and added the headings to it. He spoke forcefully, and unequivocally, about his disgust for those who practice promiscuous sex and homosexuality, and compared them to dogs who eat dung. I made no effort at all to downplay or minimize what he said, as I agree with him. It originally appeared on my web site at http://www.unification.net/1997/970504.html. Damian Anderson 04:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If you like you could say "The editor of his speech on unification.org summarized Rev. Moon as saying, "Homosexuals and fornicators are like dirty dung eating dogs." However I think it is better to quote the whole part of the speech itself. Something should be said, I think, because this one remark is one of the most talked about things in Rev. Moon's whole life. Steve Dufour 01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Also note that his purpose in making the remarks was to warn members against immorality. Steve Dufour 02:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
If there is a section in this article titled "Views on Communism" then there also needs to be a section called "Views on Democracy" -- don't you think? Moon's
"critique" of Communism (a political ideology) also stems from the fact that he is proposing a political
"counterproposal" to Communism and Democracy both called "Unificationism" -- a
theocratic monarchy.
Sincerely
Marknw 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I took this out after considering it for a long time. It shouldn't be hard to find real people who have made these criticisms. Steve Dufour 10:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, although the cited article (which was initially being used an evidence that "some Christian ministers began joining" Rev Moon's crusade), does say that 'mainstream Christian leaders' plural condemned the intiative. StuartDouglas 11:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Just took it out again. I am in 100 percent agreement that the criticism (or persecution) of Rev. Moon by Christians should be covered in the article. However the material needs to be cited. After you do that you can work on "some civil libertarians", "some Jews", and "some gay rights groups". Remember that this is a biography of a living person. Steve Dufour 12:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, not all criticism is considered persecution. When it's simply a theological disagreement, the UC does not brand this a persecution. For example, hardly any other Christian church thinks the fall of man had anything to do with sex, let alone the seduction of Eve by the archangel Lucifer.
It's when they treat us differently that it's persecution, like being branded "non-Christian" by the national council of churches - or when they put our leader in jail (see Sun Myung Moon tax case) for something that Catholics do routinely.
Anyway, persecution can be a good thing: when it helps "pay indemnity". -- Uncle Ed 19:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The article states that some people consider the Unification Church to be a cult, saying it is primarily politically motivated. Islam has no divisions between state and religion, they are one and the same, but Islam is not usually referred to a as a cult. Are purely political organizations cults, or does a religious aspect have to be involved? Does the fact that one religion is against Communism as a system of evil make it a cult? There are other religions that are not too fond of Communism either. - MSTCrow 01:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I am removing this quotation as obviously inaccurate. The things that the "Concerned Women of America" state are not true are facts. It's unfortunate but the history of Christianity has indeed been marked by inquistions, crusades, forced conversions, demolition of indiginous cultures and witch hunts. And the cross was its symbol (the shields of the crusaders were painted with a large cross). To deny this is to deny history. My point in emphasising this on Moon's page is that 1) this "take down the cross" action of Moon's and the fact that many actually did it is an historical event and 2) Moon's motives for doing this are transparent and just as Gorenfeld has stated - the replacing of Jesus with himself as Messiah. 4.246.203.34 15:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Cut from article:
That's not why Father Moon and U.S. Christians began this campaign. Steve, help me out here.
Also, the observation "Moon wants you to dump Jesus and crown Moon king instead" seems very negative. It's also completely opposite to the church's view point about the relationship between Rev. Moon and Jesus. How can Gorenfield say "dump Jesus"? That's a misrepresentation.
If there is controversy, real actual dispute over why the campaign was conducted, we should cover it as a controversy - not quote some freelancer making gratuitous cracks.
Please supply some legitimate criticism from someone with a following, not some hack's personal opinion. -- Uncle Ed 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
...
I will be glad to look up some info for you.
...
...
You might need to sit down for this. Note: I am not Christian myself, however the following research was done by those who are.
"Abraham was the father of faith, Moses was a man of faith, Jesus was the son of man, trying to carry out his mission at the cost of his life. But they are, in a way, failures." (Sun Myung Moon, "Victory or Defeat," from Master Speaks, March 31, 1973, p.1.) He also teaches: "This means that the failures of Adam and of Jesus Christ have been restored by the appearance of True Parents." (Rev. Moon, Today's World, January, 1995, p.8) http://www.newcovpub.com/unification/wfwp3.html
Here Moon is quoted saying that rather than the church's immaculate conception, Jesus was illigitimate. http://www.newcovpub.com/unification/howwas.html
"I am now making a prototype of the perfect family, accomplishing what Jesus could not do." (Sun Myung Moon, Today's World, May, 1995, p.12.) http://www.newcovpub.com/unification/isrev.html
Get a load of THIS one: "Bring in the flocks. Bring in the sheep and bring them to the throne of your True Parents. Bring them to the throne of our True Parents, the mighty throne of heaven. And I will place the Crown of Glory on our True Parents' head. I will lead them. I will show them that the Lord of Lords and the Kings of Kings and the King of Glory is our precious Lord Sun Myung Moon and his beloved bride Hak Ja Han. They reign as king and queen of the entire universe. And that I, Jesus of Nazareth, known as the Christ, bow in humility before them. I bow before them. Any who will follow me must do the same. I bow before the name of True Parents. I bow before our precious Lords, our True Parents, Sun Myung Moon and Hak Ja Han." (Purportedly by the spirit of Heung Jin Nim Moon, The Victory of Love, NY, NY: The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, 1992, pp. 65-66).
