This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Unification Church and politics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 9 April 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge and/or transwiki.. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This contains content from Unification Church political activities, Unification Church, and Draft:Automatic theocracy and these pages are necessary for attribution. Fix this later
We have a very large archive period of 400 days. This is meant to be the case because this is an old page which was revived so a lot of people might want to reply to necroed threads. In 2025 change the archive period to something more reasonable
It is fine with me if the two articles are combined. Perhaps under a new name as was discussed on the other article's talk page. Steve Dufour 12:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think a Wikipedia should cite a transalted quotation by a church leader, when the Academic Dean of the church's seminary has said the quotation was mistranslated and has offered a corrected translation. -- Uncle Ed 14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
"... but Andrew Wilson had the recorded speech re-translated and exposed the discrepancy. Here is the word-for-word re-translation:"
The article takes a negative, one-sided slant -- or it did before I started NPOVing it. Essentially, Mark is using Wikipedia to express the POV that Rev. Moon is against democracy (implying that he is therefore "bad" or "anti-American").
The church view as that Rev. Moon is for democracy, and that democracy is good (albeit not perfect). I daresay the UC view adheres rather closely to the observation by Winston Churchill:
I do not find fault with Mark for his work to date. However, he is only presenting one side. I think church proponents (and ex-members who while disagreeing with church POV actually understand it fairly well) should do the labor of expressing what the church actually teaches about politics.
I daresay the UC view on politics is more complex and/or nuanced than a simple "good or bad" evaluation of democracy. Even more complex is the notion of "government" in the desired and predicted "Kingdom of Heaven".
This will not be a quick fix. The Wikipedia List of types of democracy references 28 different articles! -- Uncle Ed 14:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Cut from article:
According to some other non-UC interpretations of church publications, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church and main author of the Divine Principle, is not only "True Parent" but as a monarch of a future worldwide nation, roughly corresponding to the biblical "Kingdom of God," known as 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 described in a nationwide USA Today advertisement, which quoted spirits ostensibly speaking through mediums, as the leader of all religions. "Cloud of Witnesses" and the church website "Messages From Spirit World."
First of all, the fact that Rev. Moon is the founder of the church and called a True Parent by members isn't a "view of church critics". If it's not common knowledge, it should be moved up (out of this section).
Secondly, it is indisputably true that Cheon Il Guk is a future worldwide nation, roughly corresponding to the biblical "Kingdom of God," and this is an especially clear and concise description. Let's keep it! (But it's not a "view of critics" either.)
The disputed part is whether the church teaches (or members believe) that Rev. Moon intends to become, or ought to be, or is destined to be a monarch in God's Kingdom. I'd like to see some sources (if only from church critics) on this point.
We should distinguish more clearly between (A) church teaching about Rev. Moon and God's kingdom and (B) how and why critics object to church teaching. Also of interest is critics' disputes with members over what the teaching is.
I daresay there are scads of critics who object to the idea of any being (God or mortal) controlling human life on earth. How these objections intersect with church teachings is fodder for an article in itself.
We need to say more about Rev. Moon's concept of the role of the Messiah, especially as it contrasts with the messianic expectiation of the Jews 2,000 years ago and with traditional Christian interpretations. This will touch upon topics such as Christology and the doctrines of the Trinity. I think I started to write a Failure of John the Baptist article. But the doctrine of Last Days and Second Coming also need more explanation.
It's impossible to describe church members' views of Rev. & Mrs. Moon without reference to these 5 articles. -- Uncle Ed 15:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi All,
May I respectfully suggest that you go back and read the Divine Principle Part 2 (half of the DP):
Part 2
Introduction to Restoration
Chapter 1: The Providence to Lay the Foundation for Restoration
Chapter 2: Moses and Jesus in the Providence of Restoration
Chapter 3: The Periods in Providential History and the Determination of Their Lengths
Chapter 4: The Parallels between the Two Ages in the Providence of Restoration
Chapter 5: The Period of Preparation for the Second Coming of the Messiah
Chapter 6: The Second Advent
This whole section of the "Divine Principle" is a self-referential religious and specious rewrite of Western political history based on a literal interpretation of Bible stories. The conclusion clearly outlines a near future led by the family of the "Lord of the Second Advent" (Moon) and the "analogous" political parties organized by his followers, with all people speaking Korean. The political vision codified in the Divine Principle is a
fundamentalist/literalist theocracy headed up by a royal family. It is characterized by supporters in benevolent terms and kind means, but it is a religious theocracy none-the-less. Considering our mixed and often repressive and violent history, past and present, with well intended religious theocracies, don't you think we owe it to the Wikipedia public to make the Moon/UC political ideology and intentions clear?
It is impossible to attempt a definition of Moon, his movement, and beliefs without describing his codified political ideology and goals at length. Like other "isms" unificationism has the strong world view that "History" (with a capital H) has a definite purpose, and that purpose is outlined exclusively in their teachings. This world view is the main motivating factor behind the well known unificationist political activism. Moon's vision of religion is a strongly external and political vision. Moon's version of a "messiah" is also a political one of kingship and monarchy. Moon's recent proclamations, coronations and palace building point to the fact that he intends to carry out what was already outlined in his book. In our culture we have drawn a clear line between religion and government so that all religions and all governments can be free. Moon and his ideology crosses that line. This point needs to made clear in an article like this.
Divine Principle
Marknw
06:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Something that is deleted with reasons given on the talk page should either be modified, or arguments made here against the specific objections. Marknw, you have not done this. Your editing style is decidedly anti-social.
Hi Exucmember
I am sorry for my sloppyness, but I haven't been here for months. I'm not sure what you are so upset about. My understanding of Wiki Etiquette is you don't out right delete something just because it is not your own POV.
Last year Moon had a huge coronation ceremony at a multi-million dollar palace and delcared the establishment of a new national government. Some reference to this needs to be added to this article. It is a clear real life example of his politics.
"True Love King"
How is it that you could think it does not belong in this article?
Please put it back. Or at least suggest a better way of including it.
