Talk:Sun Myung Moon/Archive 2

The Critics and the Commies

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.

"Cult leader"

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.

I guess even 'Reverend' Moon needs somebody to help maintain the image of his self-proclaimed divinity.

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)

The following sources call the church a cult: The Washington Post [1], The Guardian [2], and Brittanica says "many people consider the church to be a cult" [3]. JBKramer 14:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Rotten.com has an interesting article on the reverend [4] -- MakeChooChooGoNow 15:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to focus on undeniably reliable sources. JBKramer 15:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Anybody who claims that 'Reverend' Moon is not a cult leader must be brainwashed themselves. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 04:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it utterly amazing that the administrators here on Wikipedia allow the truth to be edited out for fear of offending somebody. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 04:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We can say that According to periodical X or author Y Moon is a cult leader. We just can't state it as a "fact". We must state it as a "point of view". --Uncle Ed 20:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A Bit Tilted

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 get the feeling from reading this, that the author is doing a little bit of damage control for the Papists. And yes, they are the Papists. That's his or her right though, and to have acknowledged the controversy is better than ignoring it. As to whether the Papists 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 New York City (Never in Boston though, which is far superior to New York City!). 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, even those groups are not as Popish. Hell, my religion has been called a cult. It's all good, but they are Papists!

Okay, please don't anyone take offense at this; it is meant as a friendly jab at ignorance of an issue of religious bigotry and intolerance. The origin of the term "Moonies" is that it was intended as a demeaning and pejorative slur, and reflects prejudice. At least "Papist" was originally neutral. I added the Wikification in his paragraph (perhaps if he had been aware of the contents of that page, his comments might have had a different tone). -Exucmember 19:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, now, let's not fight. Amongst ourselves, we freely use the word "Moonies" much as urban blacks sometimes can be heard using the "N-word". I have vivid memories of singing "I want to be a Moonie in my heart" as an extra verse to Lord, I want to be a Christian. --Uncle Ed 20:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ed. I would nonetheless advocate against the word "Moonie" here on Wikipedia as I think (a) it's slang, (b) it's offensive to SOME, and (c) I personally think it tends to be primarily used by critics as a pejorative. I think it's comparable to "Jesus Freak" in effect on MOST of the readers we're writing for.riverguy42 (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph removed

I took out this paragraph, which has been floundering around being changed back and forth:

"Some critics describe Moon as a billionaire businessman (although Forbes Magazine does not include him on their list of billionaires; major assets are held in the church name) who uses his followers as political footsoldiers. They also accuse some conservative figures like Jerry Falwell of compromising their Christian beliefs to take his millions (Moon lent Falwell US$3.5 million for his struggling Liberty University.)"

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)

Good call, Steve.

This page is shaping up pretty well (at least compared to the Unification Church page; see my comments there soon), except for the quotations section, which is atrocious. The quotations should be representative of what the man has said in his life! At the moment, most of the quotations were very selectively chosen in an attempt by one ex-member to say something about politics in Rev. Moon's teachings. (That sort of thing should go in its own article, which I created - Politics in Divine Principle - but he didn't like it.) The "automatic theocracy" quotation should be kept - as an example of the problematic nature of simultaneous interpretation, and how it can lead to misleading results sometimes; Andrew Wilson's comments and retranslation must be included. Perhaps the quotations could be grouped by topic. -Exucmember 04:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the quotation section is bad. You could try putting them in order of date. That might make them seem more organized. Steve Dufour 05:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Corrections on material regarding tax crimes

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)

Thanks for your contributions. Steve Dufour 11:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yours, Famspear 13:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: I have added some detail about why the Reverend Moon requested that he NOT have a jury trial. As some readers may know, a defendant in a criminal case generally has a right to a jury trial. In this case, the prosecution successfully fought Moon's attempt to NOT have a jury trial. Moon was concerned that certain statements he made (now quoted in a footnote in the article) could adversely affect his chances in front of a jury. He wanted to have the case tried "to the bench." (Both jury trials and non-jury trials are fairly common.) Moon ended up with a jury trial, and a conviction.

I have not yet located any information that would either confirm or negate the article's assertion that the trial court did not allow mention of "religion." Yours, Famspear 04:43, 30 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:

[1] disputes over tax liabilities ten or a hundred times as much, have been regarded as mere accounting oversights when the taxpayer was popular, and [2] it doesn't make sense for someone to put his own money in the biggest bank in America and then give the money to a church without claiming that funds transfer as a non-taxable donation (it would have reduced Rev. Moon's adjusted income for that year to zero, and he wouldn't have had to pay ANY taxes on the money he spent on his family).

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)

They were probably by Ed Poor, a long time UC member, as am I, who has been active here on Wikipedia for quite some time. Steve Dufour 00:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's sounds like something I would write. Bush senior owed around 200,000 dollars and was simply permitted to mail in a check, no questions asked. Why did they make a federal case out of Moon, when the estimated liability was much lower? --Uncle Ed 20:31, 2 October 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)

Tax case its own article?

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)

I went ahead and did this. For one thing it seems that there are some people who are interested in the case itself as a legal issue without having any special interest in Rev. Moon. Steve Dufour 13:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I support it, and I intended to say so. It seems to me that any time there is one particular topic within an article that gets large (legitimately), that has a coherence of its own, and that (as you mentioned) may be of interest as an independent topic, we should consider making it a separate article. I thought these criteria were met also by the topic Politics of/in the Unification Church / Divine Principle, but the author of the borderline original research didn't agree. I still believe that his material needs some cleaning up, and I still believe quotations should be few and representative (not selective in order to prove a thesis). Btw, Isherwood's book may be a good source (or point to good sources) for some missing references. -Exucmember 16:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see Politics of the Unification Church as a separate article. See Wikipedia:making a spin-off for tips on organization and formatting. --Uncle Ed 13:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back Ed! Good idea. I promised Exucmember that I would start an article on UC opposition to communism, when I find the time. Maybe it could be included in the politics article. Steve Dufour 22:34, 3 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)

Thanks. That is something to watch out for. I also followed your link to the main fork article: Wikipedia:Content forking Steve Dufour 01:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, we should leave behind a reasonable summary of the material that is split out. Otherwise we are forcing readers to read both articles in order to get the basic facts. In this example, we should have a paragraph explaining the basics of the matter, including the nature of the infraction and the penalty. Not too long, but more than what we have now. -Will Beback 04:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Steve Dufour 11:54, 4 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)

Thanks Ed. Still it is a good point that all the new articles have a NPOV. Keep up the good work. Steve Dufour 22:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

How Many Wives?

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)

You have it a little wrong. The second marriage, to Myung Hee Kim, was a common law marriage that has always been a part of the official biography taught to members. This was not considered extra-marital by the Unification Church. The "providential" sexual relationships are of two kinds, one based on rumors or allegations by critics (including Chung Hwa Pak), and another that have been admitted by members of the True Family (including by Sun Myung Moon) but not acknowledged publicly. All such "providential" sexual relationships, however, were officially denied, and were hidden from the members. Those of the first type may or may not have actually happened (though I heard Dan Fefferman say he believes they did in the case of the p'ikareun/ 6 Marys). Those of the second type are now only denied by members who would rather not know the truth, as the evidence is pretty overwhelming. A son who was born from one such union confronted Hyo Jin Moon seeking acknowledgement as a member of the True Family. Nansook Hong reports in detail in her book the reaction of Mrs. Moon when she asked about this, and then about Sun Myung Moon's explanation to her justifying it. I don't think it's wrong to say that this particular "providential" sexual relationship (and resulting birth) is common knowledge among the members (but only in the last decade). In another case that would have fallen in the second category, Mrs. Moon and oldest daughter Yejin Moon adamantly protested Sun Myung Moon's plans to have a "providential" sexual relationship with the Korean woman whom he had blessed with Jesus, and Sun Myung Moon backed off and didn't go through with it. I think this one is pretty well-known among members who've been around for a while.