"Jesus: Reverend Sun Myung Moon! Thou art the Second Coming who inaugurated the Completed Testament Age!" http://www.usasurvival.org/ck7502.shtml
"Until our mission with the Christian church is over, we must quote the Bible and use it to explain the Divine Principle. After we receive the inheritance of the Christian church, we will be free to teach without the Bible. Now, however, our primary mission is to witness to the Christian church." (Sun Myung Moon, Master Speaks-7: "Bible Interpretation," 1965, p.1.) http://www.newcovpub.com/unification/isrev.html
"The time has come when the whole world must be concerned about me. From now on, American Christianity must follow me." http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/sunmyungmo189468.html
"Am I foolish and insignificant or am I great? I gave all the individuals in the world cause to kneel down in front of me." (Rev. Moon, Today's World, March 1995 p.6)
Now I ask you, what is the difference between Moon and the lunatic in an asylum who thinks that he is God or Napolean? Besides money I mean. I'm sorry but this guy is a dangerous megalomaniac.
It was said above:
This is true and is in fact the same as the Unification Church position:
This is from Wikipedia:Words to avoid:
...
Can anyone explain why edits that not were reverted according to the history tab do not show up hours later when googling the article. This is the second time I've seen this now. 4.246.205.168 13:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ...
:You might be confusing "truth" and "accuracy". As long as that guy said it, and he really is a spokesman for CWA, then the quote qualifies as verifiable
I disagree. The quote is not verifiable because it is not true. No offence with the following comments but please consider, would you use a quote from some swastica wearing neo-nazi holocaust denier stating that it never happened just because he is speaking in opposition to some other hate group which is the focus of the article? I know that sounds extreme but the cross was viewed exactly the same way by millions during the past 2,000 years. IOW, why use a quote that is obviously wrong as a counter to another wrong?? Shouldn't Wikipedia be about the facts and not about spreading revisionist misinformation? About quality information not just whatever fills up space? Should we include a quote from Bozo the Clown uttering nonsense just because he might have an opinion on some subject? Additionaly, the inclusion of this quote does an injustice to the many many who suffered and died at the hands of Christendom. Can't another quote from a Christian group objecting to the removal of the cross campaign be found? I'd think there'd be plenty. At the least a caveat ought to be added that the statement does not hold up to history. For these reasons I am again removing the quote. If someone still insists on putting it in then more power to them. 4.246.206.198 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Long winded. The short comment is, this guy from the CWA is attacking a wrong with a falsehood. How does that help the Wikipedia reader? 4.246.206.198 21:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Cut from "crowning" section:
This link has nothing about "participants ... misled". Apparently this blogger is in the process of re-arranging his web site.
On the other hand, I recall reading a year or two ago about a phone and mail campaign to get participants to recant their support. I'm not sure what percentage were persuaded to do so or on what grounds.
Frequently, supporters have changed their mind when faced by adverse publicity. Whitney Houston ditched the RFK Blessing, and Bill Cosby said he "didn't know" the Family Federation was connected to Rev. Moon! I don't know how they get to be world-class entertainers and still have no idea about groups trying to ride on their coat tails. Don't they have publicists and lawyers? -- Uncle Ed 21:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
...
About the take vs tear down the cross debate. I provided a link. This is from the Church's own publication not somebody's memory of it. Here it is "tear down" http://www.tparents.org/UNews/Unws0304/cross_bronx.htm. Now in the interests of honesty I also found a link from their publication that said "take down" [25]. The links don't take up too much room so I've included them both.
...
Wow, here I am a non-Christian arguing for them. I can't believe that polyannaish advertisment about the cross in the article. All that stuff about hw the cross is bad sure flies in the face of scripture.
"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me." Luke 9:23 New International Version
"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" 1 Corinthians 1:17-18
"May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which[a] the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." Galatians 6:14
"For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ." Phillipians 3:18 (Watch out Moon!)
"And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" Colossians 2:15
Although I might agree with you that wearing a cross would be like wearing a amulet in the shape of a gun around your neck, it is obvious from the Bible why Christians might be offended at the denigration of the cross. For them it is a symbol of redemption. 4.246.206.198 23:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. Even church scholars feel that the legalizing of Christianity in 325 C.E. was the beginning of the long slide for the church.