Respectfully Marknw 17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Exucmember, Just because you and Uncle Ed, and Steve Dufour critique something does not mean I agree with your critiques just as you don't agree with mine at times. This article is about the political ideology of Moon and his organizations. What better place than here to bring out his politcal beliefs and actions? I think it is much more powerful to let Moon's own writings and his actions speak for themselves, don't you? If I insert that sentence it is just my opinion isn't it? What I added was something more direct:
Unknown user (possibly
Marknw???)
17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who said thsi unsigned comment but I think it is resolved now, or at least I do not understand the context. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:06, 3 July 2023 (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."
As they say, "a picture is worth a thousand words."
Respectfully
Marknw
23:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Exucmenber
Thank you for your response. I don't find people on Wikipedia hard to work with. I enjoy it. I enjoy the exchange of ideas. I don't find you hard to work with. I don't have as much spare time as some folks to get the Wiki Etiquette down pat, sorry. Does that mean I should stay away from it? You don't make me feel very welcome at times.
I think you are splitting hairs here. What is the overall point you are trying to make? Are you saying that Moon does not see his roll in the church, society and history as a
monarch?
"True Love King" is a site maintained by Bret Moss who maintains another site
tenbiggestmyths.net where he attacks Buddhism using the Divine Principle. At
definingmoment.tv he defines himself as an ambassador in one of the UC organizations and graduating from the Unification Seminary. How affiliated does a person need to be? Also the content of the
"True Love King" site is exclusively very official looking news, photos and speeches by Moon and church officials.
I defend the right for the Unification Church to exist. I think it is very important, however, that Wikipedia be used as a balanced outlet for information. The articles now on Wikipedia about the UC do not give a clear picture. They are heavily edited by folks like you, Uncle Ed and Steve Dufour to reflect a certain point of view. This needs to be balanced.
You guys seem to be very critical and Wiki legalistic about certain views and styles, yet when you read the UC articles on Wiki, they are full of blatant POV slant and sloppiness that you seem to turn a blind eye to.
My question is: can anybody have criticism for certain church doctrines, positions and actions without being characterized as "negative" or a "church critic?" Sincere criticism can be a very positive thing. Can someone even inside the church community itself be critical of Moon and his doctrines without being ostracized? Are these doctrines not to be questioned and examined?
My concern is that the "Divine Principle" itself reads like a political manifesto with definite calls-to-action politically. Recent events within the church seem to show that Moon and his followers have taken the biblical "Kingdom of Heaven" literally rather than as a symbolic metaphor. This has real life political implications. This point needs to be made more clearly in these articles. Whether you see these ideas and events as "positive" or "negative" would be up to the reader.
To quote Moon again:
"we are now in an era where we must create a new constitution...The constitution which will protect the era of God's Fatherland will be built from True Parents' words, from the words of Hoon Dok Hae. Now, since the laws of the world of man do not apply in this age, we must live in the manner of the True Parent, True Teacher and True Owner. Since Father has allowed you to inherit the position of the owners of Cheon Il Guk, you must all now live as the owners of God's Fatherland and as the citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven living a life of one [devoted] heart, one body, one mindset and one harmony until that era of total unification comes about centered on your relatives and kin who act as your nation." - source
Church members all over the world now seem to be required to pledge allegiance as citizens of the nation of "Cheon Il Guk" -- which seems to be an actual place in Korea -- not just a kind of metaphor.
It would be a disservice to all to bury this out of sight and mind. You all have relegated this subject over here to the Wiki hinterlands, whereas I would prefer it to be a part of the main Unification Church article.
The way you have re-characterized the first sections, "Future leadership of the world, etc.", is written form the point of view that only "church critics" think Moon has political ambitions. This is not relevant. The subject is NOT the "future leadership of the world" or "what the church critics say", it is the actual political ideology of Moon that is simply and clearly codified in his Divine Principle, speeches and actions -- not just someone's opinion. This point is totally lost in the way the article has been changed. Again, I ask you, can we please restore the main idea of the section to the way it was written before. Thank you.
Worth reading:
"Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them."
The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
- Thomas Jefferson, 1786
Oath of citizenship (United States)
With all due respect Marknw 16:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Content here is merged from the other talk page. History is somewhat confusing due to multiple merges but here it is for record keeping Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I gave the page a start. Lots more work to be done. Steve Dufour 13:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Steve ("The word 'church' can also mean a group of people who share a common religion, as well as meaning an official organization.") Recently he made edits to Unification Church which say it began in the 1940s. This view is incompatible with the narrow "Unification Church = HSAUWC" view. But nobody has challenged Steve's edit. There is another, more serious problem with the narrow view, namely FFWPU. Is it merely a name change, as Andrew Wilson has written, or is it a different, broader organization? Because even members can't agree on this point - and even if they could it would be more confusing for the public - it seems better to define the Unification Church as the community of Unificationists. This is probably where readers are going to look anyway. They are not going to know all the various names, which may look like proliferation out of control, and may even open Unificationists up to the charge of creating "front groups" to hide their identity. So a shorthand for the broad definition could be "Unification Church = the community of Unificationists."
My only strong opinion is that I think a decision needs to be made first on this general point, and perhaps also about whether to merge Unification movement into Unification Church, before creating an article named "Unification movement and politics," which presupposes the narrow definition of the Unification Church. - Exucmember 16:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Ed, I think you've missed Steve's point, which is easy to do, because we're not used to thinking that way (but his proposal might be better - less confusing - for Wikipedia readers, as it has a precedent in the use of the word "church" in Christianity). We usually think of "Unification Church" as a shorthand for (the informal name of) HSA-UWC. Steve is proposing that we think of the "Unification Church" instead as "the community of Unificationists." This would make the "Unification Church" broader than HSA-UWC. No one here is advocating that the broader Unificationism should be equated with HSA-UWC. HSA-UWC is legally and conceptually distinct from CARP and other Unificationist legal entities. That is not the issue. The issue is whether "Unification Church" is HSA-UWC or whether "Unification Church" is "the community of Unificationists" (thus different from HSA-UWC). I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but let's be clear about what the issue is. - Exucmember 21:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Ed, I still think you didn't get the point, because your long entry didn't address it directly.