The situation with the first wife was that she wouldn't accept Sun Myung Moon's mission as messiah and the relationship he had to his disciples, but neither would she grant him a divorce. So he couldn't legally remarry for some years. What surprises me is that some long-time American member would write on Wikipedia that Hak Ja Han was the second wife, contradicting the official biography. I assume he thought that since this was technically correct, since Sun Myung Moon was not actually legally married to Myung Hee Kim, that it sounded better that there was only one marriage that didn't last. But in this interpretation Sun Myung Moon was an adulterer, something that member wouldn't want to say. I think this is an excellent example of something that is a little more typical than ideal in Korean culture (a pattern transported to a surprising extent into the culture of the Unification Church in America) of what outsiders call deception but which is really a person fooling themselves into thinking that they can say something that is technically correct from one point of view (or just slightly incorrect) but is actually misleading, and that it's somehow okay. In one sense we shouldn't be too harsh on the Koreans for this, as they lived in a society where honesty might be met with brutal repression in the first half of the 20th century and violation of rights and priveleges by the powerful during the second half. In other aspects, Korean culture has its strong points, but if American Unification Church members don't insist on honesty, fairness, transparency and other virtues which are relatively stronger in the West, the Unification Church in America can never succeed here. Outsiders might be surprised at the lack of awareness of within the American Unification Church of the need for correcting such obvious, basic problems. But any criticism by subordinates (or of course by outsiders) is seen as a threat by most Korean leaders, and, unfortunately, there is far too little reform-mindedness among the members. -Exucmember 21:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just trying to get the facts straight. So let me try to clarify this. He married his first wife Sungil Choi 1945 and they eventually divorced due to conflicts of beliefs. His second wife was Myung Hee Kim but they were not officially married. Now, was Sun Myung Moon still married to Sungil Choi when he had a relationship with Myung Hee Kim, and I'm not just talking legally, but was Sun Myung Moon's relationship with Myung Hee Kim considered extramarital or not? Then of course Sun Myung Moon's third wife is Hak Ja Han. So did he have an extramarital relationship with someone else while married to Hak Ja Han? If so, who was this woman he had sex with?

Also, Exumember I totally loved your wikipedia profile page! I really agree with you and those are some inspiring words! Ya, there are a lot of flaws in the Unification Church. Maybe I can one day be that member you speak of. Jamesters 00:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see the section expanded to include the events of his earlier marriages. After all this is supposed to be the story of his life. As a church member I don't think I am the right person to write it however. Steve Dufour 01:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

munitions manufacturing

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)

Quotations and simultaneous interpretation

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

Politics in the Unification Church

I've just started this article. Please check it out. Steve Dufour 13:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Why shift the picture to the left?

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.  :-)

Thanks for changing it back exucmember. Steve Dufour 20:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote section

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)

We can post as many quotes as we like to Wikiquote. However there are now far too many in this article. The usual rule of thumb in bios seems to be no more than five. -Will Beback 04:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I just checked out Wikiquote. Never noticed it before. I didn't start a new article since I wasn't sure how what the standards are. Steve Dufour 10:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the "Quotes" section should be deleted. People usually cherry pick quotations, often out of context, to prove a point with an unspoken agenda. The quotations chosen are often not at all representative of what the man has said, overall, in the many (surely over a thousand) speeches he's given in his life. There's a certain dishonesty in it. A brief quotation in a section on a particular topic to illustrate a point is a much better way to handle quotations. Keeping them in a separate section is just asking for a low quality result in perpetuity. -Exucmember 06:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and take out the section then, if that is what you feel is best. Steve Dufour 09:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I see exucmember has gone ahead and moved to quotes to Wikiquote, good work. Steve Dufour 00:33, 16 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)

Thank you for commenting. (I recommend commenting on a Talk page before making a controversial edit, to give time for those opposed to answer before they revert.) I mentioned above that "A brief quotation in a section on a particular topic to illustrate a point is a much better way to handle quotations." There are already such quotations in the article, and I don't have any prolem with more being added. The quotation section was originally added as a way for one editor to get his POV across by cherry-picking quotations that fit the point he was trying to make. There will always be the temptation for editors of this page to add such quotations in the future. That's why I said above "Keeping them in a separate section is just asking for a low quality result in perpetuity." What do you think about this problem? Do you have a proposal for solving it? You know that editors are going to come along and want to add a quotation to this section. Are you going to police it forever and tell all of them that their additions are not welcome? What do you think of having, as I've recommended, quotations that support statements made in the article? Advantages include a greater likelihood that the quotation will be representative, as the editor will have to justify some general statement about Sun Myung Moon. The "Quotations" section could be removed entirely and a link to Wikiquotes put in the "See also" section. -Exucmember 19:47, 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 didn't know how to do it either, but I was pretty sure I could figure it out. I went to the Winston Churchill page and took a look (figured they'd have it). There was a "wikiquote" template at the top of the "External links" section. I'm adding it and removing the "Quotations" section. Is this what you had in mind? -Exucmember 20:42, 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)

---

"Dung-eating dogs"

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 FAMILY FEDERATION FOR COSMIC PEACE AND UNIFICATION AND THE COSMIC ERA OF BLESSED FAMILY

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)

Recently this edit had the effect of "toning down" Moon's words, spreading his criticism more broadly across all forms of sexual immorality. Not one critic I've seen took Moon's words this way. So, I disagree with this "softening" of Moon's comments.

I think it's very clear from the original church published version, that Moon made a solid distinction between "free sex", "incest" etc., calling that behavior merely "confused", and only after and in direct response to his own rhetorical question on homosexuals does Rev. Moon introduce "dung".

As you read this, please pay attention to Rev. Moon's "rhetorical question and answer" device, a device common to virtually all his speeches. In here Moon asks two distinct questions and gives two distinct answers in leading up to "dung":

• "Because absolute settlement should be one vertical settlement, it cannot be swayed. It is centered upon one spot. Without establishing this absolute vertical settlement, there will always be the complications of zig-zagging and swaying in different directions. Without this absolute settlement there is room for free sex. Also incest will occur between grandparents and grandchildren and even mother and son. Far too many complications would occur without this absolute settlement. There is a loss of direction and we see this zig-zagging complicated phenomena taking place in America today. Sexual intercourse complications. Is the world around us a peaceful world centered upon God, or is it all confused? That is what is called free sex. (Q-A #1) What is the meaning of lesbians and homosexuals? That is the place where all different dungs collect. (Q-A #2) We have to end that behavior. When this kind of dirty relationship is taking place between human beings, God cannot be happy. That is what the secular world is like. As the lord of all creation, are we seeking that kind of world?"

I would observe that (a) Rev. Moon's introduction of "dung" (excrement) at this point (and not before) is a scatological reference clearly intended to be associated with homosexuals specifically, and (b) as such references are SO common in the anti-gay lexicon in all languages, I think it's fair to say that Rev. Moon is describing a spectrum of immoral behaviours in which "free-sex" is "confusion of God's intent" while homosexuality is worse -- "the place where dung collects" (anus), "dung eaters" etc. etc. Also note as a reinforcement that he refers in the singular ("this kind of dirty relationship") rather than plural ("these kinds of dirty relationships").