Interesting. No mainstream church though {and I'm not aware of any others) believes that being "washed in he blood" makes one sinless but only that ones sins are forgiven. The NT teaches that 'Christ died so you don't have to' since the "wages of sin are death" Gal. 6:23, and since everyone sins since the fall of Adam they needed this redemption to escape eternal death and/or hell. The Judaic ritual, commanded by Yahweh in the OT, of sacrificing a lamb every year before Jesus' crucifixion (though some say that he was actually impaled) is said to have forshadowed this. To denigrate Jesus' sacrifice as a failure and the cross as an object of repulsion would equally be viewed as a great heresy in Christendom. Additionally, as shown above, the Bible (NT) itself takes the view that Jesus' death was necessary and right, and we all know that the Bible is viewed as the infallible word of God by many or most Christians. To say something contrary is to invite trouble.
Good - to a point. Sometimes one needs to take a side (while being fair even to that side) especially when something is clearly wrong. It would be hard to write an article about Nazi Germany for example without making any value judgements.
As of the current edit I only want to re-add the link to who attended the crowning. I do think that Moon's controversial quotations should be added to the wikiquote page [26]. I would advocate dividing the uncontroversial quotes from the controversial ones on the page. 4.246.207.49 15:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I was trying to add back the link to who attended the crowning but the edit page contains a different page than the current page. The local edit link is different itself. Must be a wiki problem. 4.246.207.49 15:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I see that the comment from the CWA is back so I would like to put up a bit of counterweight to that.
...
Adding quotes. About the comment from the CWA, as one can see the ridiculous comment and the balancing comments I added is only serving as a wandering detour and distraction from the article. I still think it should be removed. 4.246.200.116 18:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, it says in the first paragraph that Rev. Moon has said that he is the Messiah. The article really should be about how he has tried to carry that out. Of course criticisms of him and his followers should be included in the article. But differences of opinion about religion should not take up about half of the article as they do now. Otherwise why not include a few paragraphs about how the Hindus disagree with him because he is not a vegetarian? Steve Dufour 05:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I cut out:
Generally speaking, people can make up their own minds as to how they feel about the cross without the opinions of "others", Mr. Schwartz, the WP article on the Crusades, and "the great majority of Christians". On the other hand, if the whole "take down the cross" thing is really so important then maybe it should have its own article. Steve Dufour 06:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Steve: "I don't think not displaying the cross is considered "heretical" by the great majority of Christians
That's not what I said Steve. Again:
Nevertheless, to the great majority Christians themselves the cross is revered as the symbol of Christ's sacrifice and their redemption. Any denigrating of it is considered heretical.
Moon's and the UC's comments about it can be regarded as denigrating it. However if you want We'll leave this out.
Disappointing Steve to check back and see that bit by bit the article is losing valid criticism. Examples:
1) The removing of the reference to the crowning of Jesus as the Messiah. You said "I'm not sure they intended to crown him as the Messiah", but IS clear that that is how HE perceived it. "Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent." And I doubt that they were completely unaware that that is how he sees himself. But consider, if you don't say what he was crowned as that will only beg the question in the reader's mind "okay so he was crowned but crowned as WHAT?". Obviously he was crowned as something, (and it wasn't baseball's MVP). Why not say what that was, at least in his mind. Additionally look at those bowed heads of members of congress [27].
2) The removal of the comment Many, though, see another, more suspect motive behind the campaign - it's a convienient stepping stone, they say, for the usurpation of Jesus with Moon, especially given some of Moons own comments about Jesus which you said you were removing because it was "unsourced". Yet the very next sentence provided a source.
3) The quiet removal of "Everyone I talked to was furious" said Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.) spokeswoman Chris Lisi." while removing material to the cornation page.
4) The removal of the line To the great majority Christians the cross is revered as the symbol of Christ's sacrifice and of their redemption.
In another month will the article be indistinguishable from a Moon publication? 4.246.201.106 02:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Just bringng out a small flaw. You may do with as you wish.
That's not what that sentence said. It said that the removal of the cross (and Moon's claiming to be the messiah, his put downs of Jesus etc.) is viewed "by many as a convienient stepping stone to the usurpation of Jesus with Moon". That doesn't mean that he will actually be able to accomplish this feat - except perhaps in the mind of his followers. I think this sentence should remain. If the word "many" is a stumbling block might I suggest changing it to "some"?
Might you re-add it then?
Well some people might feel that it's ALL ABOUT the cross, and the whittling away of its significance while simultaneously puffing up Moon.
As I said it's in your hands. I commend you for what you, as a Unificationist, have left in. Subjective objectivity is no easy feat itself. Just please try to keep it fair. 4.246.203.11 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)