Anyway, if the merge doesn't happen (I tend to agree with Ed that they could be kept separate), what about these as article titles: Unification Church political views and Unification Church political involvement? This follows closely the wording of Andries's suggested combined title (but which I think is way too long as a single title). - Exucmember 18:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Andries is right about "moving" the page. However, the role of politics in the Unification Movement is complicated. We contributors will benefit from temporarily having several articles.
I am interested in several subtopics:
There is no quick fix. Moving or not moving an article is not the issue. There is tons of work to be done here. Unification Church and politics is a huge topic, and relates to almost every church controversy:
We need to work together to do a lot of writing. I suggest we let Andries take the lead, as he is the most neutral among us. -- Uncle Ed 14:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Critics like to point out that a UC-owned company was an "arms dealer", as if it were self-evident that helping the military of any country is automatically unethical for a church. They usually hint that the motive was either (1) to make more money for Rev. Moon; or (2) to give him a power base of weaponry to take over the world by force.
The article should re-cast this as a dispute between critics and supporters of the church, with explicit quotes from each side.
We need a quote from a named critic who says that the church's "arms dealing" was wrong - and preferably the critic's reasoning as well. -- Uncle Ed 17:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Cut from article:
These sentences were in the "improper ties" section. I fail to see how obeying a government's orders constitutes an "improper tie". Also, some churches in the U.S. own stock in arms manufacturers. Does this mean those churches have improper political ties? -- Uncle Ed 10:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I boldly moved the page, because the topic is not just internal church politics, or political "church activity" but also the views of the church about politics. Of particular concern is the church's expression of its ideals about the Kingdom of Heaven.
Everyone is worried whether Rev. Moon will use force to impose his authority. Some prominent church opponents insists that this is the plan, even implying or outright stating that they (the critics) know this, even though members have been duped and are unaware of the "truth".
Despite their taking various quotes out of context, I am unconvinced. I don't think I could be a successful computer programmer (and a Wikipedia pioneer for that matter!) and simply not "get" what Rev. Moon was all about in his core. -- Uncle Ed 18:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, if the merge doesn't happen (I tend to agree with Ed that they could be kept separate), what about these as article titles: Unification Church political views and Unification Church political involvement? This follows closely the wording of Andries's suggested combined title (but which I think is way too long as a single title). - Exucmember 18:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Google search for Unification + politics OR political
--
Yes on both points: we're only considering a "politics" merge and STEVE should be included. Sorry, Steve, for accidentally leaving your name out. It wasn't deliberate...
The big question is how to do the merge. I propose that we identify the issues first:
However we merge the articles, I think the dispute over "force vs. freedom" needs to be considered. I don't want a whitewash that ignores claims of abuses perpetrated by church leaders or which leaves out questionable passages cited by opponents ("My word will serve almost as law ... automatic theocracy"). But I don't want the article to take as its basis the assumption that that the UC has plans for a totalitarian dictatorship.
We need a balanced, neutral article which explores why the two sides disagree over what the church intends to do. -- Uncle Ed 16:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I keep seeming to skirt the issue. I favor separating "views" from "involvement". Talking about ideals is one thing. Creating organizations or promoting specific candidates or policies is another thing.
How about an article entitled Kingdom of Heaven (Unificationism) about the ideal way of life Rev. Moon espouses - and methods for transforming current political, economic & religious systems into this ideal? Then another article about political organizations formed by Unification Church members, such as CARP, CAUSA, etc.? Steve, any comment? -- Uncle Ed 19:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Cut from accusations section:
Use of the word "however" implies that the previous sentence was a lie. The article should not take sides like this. Especially at the end of the section, where it takes a "summing up position".
If Moon himself ordered members to campaign for Reagan (which is illegal), Wikipedia should provide proof. How about a quote from a church website including the alleged boast?
Before I Google this, I'll just say that I recall the situation 25 years ago:
The distinction among Rev. Moon's followers, between (A) those who are "church staff" (like pastors and missionaries) and (B) those who are in legitimate, independent educational or political organizations is crucial here. -- Uncle Ed 14:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The page Unification Church political views exists; a complementary article or section is "involvement." Content should be moved to appropriate pages, or, in the case of a merge, to appropriate sections. We should not have political views on two different pages, as is the case now. Whether there is a merge or not, there is a natural division/categorization of "views" and "involvement" which has been implicit in the comments that everyone who has said anything about it on this talk page. So whether there is a merge or not, the content needs to be organized into distinct parts (pages or sections).
I personally agree with Ed that keeping them separate seems to make more sense. - Exucmember 18:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't my intention to imply anything, and personally I don't think it implies what Ed says it does. I have raised this issue 3 times in bold type over the past few weeks and no one has responded. I specifically complained in bold type that no one has responded, and still no one responded. Before making any more changes, how about if we TALK ABOUT IT! I believe there is a natural division between ideas/philosophy/views/ideology on the one hand, and involvement/activism/activities on the other. I believe this categorization would apply to two sections in the case of a merge, or two articles in the case of keeping them separate, which Ed expressed a preference for, and which I think makes sense. If people think the title "Unification Church political involvement" is biased, let's come up with an alternate phrase that means the same thing. Before the name change, the organizational scheme was sloppy and needed to be fixed. - Exucmember 18:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I am re-thinking my position on the merge. Any political involvement by Unificationists is highly likely to be based directly on political views. Almost any Unificationist would give a philosophical or ideological reason for any political position. Thus separating views from involvement into two articles may be undesirable and, practically speaking, over the long term, unmanageable. Having sections in the same article about views and involvement would keep them closer, and would allow naming flexibility that would address Ed's concern (e.g., "Political involvement by Unification Church members," "Political involvement by Unificationists," "Political involvement and the Unification Church," or even simply "Political involvement"). - Exucmember 18:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally, it's hard for me to believe that an intelligent person who investigates the UC in detail in an objective way could come to either of the two cynical conclusions that you mention. It's hard even for a judge to get an unbiased sample (and impossible for him to get one in much depth). Obviously, the judge's opinion was outweighed by all the others in government who granted and sustained tax-exempt status for the church over all these years.