Based on the entire paragraph in context and the fact that everyone outside the Church took Moon's words to be anti-gay, I'm reverting the edit to match the generally accepted meaning of Moon's words among critics (and I've checked Google's news archives to confirm that the critical comments made do take the view that it was explicitly anti-gay). Now, if the Unification Church has answered critics by explicitly refuting the "gay specific" context in which his comments were taken, then we can add a statement to the effect that "the Church believes that Moon's critics have misinterpreted his statements..." and so forth. Otherwise I think it's WP:OR and synthesis. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Views on Communism "and" Democracy

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 think that sounds like a good idea.Steve Dufour 00:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There could also be Views on the Bible and Views on other religions. Steve Dufour 01:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Some Christians"

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)

It might be better to call it an anti-crusade. :-) Steve Dufour 15:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

True enough :) StuartDouglas 11:19, 20 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)

hmmm..... Could Rev. Moon's controversal points of view be given by themselves without the mention of spokespeople for the other side? I'm not sure if this would work. Steve Dufour 12:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now I see your point, that in a biography of a living person, the burden is higher, and that if there is negative uncited negative material it can be deleted immediately. I think this guideline is designed to prevent gratuitous criticism that may be damaging to someone, when in fact the allegations may be completely without merit, not having actually even been made except by that particular editor. In Rev. Moon's case, we know that certain allegations have been made, so sources should be provided. Perhaps tagging "some civil libertarians", "some Jews", and "some gay rights groups" now with the {{Fact}} tag and giving those who would like to preserve those allegations some reasable period of time to respond is appropriate. As far as this specific allegation, I thought StuartDouglas was saying that the allegation is cited by Rev. Moon in his speech. I guess I'll let him speak to that. -Exucmember 15:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no - apologies if I was unclear. All I did was change the text to better reflect the article which was being cited. Initially the text on the Rev Moon's article read "some Christian ministers began joining" Rev Moon's campaign, with a footnote to an external article which was supposed to support that statement. It seemed to me that the external article in fact said almost the exact opposite. I wholly take the point that in a bio of a living person the burden of proof for any statement is higher than for a historical figure, but I also think it's important that apparently supportive citations are exactly that - supportive. As it happens, I think Steve Dufour's change is fine. StuartDouglas 16:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I think I remember finding a citation somewhere just like that myself. The cited article was saying something almost exactly opposite of the assertion in the article that was supposedly supported by the citation!

And I agree that Steve Dufour's change seems fine. -Exucmember 17:57, 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)

Unification Church Cult Statement

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)

The Jehovah's Witnesses, which are utterly non-political, are also often called a "cult". Steve Dufour 15:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the text I think we're referring to:

• Other writers have asserted that Moon's anti-communism is a reaction to his personal suffering, as opposed to having any spiritual or religious basis. Critics have seized upon this point of view as evidence for their claim that the Unification Movement has primarily a political basis; thus, they argue, his Unification Church is a cult as opposed to a religion.

These are specific claims and so should have references. Which critics have said this? -Will Beback 22:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about "critics" per se, but 20 years ago a court judgment said the 'church' was less religious than "political and economic" - the opinion was later overturned or invalidated, but it was a common sentiment at the time.

Opponents frequently have argued that the church's views on political and economic matters are so intrusive into these areas as to disqualify the church as a bona fide religion. They seem to think there is a limit to how much religion should be allowed to affect politics.

This is their opinion, and it is relevant - however much church supporters (like me!) disgree with their point of view. --Uncle Ed 16:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Views of the cross

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)

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. --Uncle Ed 16:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW in the opening paragraph it says that Rev. Moon claims to be the Messiah. We probably don't need John's opinion about it. Happy Thanksgiving everyone, or whatever fall holiday you celebrate. Steve Dufour 16:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No, but the church's point of view clearly favors the idea that Rev. Moon is the Messiah, and this is probably the single must controversial aspect of church teachings. Indeed, one of the foremost aims of the church is to get recognition for Rev. Moon as the Messiah (or "True Parent" or "King of Peace", etc.) as part of what DP calls the Foundation for the Messiah. By the way, would you like to start writing that article? It's a red link right now. ^_^ --Uncle Ed 16:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

O.K. Give me some time to think about it first. Steve Dufour 16:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Added some more to what you did. It is not so easy to explain! Steve Dufour 18:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Cut from article:

which was started in the belief that the cross was a symbol of religious intolerance to many non-Christians, especially Jews and Muslims. Freelance journalist John Gorenfeld, who has researched Moon and the Unification movement, said, "You couldn't really spell it out any more explicitly short of renting a blimp to carry a fluttering banner."

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.

Cross as a symbol of conquest

It was said above:

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.

This is true and is in fact the same as the Unification Church position:

• "It was introduced by Constantine, over 300 years after the death of Jesus. What is of God always unites his children. The fact that the Cross is a symbol of division, shame, suffering and bloodshed prove that it is not of God but Satan." [5]

"Claims"

This is from Wikipedia:Words to avoid:

The word claim can be used to mean "assert, say". In this sense, it carries a very strong connotation of dubiousness: by using it, you suggest that the assertion is suspect. The American Heritage Dictionary notes this connotation explicitly in their definition of the word: "To state to be true, especially when open to question". Of course, there are other definitions of claim as well. These generally don't have the same connotation, and the word can be used freely in those senses. For instance, making a claim in court or claiming a piece of land are valid.

...

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)

Opposition from a salon.com staffer

Cut from "crowning" section:

According to blogger John Gorenfeld, most particants later said that they were misled about the event [6]

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)

Thanks, 198. I recognize all those quotes as "verifiable".

Remember, though, that in religion the interpretation of scripture is of paramount importance. What may be a symbol of redemption to one group may be a symbol of conquest (think Constatine) or of unmerited suffering (Unif. view).

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.

The distinction between "tear down" and "take down" is metaphorical, having to due with (1) violence and/or aggression vs. (2) voluntarism and permission. In contrast to the "take down the cross" campaign, partisans spoke of "tearing down" the Berlin Wall; no one asked permission, but crowds gathered and destroyed the wall by force.

Unificationists are well aware that Christians have traditionally viewed the cross as a "burden ... to take up" (like Simon of Cyrene who helped Jesus along the route to Golgotha) - and also viewed it as a symbol of redemption. I neglected to start an article on Redemption by the cross explaining the Unification view that believing in Jesus' resurrection provides tremendous spiritual benefits to the reborn Christian; there are limits to the salvific power of the cross, though, and believing that one has been "washed in the blood" and therefore may regard oneself as sinless is considered a great heresy in our 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.

Our general policy is to agree to disagree, which accords well with Wikipedia editorial policy. Each article on a controversial subject describes the opposing points of view without declaring either side as correct.

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.

More than 90% of Christians disagree with each of the various Unification viewpoints on Jesus, salvation and the cross. Articles should note the percentage of agreement or disagreement when this is known. --Uncle Ed 14:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Dividing the "controversal" from the "uncontroversal" might be harder than it sounds. But as far as I know no one has removed any quotes from the wikiquote page. Steve Dufour 16:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not refering to the quotes already there which a cursory reading of which all sound favorable to Moon, I mean the addition of the controversial ones (such as those I listed above).

If you add them with cites no one will remove them. Steve Dufour 06:00, 23 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)

Comments and opinions (about the cross)

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:

Others, though, see this reasoning as a convienient stepping stone for the usurpation of Jesus with Moon, especially given some of Moons own comments about Jesus.

Michael Schwartz of Concerned Women for America said, "The cross does not, by any means, symbolize a 'history of religious intolerance, forced conversions, inquisitions or racism. That is an outrageously bigoted statement."