Even though Sontag later concluded that the UC was losing some of its spirituality and becoming "more of a business," he said after his 11-month in-depth study in the mid-70s that one of his firm conclusions was that the movement was genuinely religious. (Btw, that quotation ought to be in the UC article if it's not already.)
I suggest we encourage people to comment soon on a merge. After the decision, let editors hash things out with sourced comments as they like on politics and the UC (not an area of particular interest of mine, btw). - Exucmember 19:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Sontag: The political involvement of the church is highly controversial too. Would you comment on just how you see your own and the church's relationship to political and secular authority?
Moon: Our movement is basically a spiritual and religious one. We are destined to change the world because our goal is not just spiritual but physical as well. It involves everybody. How shall we do it? Not by military take-over or violence, but through a process of education, particularly education of the leadership of nations. This is where the Unification Church and I get involved. We go out and witness about God not only to the multitude of people on the streets, but also to those people who could lead the country toward God. Our desire is to put new life into their hearts, that they might become God-centered leaders. This is our process for changing the world.
I do not think in terms of taking over the power or government of a nation. I am not ambitious to become a senator or the head of state of this or any other country. But as a messenger of God, my responsibility is to relay the message of God to the people who actually run the country and the society, to those who can actually influence the nation.
During the Watergate incident people said, "Oh, this is a political organization; they support Nixon. Their motivation is political." However, what did we actually do? We organized the Prayer and Fast Committee for a national emergency, and we prayed and fasted a lot. Many members of the Unification Church fasted three days and even seven days consecutively for the nation. We prayed on the Capitol Building's steps in an overnight vigil. We prayed in front of the White House and at the Lincoln Memorial, We prayed for congressmen, for senators, and for the President. I remember President Lincoln issued a proclamation to call the entire nation to confess its national sins and to pray for mercy and forgiveness during a time of emergency.
I felt that the Watergate was a national emergency. It was a moral crisis, a national sin. While American soldiers were dying in Vietnam, the people at home were deeply wounded internally and divided. They were losing faith in everything and couldn't support those abroad. I felt that the healing grace needed could come only from God, and the power of prayer could invoke it. I wanted to call this nation to its knees in repentance. I hoped the President would issue a proclamation again, as Lincoln had, calling for national prayer. Our movement wanted to set an example, and we did. I wanted to awaken the conscience of America. Is this a political action?
If you read my Watergate statement, you will find it is a genuine sermon filled with the same spirit as the Sermon on the Mount: Forgive, love, unite. These three words truly express the essence of Christian teaching and are far from any political ambition. [3]
The article cites Moon's statement that his group eschews coercion, commenting on a spirit of voluntarism that is different from the Taliban. I think this ignores the heavy handed psychological methods used by Moon's organization to obtain followers and keep them in line which are consistent with the social psychology of cults generally which have their most success with naive and gullible persons who may be going through some type of personal crisis, what in the law is sometimes referred to as "undue influence." While it may be true that the Taliban is not above coercing people to cooperate with them, for the most part their members are enthusiastic volunteers, "jihadis" who have gone out of their way to join it at great personal sacrifice to themselves, a fact that is actually fairly well-known.
It was suggested on another page that the title of this article should be something like "Unification Church political activities." I think that's a good idea since it is easier to document activities than something more vague like "involvement." Borock ( talk) 18:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Cut from article:
In what way is the above "political"? Please restore the paragraph if you can answer that. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 17:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The organisations that constitute the UM exist solely to further the aims of Moon, and thus of the UC. They were created by and are funded and led by the church hierarchy. Thus any political activities they have are controlled by the church and in furtherance of its aims. The UC is the sole unifying element to this 'movement'. This retitling appears to be an attempt to obscure this power relationship, and to attempt to confer on the UM an independence that it completely lacks. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 18:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't understand ExUC's comment about making a case. Or perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
What Donald Fraser and his committee were saying is the opposite of what I understand about the Unification Church and the Unification Movement. They told people that the church itself, in combination with all the other groups created by Rev. Moon and his followers constitute a monolithic or integral unit, i.e., the Moon Organization.
As such, they insisted that each part of the 'organization' be treated the same as all other parts. Specifically, this would mean that the church proper ought to have its tax exemption revoked, because the MO engages in political activities (which US churches are forbidden to get inolved in). Likewise, donations should be taxed just like business income, because the church-owned and church-related businesses are taxpaying entities and therefore the other parts of the MO should also pay taxes.
Their argument was that the entire MO was a combined theological, political and commercial enterprise - and a menace to America as well, one which must be stopped.
As a matter of historical interest, we should cover the Fraser perspective in detail, because to this day there are people who agree with his viewpoint - even if the IRS does not. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
This article *may* need to be updated. It is unclear as while a lot of the base article comes from 2006, it has parts which are far more recent. Still I feel it focuses too much on the 20th century and not enough on recent events of the 21st century past the death of Moon and involvement with the more contemporary far right. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)
The Political teachings section is pretty important, as it illustrates the theological and philosophical justification for their positions.
But it is also the most outdated of sections and seemingly the one with the most neutrality issues
A large portion of the section was written around 2006 and as such it both doesn't cover more recent statements by the church, and it also was from a time when wikipedia had different standards for articles.
Many of the contributors have openly stated church membership, and in general it seems like a more confrontational section than other ones, both in criticism and support. Less reporting on the facts. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
This page is super old and I think it’s history makes it very interesting. One of if not the oldest page that has been turned back into an article. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 14:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Currently the archiving time is set to 400 days. I think we should reduce it once the old comments get cleared out and it’s clear the necroed convos won’t get any replies. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 08:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, first time doing this, sorry if I get something wrong. Most of the Automatic Theocracy section is marked as "original research," completely uncited, goes off topic, uses language with what I might consider an unbiased tone, and basically attempts to refute the actual cited, better worded parts of the article. Think it's probably best just to wipe it off. 69.43.65.127 ( talk) 08:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Unification Church and politics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 9 April 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge and/or transwiki.. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This contains content from Unification Church political activities, Unification Church, and Draft:Automatic theocracy and these pages are necessary for attribution. Fix this later
We have a very large archive period of 400 days. This is meant to be the case because this is an old page which was revived so a lot of people might want to reply to necroed threads. In 2025 change the archive period to something more reasonable
It is fine with me if the two articles are combined. Perhaps under a new name as was discussed on the other article's talk page. Steve Dufour 12:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think a Wikipedia should cite a transalted quotation by a church leader, when the Academic Dean of the church's seminary has said the quotation was mistranslated and has offered a corrected translation. -- Uncle Ed 14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
"... but Andrew Wilson had the recorded speech re-translated and exposed the discrepancy. Here is the word-for-word re-translation:"
The article takes a negative, one-sided slant -- or it did before I started NPOVing it. Essentially, Mark is using Wikipedia to express the POV that Rev. Moon is against democracy (implying that he is therefore "bad" or "anti-American").
The church view as that Rev. Moon is for democracy, and that democracy is good (albeit not perfect). I daresay the UC view adheres rather closely to the observation by Winston Churchill:
I do not find fault with Mark for his work to date. However, he is only presenting one side. I think church proponents (and ex-members who while disagreeing with church POV actually understand it fairly well) should do the labor of expressing what the church actually teaches about politics.
I daresay the UC view on politics is more complex and/or nuanced than a simple "good or bad" evaluation of democracy. Even more complex is the notion of "government" in the desired and predicted "Kingdom of Heaven".
This will not be a quick fix. The Wikipedia List of types of democracy references 28 different articles! -- Uncle Ed 14:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Cut from article:
According to some other non-UC interpretations of church publications, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church and main author of the Divine Principle, is not only "True Parent" but as a monarch of a future worldwide nation, roughly corresponding to the biblical "Kingdom of God," known as 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 described in a nationwide USA Today advertisement, which quoted spirits ostensibly speaking through mediums, as the leader of all religions. "Cloud of Witnesses" and the church website "Messages From Spirit World."
First of all, the fact that Rev. Moon is the founder of the church and called a True Parent by members isn't a "view of church critics". If it's not common knowledge, it should be moved up (out of this section).
Secondly, it is indisputably true that Cheon Il Guk is a future worldwide nation, roughly corresponding to the biblical "Kingdom of God," and this is an especially clear and concise description. Let's keep it! (But it's not a "view of critics" either.)
The disputed part is whether the church teaches (or members believe) that Rev. Moon intends to become, or ought to be, or is destined to be a monarch in God's Kingdom. I'd like to see some sources (if only from church critics) on this point.
We should distinguish more clearly between (A) church teaching about Rev. Moon and God's kingdom and (B) how and why critics object to church teaching. Also of interest is critics' disputes with members over what the teaching is.
I daresay there are scads of critics who object to the idea of any being (God or mortal) controlling human life on earth. How these objections intersect with church teachings is fodder for an article in itself.
We need to say more about Rev. Moon's concept of the role of the Messiah, especially as it contrasts with the messianic expectiation of the Jews 2,000 years ago and with traditional Christian interpretations. This will touch upon topics such as Christology and the doctrines of the Trinity. I think I started to write a Failure of John the Baptist article. But the doctrine of Last Days and Second Coming also need more explanation.
It's impossible to describe church members' views of Rev. & Mrs. Moon without reference to these 5 articles. -- Uncle Ed 15:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi All,
May I respectfully suggest that you go back and read the Divine Principle Part 2 (half of the DP):
Part 2
Introduction to Restoration
Chapter 1: The Providence to Lay the Foundation for Restoration
Chapter 2: Moses and Jesus in the Providence of Restoration
Chapter 3: The Periods in Providential History and the Determination of Their Lengths
Chapter 4: The Parallels between the Two Ages in the Providence of Restoration
Chapter 5: The Period of Preparation for the Second Coming of the Messiah
Chapter 6: The Second Advent
This whole section of the "Divine Principle" is a self-referential religious and specious rewrite of Western political history based on a literal interpretation of Bible stories. The conclusion clearly outlines a near future led by the family of the "Lord of the Second Advent" (Moon) and the "analogous" political parties organized by his followers, with all people speaking Korean. The political vision codified in the Divine Principle is a
fundamentalist/literalist theocracy headed up by a royal family. It is characterized by supporters in benevolent terms and kind means, but it is a religious theocracy none-the-less. Considering our mixed and often repressive and violent history, past and present, with well intended religious theocracies, don't you think we owe it to the Wikipedia public to make the Moon/UC political ideology and intentions clear?
It is impossible to attempt a definition of Moon, his movement, and beliefs without describing his codified political ideology and goals at length. Like other "isms" unificationism has the strong world view that "History" (with a capital H) has a definite purpose, and that purpose is outlined exclusively in their teachings. This world view is the main motivating factor behind the well known unificationist political activism. Moon's vision of religion is a strongly external and political vision. Moon's version of a "messiah" is also a political one of kingship and monarchy. Moon's recent proclamations, coronations and palace building point to the fact that he intends to carry out what was already outlined in his book. In our culture we have drawn a clear line between religion and government so that all religions and all governments can be free. Moon and his ideology crosses that line. This point needs to made clear in an article like this.
Divine Principle
Marknw
06:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Something that is deleted with reasons given on the talk page should either be modified, or arguments made here against the specific objections. Marknw, you have not done this. Your editing style is decidedly anti-social.
Hi Exucmember
I am sorry for my sloppyness, but I haven't been here for months. I'm not sure what you are so upset about. My understanding of Wiki Etiquette is you don't out right delete something just because it is not your own POV.
Last year Moon had a huge coronation ceremony at a multi-million dollar palace and delcared the establishment of a new national government. Some reference to this needs to be added to this article. It is a clear real life example of his politics.
"True Love King"
How is it that you could think it does not belong in this article?
Please put it back. Or at least suggest a better way of including it.