On the other hand with regard to the Crusades we read that "Like pilgrims, each crusader" was "granted a cloth cross (crux) to be sewn into their clothes. This 'taking of the cross', the crux, eventually became associated with the entire journey; the word 'crusade' ... developed from this." Crusades. See also The Burning Cross Spanish Inquisition Witch-hunt Salem witch trials New Christian Marrano Morisco Ku Klux Klan

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.

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)

I removed Kingara's comment that says the same thing as Wilsons. Also it cleaned it up a bit and tried to give all the legitimate sides a voice. 4.246.206.62 08:35, 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.

I went ahead and took out the unsourced back and forth comments on the cross. This is an article about Rev. Moon, not one about the cross or about how people feel about the cross. Plus there was not any notable "blacklash" against the campaign by other Christians, which is shown by how far down USA Today (if it was them wrote the orginal story quoting Mr. Schwartz) had to dig to find someone in the Christian establishment who cared to make a comment on it. Steve Dufour 17:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Article is losing valid criticism

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)

1) The intro paragraph says that Rev. Moon has said that he is the Messiah. If the opening sentence said "Sun Myung Moon is a man who believes himself to be the Messiah" that would be fine with me also. However it is not clear that Representative Danny Davis crowned him as the Messiah.

Just bringng out a small flaw. You may do with as you wish.

2) I don't think that "many" would believe it was possible for Rev. Moon to "usurp" Jesus.

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"?

3) The coronation has its own article; Ms Lisi could be quoted there with no complaint by me.

Might you re-add it then?

4) The article is about Rev. Moon. Not about the cross or how the great majority of Christians feel about the cross. Steve Dufour 23:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well some people might feel that it's ALL ABOUT the cross, and the whittling away of its significance while simultaneously puffing up Moon.

If you want you could make a section "Christian reaction to Moon", or something like that. Steve Dufour 03:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Thanks. I think you are doing well too. BTW I would prefer not to see a totally positive article with all the controversy and criticism taken out. People would find that boring. Have a great Christmas. Steve Dufour 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvements

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)

John Gorenfeld article removed

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)

The page was removed because it didn't assert the notability of the subject, a requirement for biography articles. If you type "Template:Db-bio" in the search box, you can read the whole rationale. If you type John Gorenfeld and click to create the article (which does not exist at the moment), one of the links is deletion log, where you can see that User:Joyous! did a speedy delete based on "Db-bio" (I had to search for "Db-bio" to know what it meant). Something similar happened to me once. Personally, I think if a person seems to be notable (like this), some time should be given for the author to add a notability statement. How are we supposed to know all the rules? Just tell us! Wikipedia has a policy not to bite the newcomers, but it doesn't say anything about people like you and me, who might be called "sophomores." I recently got bitten for following a rule which seemed (obviously, to me) to take precedence over another rule (about which I was only vaguely aware). -Exucmember 17:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ex. I tried again, this time giving a link to an interview the NPR did of John. I don't think I will ever be an expert WPer! Steve Dufour 18:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your help. It should be safe now.

Do you think we could use the picture from his site? It seems to be from ABC news. Steve Dufour 18:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My impression is that "fair use" images constitute one of those zoo animal cages that "sophomores" like to stick their hands in. Some editors will insist that they're not allowed if a free photo of a living person could potentially be gotten, and will aggressively delete them regardless of what the stated policy seems to say. That happened to the pictures of UTS and Andrew Wilson. My advice is not to spend too much time defending it. Btw, did you ever follow up on those Hak Ja Han photos? -Exucmember 19:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I did find one picture on the encyclopedia project. I am not into photography myself so I don't have any pictures of her that belong to me to give to WP, otherwise I would. Steve Dufour 05:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"an extensive history of making political donations"

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)

Munitions

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)

"Munitions" is more appropriate. See definitions at article Munition. Smeelgova 07:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

According to what source is "Munitions" more appropriate?

Here is the definition you asked Steve to see:

• Munition is often defined as a synonym for ammunition. A narrower definition would include bombs, missiles, warheads, and mines (landmines, naval mines, and claymore mines) -- what munitions factories manufacture. These munitions are used on battlefields and war zones with lethal intent; unexploded ones may pose a hazard to civilians for years afterwards.

Kahr does not make bombs, missiles, warheads, mines or anything else intended for battlefield use. So according to the definition you cited, it would not apply, unless I'm missing something.

In South Korea, a church-related company was required by the government there to manufacture parts for a rifle (M16, I think) used by the South Korean armed forces to defend itself against North Korea.

It might be interesting to supply a link to other - better known, more popular - churches having ownership of (or substantial stock holdings in) arms manufacturers. I think you'll find that Methodists, Episcopals, etc., have a much higher percentage of their money in "munitions" than the Unification Church does.

Would you care to do the research? --Uncle Ed 12:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced

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)

I would much prefer that someone who had an interest in understanding the church from an intellectual interest would take part in editing these articles, rather than it be just a matter of debate between "critics" and "defenders".Steve Dufour 16:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I second Cwolfsheep's thoughts. It would certainly be most interesting to have researchers investigate this article - who have had no prior firsthand experience/opinions of the subject. So Cwolfsheep, if that's you, then research/edit away! Smeelgova 16:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Moon's Connections with Park Chung Hee?

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.

Other Issues

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)

Moon's political ideology and views on democracy

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."

Political statements in the Divine Principle

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

Political statements in Rev. Moon's Speeches

"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

Definitions of Theocracy

"...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.

See also

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)

Fact tag removed

I removed the tag from this sentence:

There have been objections toward 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'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)

Who says he's the Messiah?

Cut from intro:

He has said that he is humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent.<ref>{{cite journal| url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61932-2004Jun22.html| title=The Rev. Moon Honored at Hill Reception - Lawmakers Say They Were Misled| first=Charles| last=Babington| coauthors=Alan Cooperman| journal=Washington Post| month=June 23| year=2004| pages=A01}}</ref>

This sentence falsely asserts that Rev. Moon is calling himself the Messiah. The actual quotation in the newspaper article was:

• The Korean-born businessman and religious leader then delivered a long speech saying he was "sent to Earth . . . to save the world's six billion people. . . . 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." (ellipses copied from article)

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,

• The church considers Rev. Moon to be the Messiah. Additionally, the church asserts that dozens of departed saints, theologians and politicians in the spirit world have endorsed Rev. Moon as the Messiah.

We need to distinguish between:

• A said C, and
• A said that B said C

Clear? --Uncle Ed 11:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. However, in my opinion the most important fact about him is that he believes himself to be the Messiah. What we church members believe is not so important. Steve Dufour 01:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then let's quote him accurately. If he believes himself to be the Messiah, he must have dropped a hint to that effect now and then. --Uncle Ed 15:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Moon and Jesus

Cut from "cross and crown" section:

Salon.com writer John Gorenfeld said, "You couldn't really spell it out any more explicitly short of renting a blimp to carry a fluttering 'Moon wants you to dump Jesus and crown Moon king instead' banner."