Respectfully Marknw 17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Exucmember, Just because you and Uncle Ed, and Steve Dufour critique something does not mean I agree with your critiques just as you don't agree with mine at times. This article is about the political ideology of Moon and his organizations. What better place than here to bring out his politcal beliefs and actions? I think it is much more powerful to let Moon's own writings and his actions speak for themselves, don't you? If I insert that sentence it is just my opinion isn't it? What I added was something more direct:
Unknown user (possibly
Marknw???)
17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who said thsi unsigned comment but I think it is resolved now, or at least I do not understand the context. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:06, 3 July 2023 (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."
As they say, "a picture is worth a thousand words."
Respectfully
Marknw
23:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Exucmenber
Thank you for your response. I don't find people on Wikipedia hard to work with. I enjoy it. I enjoy the exchange of ideas. I don't find you hard to work with. I don't have as much spare time as some folks to get the Wiki Etiquette down pat, sorry. Does that mean I should stay away from it? You don't make me feel very welcome at times.
I think you are splitting hairs here. What is the overall point you are trying to make? Are you saying that Moon does not see his roll in the church, society and history as a
monarch?
"True Love King" is a site maintained by Bret Moss who maintains another site
tenbiggestmyths.net where he attacks Buddhism using the Divine Principle. At
definingmoment.tv he defines himself as an ambassador in one of the UC organizations and graduating from the Unification Seminary. How affiliated does a person need to be? Also the content of the
"True Love King" site is exclusively very official looking news, photos and speeches by Moon and church officials.
I defend the right for the Unification Church to exist. I think it is very important, however, that Wikipedia be used as a balanced outlet for information. The articles now on Wikipedia about the UC do not give a clear picture. They are heavily edited by folks like you, Uncle Ed and Steve Dufour to reflect a certain point of view. This needs to be balanced.
You guys seem to be very critical and Wiki legalistic about certain views and styles, yet when you read the UC articles on Wiki, they are full of blatant POV slant and sloppiness that you seem to turn a blind eye to.
My question is: can anybody have criticism for certain church doctrines, positions and actions without being characterized as "negative" or a "church critic?" Sincere criticism can be a very positive thing. Can someone even inside the church community itself be critical of Moon and his doctrines without being ostracized? Are these doctrines not to be questioned and examined?
My concern is that the "Divine Principle" itself reads like a political manifesto with definite calls-to-action politically. Recent events within the church seem to show that Moon and his followers have taken the biblical "Kingdom of Heaven" literally rather than as a symbolic metaphor. This has real life political implications. This point needs to be made more clearly in these articles. Whether you see these ideas and events as "positive" or "negative" would be up to the reader.
To quote Moon again:
"we are now in an era where we must create a new constitution...The constitution which will protect the era of God's Fatherland will be built from True Parents' words, from the words of Hoon Dok Hae. Now, since the laws of the world of man do not apply in this age, we must live in the manner of the True Parent, True Teacher and True Owner. Since Father has allowed you to inherit the position of the owners of Cheon Il Guk, you must all now live as the owners of God's Fatherland and as the citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven living a life of one [devoted] heart, one body, one mindset and one harmony until that era of total unification comes about centered on your relatives and kin who act as your nation." - source
Church members all over the world now seem to be required to pledge allegiance as citizens of the nation of "Cheon Il Guk" -- which seems to be an actual place in Korea -- not just a kind of metaphor.
It would be a disservice to all to bury this out of sight and mind. You all have relegated this subject over here to the Wiki hinterlands, whereas I would prefer it to be a part of the main Unification Church article.
The way you have re-characterized the first sections, "Future leadership of the world, etc.", is written form the point of view that only "church critics" think Moon has political ambitions. This is not relevant. The subject is NOT the "future leadership of the world" or "what the church critics say", it is the actual political ideology of Moon that is simply and clearly codified in his Divine Principle, speeches and actions -- not just someone's opinion. This point is totally lost in the way the article has been changed. Again, I ask you, can we please restore the main idea of the section to the way it was written before. Thank you.
Worth reading:
"Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them."
The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
- Thomas Jefferson, 1786
Oath of citizenship (United States)
With all due respect Marknw 16:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Content here is merged from the other talk page. History is somewhat confusing due to multiple merges but here it is for record keeping Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I gave the page a start. Lots more work to be done. Steve Dufour 13:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Steve ("The word 'church' can also mean a group of people who share a common religion, as well as meaning an official organization.") Recently he made edits to Unification Church which say it began in the 1940s. This view is incompatible with the narrow "Unification Church = HSAUWC" view. But nobody has challenged Steve's edit. There is another, more serious problem with the narrow view, namely FFWPU. Is it merely a name change, as Andrew Wilson has written, or is it a different, broader organization? Because even members can't agree on this point - and even if they could it would be more confusing for the public - it seems better to define the Unification Church as the community of Unificationists. This is probably where readers are going to look anyway. They are not going to know all the various names, which may look like proliferation out of control, and may even open Unificationists up to the charge of creating "front groups" to hide their identity. So a shorthand for the broad definition could be "Unification Church = the community of Unificationists."
My only strong opinion is that I think a decision needs to be made first on this general point, and perhaps also about whether to merge Unification movement into Unification Church, before creating an article named "Unification movement and politics," which presupposes the narrow definition of the Unification Church. - Exucmember 16:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Ed, I think you've missed Steve's point, which is easy to do, because we're not used to thinking that way (but his proposal might be better - less confusing - for Wikipedia readers, as it has a precedent in the use of the word "church" in Christianity). We usually think of "Unification Church" as a shorthand for (the informal name of) HSA-UWC. Steve is proposing that we think of the "Unification Church" instead as "the community of Unificationists." This would make the "Unification Church" broader than HSA-UWC. No one here is advocating that the broader Unificationism should be equated with HSA-UWC. HSA-UWC is legally and conceptually distinct from CARP and other Unificationist legal entities. That is not the issue. The issue is whether "Unification Church" is HSA-UWC or whether "Unification Church" is "the community of Unificationists" (thus different from HSA-UWC). I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but let's be clear about what the issue is. - Exucmember 21:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Ed, I still think you didn't get the point, because your long entry didn't address it directly.
Anyway, if the merge doesn't happen (I tend to agree with Ed that they could be kept separate), what about these as article titles: Unification Church political views and Unification Church political involvement? This follows closely the wording of Andries's suggested combined title (but which I think is way too long as a single title). - Exucmember 18:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Andries is right about "moving" the page. However, the role of politics in the Unification Movement is complicated. We contributors will benefit from temporarily having several articles.
I am interested in several subtopics:
There is no quick fix. Moving or not moving an article is not the issue. There is tons of work to be done here. Unification Church and politics is a huge topic, and relates to almost every church controversy:
We need to work together to do a lot of writing. I suggest we let Andries take the lead, as he is the most neutral among us. -- Uncle Ed 14:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Critics like to point out that a UC-owned company was an "arms dealer", as if it were self-evident that helping the military of any country is automatically unethical for a church. They usually hint that the motive was either (1) to make more money for Rev. Moon; or (2) to give him a power base of weaponry to take over the world by force.
The article should re-cast this as a dispute between critics and supporters of the church, with explicit quotes from each side.
We need a quote from a named critic who says that the church's "arms dealing" was wrong - and preferably the critic's reasoning as well. -- Uncle Ed 17:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Cut from article:
These sentences were in the "improper ties" section. I fail to see how obeying a government's orders constitutes an "improper tie". Also, some churches in the U.S. own stock in arms manufacturers. Does this mean those churches have improper political ties? -- Uncle Ed 10:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I boldly moved the page, because the topic is not just internal church politics, or political "church activity" but also the views of the church about politics. Of particular concern is the church's expression of its ideals about the Kingdom of Heaven.
Everyone is worried whether Rev. Moon will use force to impose his authority. Some prominent church opponents insists that this is the plan, even implying or outright stating that they (the critics) know this, even though members have been duped and are unaware of the "truth".
Despite their taking various quotes out of context, I am unconvinced. I don't think I could be a successful computer programmer (and a Wikipedia pioneer for that matter!) and simply not "get" what Rev. Moon was all about in his core. -- Uncle Ed 18:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, if the merge doesn't happen (I tend to agree with Ed that they could be kept separate), what about these as article titles: Unification Church political views and Unification Church political involvement? This follows closely the wording of Andries's suggested combined title (but which I think is way too long as a single title). - Exucmember 18:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Google search for Unification + politics OR political
--
Yes on both points: we're only considering a "politics" merge and STEVE should be included. Sorry, Steve, for accidentally leaving your name out. It wasn't deliberate...
The big question is how to do the merge. I propose that we identify the issues first:
However we merge the articles, I think the dispute over "force vs. freedom" needs to be considered. I don't want a whitewash that ignores claims of abuses perpetrated by church leaders or which leaves out questionable passages cited by opponents ("My word will serve almost as law ... automatic theocracy"). But I don't want the article to take as its basis the assumption that that the UC has plans for a totalitarian dictatorship.
We need a balanced, neutral article which explores why the two sides disagree over what the church intends to do. -- Uncle Ed 16:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I keep seeming to skirt the issue. I favor separating "views" from "involvement". Talking about ideals is one thing. Creating organizations or promoting specific candidates or policies is another thing.
How about an article entitled Kingdom of Heaven (Unificationism) about the ideal way of life Rev. Moon espouses - and methods for transforming current political, economic & religious systems into this ideal? Then another article about political organizations formed by Unification Church members, such as CARP, CAUSA, etc.? Steve, any comment? -- Uncle Ed 19:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Cut from accusations section:
Use of the word "however" implies that the previous sentence was a lie. The article should not take sides like this. Especially at the end of the section, where it takes a "summing up position".
If Moon himself ordered members to campaign for Reagan (which is illegal), Wikipedia should provide proof. How about a quote from a church website including the alleged boast?
Before I Google this, I'll just say that I recall the situation 25 years ago:
The distinction among Rev. Moon's followers, between (A) those who are "church staff" (like pastors and missionaries) and (B) those who are in legitimate, independent educational or political organizations is crucial here. -- Uncle Ed 14:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The page Unification Church political views exists; a complementary article or section is "involvement." Content should be moved to appropriate pages, or, in the case of a merge, to appropriate sections. We should not have political views on two different pages, as is the case now. Whether there is a merge or not, there is a natural division/categorization of "views" and "involvement" which has been implicit in the comments that everyone who has said anything about it on this talk page. So whether there is a merge or not, the content needs to be organized into distinct parts (pages or sections).
I personally agree with Ed that keeping them separate seems to make more sense. - Exucmember 18:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't my intention to imply anything, and personally I don't think it implies what Ed says it does. I have raised this issue 3 times in bold type over the past few weeks and no one has responded. I specifically complained in bold type that no one has responded, and still no one responded. Before making any more changes, how about if we TALK ABOUT IT! I believe there is a natural division between ideas/philosophy/views/ideology on the one hand, and involvement/activism/activities on the other. I believe this categorization would apply to two sections in the case of a merge, or two articles in the case of keeping them separate, which Ed expressed a preference for, and which I think makes sense. If people think the title "Unification Church political involvement" is biased, let's come up with an alternate phrase that means the same thing. Before the name change, the organizational scheme was sloppy and needed to be fixed. - Exucmember 18:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I am re-thinking my position on the merge. Any political involvement by Unificationists is highly likely to be based directly on political views. Almost any Unificationist would give a philosophical or ideological reason for any political position. Thus separating views from involvement into two articles may be undesirable and, practically speaking, over the long term, unmanageable. Having sections in the same article about views and involvement would keep them closer, and would allow naming flexibility that would address Ed's concern (e.g., "Political involvement by Unification Church members," "Political involvement by Unificationists," "Political involvement and the Unification Church," or even simply "Political involvement"). - Exucmember 18:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally, it's hard for me to believe that an intelligent person who investigates the UC in detail in an objective way could come to either of the two cynical conclusions that you mention. It's hard even for a judge to get an unbiased sample (and impossible for him to get one in much depth). Obviously, the judge's opinion was outweighed by all the others in government who granted and sustained tax-exempt status for the church over all these years.