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)

Criticism section gutted

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)

There seems to be plenty of criticism left. Steve Dufour 11:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"crush individualism"

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)

Put it back, or I'll crush you! ;-) heh, heh --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Steve, you should read more of Rev. Moon's words. It's true there won't be any crushing of individualism going on. Rev. Moon refers to the process as DIGESTION see here. riverguy42 (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think the comment probably refers to Rev. Moon's support for the idea that the benefits of "communal" salvation render the idea "individual" salvation obsolete. Or something to that matter. HEY...waittagoldarnminnit...isn't this idea of community salvation a bit like theocratic communism??? >;-) riverguy42 (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Seriously though Steve, a number of Rev. Moon's writings DO seem to point in the direction of a future in which "human beings will no longer be individuals". I think that's what Rev. Moon is pointing to when he describes a future in which the (Jesus) Christian idea of personal and individual salvation gives way to a collective salvation. riverguy42 (talk) 02:31, 13 December 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)

• Thanks Ed. I'm beginning to get a little clearer on Rev. Moon's ideas in this area. Perhaps not so strangely, I am seeing some interesting similarities between SOME of Rev. Moon's larger theological goals and the earlier teachings of Ernest Holmes and Divine Science. Perhaps some of Rev. Moons ideas in Divine Principle were derived from Divine Science? Back before Rev. Moon was born, Holmes also envisioned a kind of "unification", not just of world christianity but in the larger sense of ALL the world's faith traditions. This was based on what Holmes (after about thirty years of studying virtually every faith on the planet) came to understand as the "Golden thread of Truth", that runs through all the world's faith traditions. Holmes saw himself as a teacher, and asked his followers (originally, a diverse group from many different churches) to encourage thier home church congregations to study and pray on the "Golden Thread of Truth" that unites, and that this would naturally result in more focus on that which unifies as opposed to that which divides. I lament the fact that Rev. Moon's ideas (specifically, the means by which they are expressed) have yielded so much divisiveness. I think you might find that Divine Science is not only fully compatible with your current beliefs (Divine Science asserts that ALL religeons are true for their believers), but may be complementary.riverguy42 (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Information in service of a cause

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]

• Rather than just pull out one of the three M-W definitions to support an argument against using the word...riverguy42 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

• ...let's look at all three definitions of propaganda (my emphasis):

1: (capitalized) a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions

2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

riverguy42 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that (for example) the Washington Times has an admittedly biased view on behalf of the Neoconservative wing of the GOP (as opposed to the paleo-conservative roots of the GOP), then it is not necessary to impute falsehood in order to accurately describe the Washington Times as a "propaganda" tool. Nevertheless, as I have previously stated, the word MUST be used carefully as it certainly can be pejorative. In my view, the extent to which more than twenty years of operating losses at the Times have been and continue to be subsidized by the Unification Church to the tune of about three billion dollars indicates that the evidence supporting use of the word propaganda vastly outweighs any concern about using the word based on it's potentially pejorative impact. I suppose we could replace the word "propaganda" with "heavily Church subsidized pro-neoconservative partisan media communications", but that would be cumbersome and even more pejorative, methinks. riverguy42 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• I would also say that the Unification Church's defensive use of comparisons between the Pope/pontiff and Rev. Moon also invites fair use of the capitalized Propaganda (Def#1) as well as propaganda (Defs #2 and #3), and here, the etymology of the word may also be helpful:

Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623.riverguy42 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

• I think we're in agreement here, especially as this is a biography of a living person. I will (first and foremost) spend my time adding citations to some of the other unreferenced stuff, and use the time to "bone up" on UC doctrine and history.

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)

I was asked to give my opinion. "Propaganda" is a POV term, except when used in the narrow sense of an official government system of information. So we shouldn't adopt that POV by describing the Times as a propaganda effort, or using that term in the heading. On the other hand, it is a term that's been used, not just in pubdit's columns but also in the congressional report. Quoting an SF Chron article that quotes the report:

• A 1978 House subcommittee report...described what was then Moon's only English-language paper in this country, the New York City Tribune, as "a propaganda instrument for the Moon organization" employed to "attack and discredit" Moon's many detractors.

So can use the formulation some have called it "propaganda". Whatever we say it should be kept to a proportionate weight. The life of Rev. Moon has many noteworthy aspects yet we need to keep the article short enough to be readable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Will. Thanks for weighing in with your opinion on using the word "propaganda" to describe Unification Church owned/controlled/subsidized media. I have not ever heard this opinion before, in which the word "propaganda" is automatically deemed to be merely POV unless used "in the narrow sense of an official government system of information". The etymology of the word and it's definitions both clearly contradict this, and in fact the word has it's etymological roots in Church-controlled systems of information, not in Government systems. Is there a Wikipedia precedent you can point to to explain this seeming contradiction? Thanks (again) riverguy42 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Does Rev. Moon's media represent "advocacy journalism"?

(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:

"Advocacy journalism is a genre of journalism that intentionally and transparently adopts a non-objective viewpoint, usually for some social or political purpose."

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?

update: The Unification Church POV can't claim advocacy journalism as an alternative to Propaganda because of lack of transparency. A quick look at the Washington Times website, where you will find no reference anywhere to the fact that it is owned/operated/controlled/subsidized by the Unification Church, pretty clearly confirms "no transparency". Unification Church ownership is hidden behind the deceptively named "News World Communications" corporate "parent". A further, and more telling sign of the extraordinary lack of transparency results from a site search of the Washington Times for "Unification Church". Incredibly, this search yields ZERO hits, not ONE SINGLE Washington Times news or editorial that even acknowledges the existence of the Unification Church, much less describing it's relationship to the paper (note you have to exclude the three hits that all point to reader responses and one blog). Now, similar searches on a "control" term such as "scientology" yields a stunningly different result. Clearly there is compelling evidence here of an organized, sustained and long-term policy in place at the Washington Times to self-censor any news around it's controversial relationship with the Unification Church, and to even keep the WORDS "Unification Church" out of the paper --- combine this with Rev. Moon's own words, "I used the Washington Times"...and there simply is no other answer. I think the case for the word "propaganda" is pretty strong.

riverguy42 (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

If I used Wikipedia to "defend" my church, then I have made a mistake. Advocacy is discouraged here. Anyway, I'm not sure about the fine line of difference between advocacy journalism and propaganda. Using a newspaper to crusade against evil by exposing corruption and other wrongdoing is generally considered good, while "propaganda" is generally considered bad.

If a newspaper tells the truth in its articles, and the result is that the people are inspired by the difference between their good ideals and society's ills - and then do something to change things - that is more of a "crusade" than advocacy journalism I think. But that takes us far from the topic of this article. Unless you want to hear more about media and other organizations that Rev. Mono has inspired or founded. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Greetings again Ed! This is a talk page and your advocacy is not only allowed here, but necessary (as this is a BLP), and...(at least by me) welcomed. You are most open about your POV and potential COI, and your voice in the discussion can therefore be heard in context -- so no apology needed.

Anyway...support for your logic above rests on "If a newspaper tells the truth...to crusade against evil...in support of good ideals"...all rests on someone's personal belief that the underlying agenda is "good" and not "evil", and you thenceforth assert that Moon's media agenda is "good", therefore it should be referred to as advocacy and not propaganda.

Perhaps invoking an outside opinion here might help.

From Abraham Lincoln, Address at Sanitary Fair, Baltimore, April 18, 1864:

"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."

Propaganda is a word, like tyranny. When it is used to describe Unification Church media operations, most members oppose it. When it is used to describe points of view in opposition to Rev. Moon, many Church Members embrace it. But it is nonetheless the word that is used by the very critics in their own criticisms -- and that is why I used it in the original subsection under "Criticism". So, in this context -- first off, the characterization of UC activities as "good" and opposing views as "evil" is the POV of the Unification Church. Secondly, the term propaganda makes (at least technically) no such distinction between "good and evil". Third, it is well known by expert propagandists that the best propaganda organ is one that is 90-95 percent truth, with the lies and distortions hidden among the "camoflage" of truthful elements. For example, this is one likely reason why the operating losses of the Washington Times has had to to be subsidized by $3 billion of Unification Church funds since 1982. If this is true, then the Times would not, indeed it cannot be allowed to operate as a "for profit" paper, because in this construction, the very PURPOSE of the paper is to provide a large body of truthful work in which the lies/distortions can be embedded. Nobody ever said here that the larger body of Washington Times stuff is "evil", or "lies", if it were then the paper would be useless as a propaganda tool. Nevertheless -- given all the evidence we can see here, the most accurate and meaningful description of the criticism of Rev. Moon and The Washington Times here uses the words "propagandist" and "propaganda" respectively, as the major media critics themselves do use teen.

I will reiterate that I need to hear an argument against using the word propaganda to describe the criticism of Rev. Moon that is devoid of UC POV, especially as the editor who reverted my edit has both COI and POV, reflected clearly in history.

riverguy42 (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

• I'll look...can you direct me to the discussion?

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)

Hi again Ed. First off, thanks (again) for treating this topic seriously and fairly, and for your earnest efforts around reaching a concensus here.

re: "if you know of anyone who is saying that a "truthful work" contains embedded lies and distortions",

Maybe I should not assume you pay as much attention to politics as I do. There are literally hundreds of instances.

Here's just one example - "The big NEA Sept-11 Lie; How the Washington Times helped create a myth about the teachers' union and Sept. 11 that has become conventional wisdom"

Now, in this case, the target of the lie is organized labor - teacher's unions. This kind of stuff has been the hallmark of Unification Church media since 1982. I don't want to overload the article (or even this talk page) with dozens of references around negative stuff, just want to make sure that the article represents fairly the reasons why Rev. Moon is so controversial in this area. The critics call Rev. Moon a propagandist. So...that's the criticism and I can no longer see ANY reason to avoid the word, fair enough?

Theocracy dispute

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.

• It is essential to mention that the association does not imposes its own principles on others; all who are involved in the peace process, mostly as appointed Ambassadors for Peace, participate out of their own conviction. --Dr. A. Abdul Santoe, European Representative, Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at-Lahore, The Netherlands]

So the "fear" quotes need to balanced with the "faith & trust" quotes. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Mind control

Removed from article:

The APA's pronouncement that there is no scientific merit behind the theory of mind control weakened the legal basis for deprogramming claims in the United States.

Remind me to google this. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here it is:

• The report was carefully reviewed by two external experts and two members of the Board. They independently agreed on the significant deficiencies in the report. [11]

Courts decided not to accept "brainwashing" as an excuse for crimes committed by Americans in the US, since there is no such thing as brainwashing as a scientific concept. [12]

This should be explained in greater detail at Brainwashing or Mind control. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This is is fully covered in APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

In particular DIMPAC#APA_memorandum_-_dismissal_of_DIMPAC_report, which reads"

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."

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section removed

I removed this whole section, some of it could be put back however if the information is cited:

Other criticisms: theocracy, anti-semitism, anti-gay, views on women

Moon, perhaps one of the most controversial religious leaders, has been widely criticized. Some civil libertarians consider his call for unity between religion and politics is contrary to the principle of separation of church and state.

There have been objections toward 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 (see Unification Church and anti-Semitism).

In a speech to church members in 1997, Moon said: "What is the meaning of lesbians and homosexuals? That is the place where all different kinds of dung collect. We have to end that behavior. When this kind of dirty relationship is taking place between human beings, God cannot be happy." and referred to homosexuals people as "dung-eating dogs".[13]

Rev. Moon's views on women as "objects" in a subject-object relationship with their husbands generated further criticism. In 1996, Moon summarized these views;[14]

"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."

I have never heard of any civil libertarians criticizing Rev. Moon on the issue of church and state. Mainly because their interest is to protect individuals against the powers of government. In fact the ACLU in New York supported him in his tax case vs. the US government. Also uncited.

The statement about the Holocaust is uncited. It is a legitimate criticism so could be put back with a cite.

The speech cited was not mainly about homosexuality, so it is misrepresented. There is also no cite that says it caused controversy or criticism.

The inclusion of the quote about women is original research. The cite from Robert Parry's site does not show that this "generated further critism." Mr. Parry certainly has the right to criticise as much as he likes but he is motivated by his own political ideology, not by anything Rev. Moon says. To say otherwise is also original research.

Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note, a number of editors responded to my somewhat heated (and overly long) diatribe in reaction to the removal of this section. I think there is now a consensus forming among the editors involved, and thanks (especially) to Ed Poor for mediating. If anyone is interested, the entire dialog is archived on my user talk page.riverguy42 (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

====Major SNIP==== ....I'm out of patience. riverguy42 (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're out, have some of mine? ;-) Doctor Ed (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

O.K. Here is a suggestion. How about making a "criticism" section to Divine Principle and moving the "subject/object" "controversy" over there?Steve Dufour (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. River, do you agree? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the controversy and criticism that have been generated (from what I see) are based more on Rev. Moon's post-Divine Principle speeches and talks. "Dung eating dogs" is not (I think) in The Divine Principle. I think the criticism is leveled at Rev. Moon himself, so I'm not seeing the reasoning behind taking it out of the bio and putting it into "Divine Principle". For another example, see my reply to Ed on "subject object" below.riverguy42 (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, as we appear to be in dialog here, I will (next edit) tone down (delete) some of my more incendiary language, and let's keep talking...riverguy42 (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

One reason I suggested it is that in an article about a person the rules are more strict about what you should say. Both the subject/object question about men and women and the exclusion of gays are legitimate criticisms which are sometimes made against the Divine Principle. However, when you use that to say that Rev. Moon hates women and/or gay people then you could run into problems with WP's BLP policies. BTW the "dung-eating dogs" speech was mainly about heterosexual relationships, gays were only mentioned in passing. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "However, when you use that to say that Rev. Moon hates women and/or gay people then you could run into problems with WP's BLP policies."

Nobody here fits this [Straw Man] supposition, none here have said "that Rev. Moon hates women and/or gay people" or used the word "hate". I think most of us are trying to fairly represent the criticism of Moon's personal statements. Now, if Moon's statements are widely criticized as a form of "hate speech", then that view may be appropriatly represented here as long as it is otherwise acceptable in a BLP. riverguy42 (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears this is being solved but editors may find it helpful to read WP:Criticism. Although an essay I think it provides helpful ideas on how to deal with matters like this. A criticism/controversy section is usually problematic since it implies that something has been criticised or was otherwise controversial. However this requires references to the effect and is often difficult to do. Instead, it's usually better just to provide details on noteable viewpoints and let the reader decided for themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas. I have been relying on the BLP specific policy on criticism, but the essay is great, thanks.

You said "this requires references to the effect and is often difficult to do." I have been using a news archive search/timeline technique to analyze and solve this problem and I'd like to (a) share the idea, and (b) solicit input as to whether this technique has been validated elsewhere on Wikipedia.

When used (for example) on the Google News Archive, an explicit search for "Moon the controversial" results in a timeline view such as this. Also, I have used a "control subject" to (for example) show that in this analysis of news archives, "Moon the controversial" generates about five times more news archive hits (47) than, say, L. Ron Hubbard (9), as reflected here.

Clearly general web searches are problematic, but as this technique searches only news archives, it seems to hold water. Thoughts??? riverguy42 (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh? What these ideas have to do with this article? Please read WP:NOR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, Nil Einne pointed out the inherent difficulty in measuring the "effect" of whether something/someone is controversial, as we work to achieve consensus and balance in this article. Here on the talk page, I am proposing a potential technique by which we might informally measure the effect, solve the problem, and perhaps we may agree to use this as a means of reaching a consensus, and I have shown an example of how this technique works. I am soliciting input.