Even though Sontag later concluded that the UC was losing some of its spirituality and becoming "more of a business," he said after his 11-month in-depth study in the mid-70s that one of his firm conclusions was that the movement was genuinely religious. (Btw, that quotation ought to be in the UC article if it's not already.)
I suggest we encourage people to comment soon on a merge. After the decision, let editors hash things out with sourced comments as they like on politics and the UC (not an area of particular interest of mine, btw). - Exucmember 19:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Sontag: The political involvement of the church is highly controversial too. Would you comment on just how you see your own and the church's relationship to political and secular authority?
Moon: Our movement is basically a spiritual and religious one. We are destined to change the world because our goal is not just spiritual but physical as well. It involves everybody. How shall we do it? Not by military take-over or violence, but through a process of education, particularly education of the leadership of nations. This is where the Unification Church and I get involved. We go out and witness about God not only to the multitude of people on the streets, but also to those people who could lead the country toward God. Our desire is to put new life into their hearts, that they might become God-centered leaders. This is our process for changing the world.
I do not think in terms of taking over the power or government of a nation. I am not ambitious to become a senator or the head of state of this or any other country. But as a messenger of God, my responsibility is to relay the message of God to the people who actually run the country and the society, to those who can actually influence the nation.
During the Watergate incident people said, "Oh, this is a political organization; they support Nixon. Their motivation is political." However, what did we actually do? We organized the Prayer and Fast Committee for a national emergency, and we prayed and fasted a lot. Many members of the Unification Church fasted three days and even seven days consecutively for the nation. We prayed on the Capitol Building's steps in an overnight vigil. We prayed in front of the White House and at the Lincoln Memorial, We prayed for congressmen, for senators, and for the President. I remember President Lincoln issued a proclamation to call the entire nation to confess its national sins and to pray for mercy and forgiveness during a time of emergency.
I felt that the Watergate was a national emergency. It was a moral crisis, a national sin. While American soldiers were dying in Vietnam, the people at home were deeply wounded internally and divided. They were losing faith in everything and couldn't support those abroad. I felt that the healing grace needed could come only from God, and the power of prayer could invoke it. I wanted to call this nation to its knees in repentance. I hoped the President would issue a proclamation again, as Lincoln had, calling for national prayer. Our movement wanted to set an example, and we did. I wanted to awaken the conscience of America. Is this a political action?
If you read my Watergate statement, you will find it is a genuine sermon filled with the same spirit as the Sermon on the Mount: Forgive, love, unite. These three words truly express the essence of Christian teaching and are far from any political ambition. [3]
The article cites Moon's statement that his group eschews coercion, commenting on a spirit of voluntarism that is different from the Taliban. I think this ignores the heavy handed psychological methods used by Moon's organization to obtain followers and keep them in line which are consistent with the social psychology of cults generally which have their most success with naive and gullible persons who may be going through some type of personal crisis, what in the law is sometimes referred to as "undue influence." While it may be true that the Taliban is not above coercing people to cooperate with them, for the most part their members are enthusiastic volunteers, "jihadis" who have gone out of their way to join it at great personal sacrifice to themselves, a fact that is actually fairly well-known.
It was suggested on another page that the title of this article should be something like "Unification Church political activities." I think that's a good idea since it is easier to document activities than something more vague like "involvement." Borock ( talk) 18:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Cut from article:
In what way is the above "political"? Please restore the paragraph if you can answer that. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 17:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The organisations that constitute the UM exist solely to further the aims of Moon, and thus of the UC. They were created by and are funded and led by the church hierarchy. Thus any political activities they have are controlled by the church and in furtherance of its aims. The UC is the sole unifying element to this 'movement'. This retitling appears to be an attempt to obscure this power relationship, and to attempt to confer on the UM an independence that it completely lacks. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 18:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't understand ExUC's comment about making a case. Or perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
What Donald Fraser and his committee were saying is the opposite of what I understand about the Unification Church and the Unification Movement. They told people that the church itself, in combination with all the other groups created by Rev. Moon and his followers constitute a monolithic or integral unit, i.e., the Moon Organization.
As such, they insisted that each part of the 'organization' be treated the same as all other parts. Specifically, this would mean that the church proper ought to have its tax exemption revoked, because the MO engages in political activities (which US churches are forbidden to get inolved in). Likewise, donations should be taxed just like business income, because the church-owned and church-related businesses are taxpaying entities and therefore the other parts of the MO should also pay taxes.
Their argument was that the entire MO was a combined theological, political and commercial enterprise - and a menace to America as well, one which must be stopped.
As a matter of historical interest, we should cover the Fraser perspective in detail, because to this day there are people who agree with his viewpoint - even if the IRS does not. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
This article *may* need to be updated. It is unclear as while a lot of the base article comes from 2006, it has parts which are far more recent. Still I feel it focuses too much on the 20th century and not enough on recent events of the 21st century past the death of Moon and involvement with the more contemporary far right. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)
The Political teachings section is pretty important, as it illustrates the theological and philosophical justification for their positions.
But it is also the most outdated of sections and seemingly the one with the most neutrality issues
A large portion of the section was written around 2006 and as such it both doesn't cover more recent statements by the church, and it also was from a time when wikipedia had different standards for articles.
Many of the contributors have openly stated church membership, and in general it seems like a more confrontational section than other ones, both in criticism and support. Less reporting on the facts. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
This page is super old and I think it’s history makes it very interesting. One of if not the oldest page that has been turned back into an article. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 14:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Currently the archiving time is set to 400 days. I think we should reduce it once the old comments get cleared out and it’s clear the necroed convos won’t get any replies. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 08:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, first time doing this, sorry if I get something wrong. Most of the Automatic Theocracy section is marked as "original research," completely uncited, goes off topic, uses language with what I might consider an unbiased tone, and basically attempts to refute the actual cited, better worded parts of the article. Think it's probably best just to wipe it off. 69.43.65.127 ( talk) 08:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)