The Google News Archive is made up of sources that Google have determined to be legitimate sources of "news". How does this conflict with WP:NOR#Sources, which says: "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." I was not able to find anywhere in the NOR policy that deals with proposals made on talk pages. Please help me understand your position in citing NOR in this context. riverguy42 (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see Theocracy section below. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OT material removed from "political influence" section

I took this off:

In June 2006 the Houston Chronicle reported that in 2004 Moon’s Washington Times Foundation gave $1 million to the Greater Houston Community Foundation, which made donations to the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library. A man described as a "Virginia electronic gumshoe named Larry Zilliox" by reporter Rick Casey suggested that this was to lobby Bush's son President George W. Bush for a pardon for Moon's 1982 felony tax conviction.

Moon said:

"The power of God is far greater than any political power in the world. That is why Jesus was feared. That is why the world sometimes reacts to us with fear. They don’t understand and fear the power of God."

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)

Steve, before I restore this (your latest blanking of controversial information), Please note that your comment indicates that you did not read the article which you claimed to be "just a rumor in a newspaper gossip column" as justification for removing it. The Zilliox information (or "rumor" as you call it) was subsequently and independently verified by the Houston Chronicle. The point of the article was that the reporter CONFIRMED the information provided by Zilliox.

In this latest case, your assessment of the situation was (again) flatly incorrect, and once again I see you providing insufficient (and factually incorrect) basis for removing content. Again, Steve, your Unification Church status is a COI, and your POV both indicate that you should recuse yourself from blanking content. If you think there is something wrong with a section or citation, please comment here on the talk page, or TAG the article.riverguy42 (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute the fact that the Washington Times Foundation gave money to the Bush-41 library. The part that seemed like gossip column stuff was the theory that this was to influence Bush-43 to grant Rev. Moon a pardon. If you think so you could go to Las Vegas and see if any of the casinos would take a bet that Bush is going to do this. (Please also see the proposed wager below. :-) ) Steve Dufour (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no such a thing as a COI by being an adherent of a religion. Jews can edit articles about Moses, Christians can edit articles about Jesus, Mormons can edit articles about Joseph Smith, Sikhs can edit articles about Guru Nanak, and so forth. Please stop making these type of comments as these may be bordering on personal attacks, and do away from too much bold in your edits. Discuss the edit and not the editor is a sound advice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi. Thanks for weighing in. Regarding your statement "There is no such a thing as a COI by being an adherent of a religion", I think (having just re-read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest , that I disagree with your statement as written. Perhaps you meant to say "...just by being an adherent of a religion", in which case I agree with you. It's clear that in and of itself, an editor's relationship with the Unification Church (including his work on parallel entries for the Unification Church's Wiki "New World Encyclopedia", which as I understand it is compensated by the Church) does not necessarily present a COI that would, by itself, be valid cause for complaint.

It is the combination of COI and a long history of tendentious editing , specifically in blanking content that is unflattering to the controversial subject (Moon) or the Unification Church -- that presents the problem and brings up the COI as a tangential issue. If you disagree with what seem to be broadly held and long-term views around tendentious editing here, you may wish to check into the history of similar complaints. I am aware of (and work with) other UC member-editors who do not exhibit the problem.

Regarding your comment: "Jews can edit articles about Moses, Christians can edit articles about Jesus, Mormons can edit articles about Joseph Smith, Sikhs can edit articles about Guru Nanak, and so forth." -- of course they can, and so can Unification Church members edit, so let's not introduce a Straw Man here. I never suggested that DuFour stop editing. A have asked him to stop his pattern of tendentious editing as regards blanking content that is unflattering to Moon or the Church. I am suggesting that, in light of the combination of tendentious editing and COI, that he tag or talk about his proposed deletions and recuse himself from further edits that reinforce a well established pattern, one which (in my estimation) is widely observed over a long time.

Again, thanks for your input. If you still think my interpretation of tendentious editing in the context of COI is off-base, I'm happy to hear your further views. Also, I would welcome your assessment of whether the "OT material removed" was, in your opinion "off-topic" or not. riverguy42 (talk) 06:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is always two sides to a coin. The same "COI" and "WP:TE"" can be asserted for those of the opposite POV... that keep adding material to an article about which threis no agreement. Rather than discuss the editors, their motives, or their bias (which BTW we all have), it would be much more productive to engage civilly in discussing the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: your comment "The same "COI" and "WP:TE"" can be asserted for those of the opposite POV" how is that possible? In order to justify that statement you'd have to impute a similar level of WP:COI to "those of the opposite POV". Two POV's may oppose one another, and both might display WP:TEND but if one has COI and the other does not, that is a completely different matter and the two certainly are not comparable.

Suggest you read this first, and then read the definition, and note...

"...their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference."

And...

"If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discussing your intentions with the community. In particular, consider whether you are editing tendentiously. Of course, all of the editors I have been in conflict with over this "content blanking" have single-issue edit histories indicative of both WP:TE and WP:COI.

And...

"Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.:

Finally, the consequences are quite clear...

"Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked."

There are absolutely not "two sides" to the COIn you describe. By now it should be perfectly clear that the combination of WP:TEND plus WP:COI makes for a very serious situation, and it was in this context that I asked the editor to recuse himself from further undiscussed blanking of content. That editor has most kindly obliged. OK?

riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Role of women

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)

Hi Ed...I might try to take this in the direction of the "form-follows-function" line, but I think the real problem Moon presents for you here in the "Subject-Object" metaphor lies more in his view of women as the "receptacle object" for "male seed" stuff. Here, Moon appears (to outsiders at least) to confuse plant biology -- in which "seed" carries all the necessary genetic information for an individual -- with human biology, in which male "seed" does not. So, when Moon said: "Does woman contain the seed of life? (No.) Absolutely not. Then if you (women) desire to receive the seed of life you have to become an absolute object." I can't speak for women in general, but I can say for sure that this "absolute receptacle object" stuff is really offensive to my S.O.!! And she's right. From this perspective, Moon is absolutely saying that women are "less", because he is saying women don't contain the seed of life -- while men do, and that's pure nonsense. Male "seed" is not "seed" at all, it's just half of the whole DNA picture -- utterly useless by itself, yet Moon glorifies male seed as if it were complete, needing nothing but a hole in the dirt (absolute object receptacle) to sprout. Terrible metaphor, and I think Rev. Moon probably deserves whatever criticism he gets for using it. riverguy42 (talk) 07:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Rev. Moon also talks a lot about "blood lineage" when in scientific reality blood has nothing special to do with a person's genetic heritage. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but "blood lineage" is a cross-cultural concept that translates well and that's why it's less controversial than "absolute object-receptacle for seed". Also, "blood lineage" historically applies to women and men equally (Queen of England). I've offered Ed an angle you might like to pursue, it's on Ed's talk page...riverguy42 (talk) 18:33, 27 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)

Wager proposed

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)

Quite a titillating offer you make, but I think such things are inappropriate for an article talk page, so I've responded on your user talk page.

"Once you decide to titillate instead of illuminate . . . you create a climate of expectation that requires a higher and higher level of intensity" --Bill Moyers. riverguy42 (talk) 18:29, 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)

Moon's notability

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)

Moon's notability derives primarily from the fact that he is controversial, so I believe there is no question that this must necessarily be reflected in the introductory paragraph.

If a similar statement is needed for flow at the head of the criticism statement (and I think it is), there should be something there too. You ([User:Wndl42|riverguy42]]) seem to be more familiar with the flow of this article; any chance you could create a statement for both places? Thanks. -Exucmember (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with your move ExUC. I have added a mention of his anti-communism, which is on of the main sources of the controversy. I also removed the discussion of his motivation for being anti-communist, religious or personal experience, since this has long been uncited and a source of disagreement. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Gulf War

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)

It shows his international concerns. Many of the things in the artice are not even about him, but about things his followers have done. Besides his comments about world peace are much more prominent than his comments about gays, for instance. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

His attention to the Gulf War was minor. You are right, his statements about world peace are many, and the conferences related to the topic are also - that would be a legitimate topic for a section of this article. Do you have specific suggestions for paring down or eliminating material that is off the topic here? -Exucmember (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

For instance the fund-raising scandal in Japan was not about him, but about church members. He has not even been in Japan for many years. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fishing paragraph

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)

New World Encyclopedia article

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)

I just looked at the article, reading parts of it. It looks good, well-written. Since it's GNU, clips here and there could be used for this or related articles on Wikipedia, right?

I did notice one mistake, however. A picture caption refers to the birthplace of "Sun Yong Moon." This is just wrong. I think it should be "Sun Myung Moon," keeping "Yong Myong Moon" (his birth name) in the text only (so as not to confuse the reader by putting it in the caption unexplained). The text uses the spelling "Yong Myung Moon," which is an idiosyncratic spelling which is not a part of any Romanization system. The standard system used by all publishers except the Korean government (who to everyone's dismay wants to have its own - bad - system), is McCune-Reischauer, where it would be spelled "Yong Myong Moon" with or without an accent mark (breve, hacek, or dot) over the "o" in "Myong." The Korean government system would spell it "Myeong" - the vowel spelling based on a historical mistake! - but this is still better than the uneducated "Myung" choice. The choice "Myung" could only be made by someone in the sphere of American English who is unaware of how vowels are used in the entirety of the rest of the world - and how standardized spelling of non-Roman alphabets are based on international commonalities. I'm not sure displaying such ignorance is a good idea for an encyclopedia billed as "New World," unless the "world" we're talking about is not the whole earth or the international community, but some other meaning of "world" which is something much smaller and more narrow, and - ironically - ignorant of the larger "world."

Critics, btw, can point to the same irony in the Unification Church, where the many organizations with the word "international" in them (actually "world" in Korean) pursue a second, relatively hidden agenda that is parochial and promoting of Rev. Moon rather than focused only on what is best for the international community. In general, this is particularly true for the Korean leaders, who are very interested in this part of the agenda. -Exucmember (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I referred to the UC's New World Encyclopedia for this edit back in December. I would nonetheless be very cautious is using it for anything more than just the most basic facts --- and to cross check what you find there, and I would hope that all edit summaries will include reference to the fact that the UC wiki was used as a source, so we can keep an eye out for the possibility that this article (and others) might wind up "morphing" toward the editorial focus of the UC wiki. It appears to be a well-polished wiki, but clearly not a neutral source.

Additional thought...if any editors here are also contributing to the UC wiki, my understanding is that UC wiki editors are compensated for thier work, and such editorial involvement might therefore present a conflict, so (with all due respect) I suggest extreme caution would be prudent. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it should not be used directly as a source, since it is a 3rd level source as is WP. But sourced info from it, and pictures, could be used here as well. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I checked out a couple of pictures and they were "used by permission", not freely shared with WP and others.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Rev. Moon's Politics

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)

A section that sourced his views in a verifiable way would be good, IMHO02:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox

You are welcome to add a section on his political views. However, he is best noted for his crusade against communism, which seemed to have real effects. On the other hand, it seems a bit unlikely that his concept of an ideal society, theocratic or not, will take place any time soon. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed...thanks. I'm reviewing this UC overview, but it's a difficult exercise to try to find any neutrally sourced information. Is anyone here familiar with any interviews, bios etc. that may be (clearly) from outside the Church sphere of influence and yet not from cult-critics?riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

RE..."crusade against communism, which seemed to have real effects", the counter to this view is that it was widely known that the "Soviet Union" (which was arguably not "communism" as such) was collapsing from within right from the end of WWII, and Moon kinda "rode that wave". The link I'm reading (above) says Moon really has no preference between "communism" or "democracy" as long as it's a monarchy with "True Parents" in the "headwing". Or am I misinterperting something?riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Still he is noted for his stand against the version of "communism" that was practiced by the USSR, North Korea, Mainland China, Cuba, etc. and for the organizations he founded that opposed it. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:43, 16 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)

Got it. But I maintain that Moon is being "fluffed" here for anti-communism and that the truth is his views are more subtle. So...is it fair to say: "While Rev. Moon's politics explicitly reject Soviet style stalinist or pre-1980's Maoist systems, he nonetheless accepts communism on equal terms with democracy provided that a monarchy or "upper house" occupied by "True Parents in eternity" is established as the ultimate seat of global power." -- or along these lines? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think something like that could be mentioned in the article. Still the story of his relationship with communism, especially, with the Stalinist North Korean government, should be a major part. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:59, 17 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)

That is cool. However, not all of the 6 million articles are about Rev. Moon. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok...I will rewrite (after noting some of Ed Poor's and other observations) for balance and propose the following revision:

"While Rev. Moon's politics explicitly reject Soviet style stalinist, pre-1980's Maoist, and other explicitly athiest systems, he nonetheless accepts communism on equal terms with democracy provided that a theocratic monarchy, or "upper house" occupied by "True Parents" is established as the ultimate seat of global power in eternity. Presumably this monarchy would represent the realization of the biblical prophesy of a returning "Lord of lords" and a "King of kings".

Now, if this is deemed a good start, then I could see us moving into some other territory. For example, comparing the seemingly paradoxical status of the U.S. as "One Nation, under God" that yet still is founded on a system that "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". While one could suppose that Rev. Moon might adopt a similarly view towards "one world under God", from what I can see Rev. Moon's statements don't suggest that he holds this view, hence the prevalent supposition among critics that the monarchy he envisions would (immediately or eventually) suppress via law the paractice and free expression of any non-unification religion(s). Ed, I suspect that Rev. Moon may have explicitly referred to our First Amendment at some time -- either pro-or con, do you have a source or any insight? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:17, 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)

Just a small note: It seems to me that a biographical article should be mainly about what the person has done, not what he would have liked to do. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Rev. Moon has (by his own admission) exercised considerable political power to advance an agenda in support of a vision. That vision is quite relevant, I think. To the extent that Rev. Moon has described that vision, it should be represented here (IMHO).riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Theocracy

Removed section:

• Reverend Moon rejects the idea of separation between Church and State, and has called for a one-world government under the United Nations with "True Parents" appointed to the role of Secretary General in "eternity".<ref>Foundation Day 1997</ref>

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)

Hi Ed...I thought we'd been through this, Rev. Moon has described exactly that scenario in the UC sourced speech I cited and in several other speeches, so no need to position this as "Critics say"...don't have time now for chapter and verse, so I'm reverting and trust you'll read the source(s) again to confirm to your satisfaction... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wndl42 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert your reversion, but I think you are misinterpreting the quotation.

Please help me distinguish between (a) the correctly quoted passage and (b) the interpretation of the passage. Bear in mind that I've been in the church 30 years and might be more familiar with what Rev. Moon means than the average person. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed...and sorry if I got a little POINTy. I've attempted to address you "interpretation" question above. If you feel strongly about this, do you want to move it to a sandbox and play with it there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wndl42 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 17 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)

I think I see your POV. Let me paraphrase to see if I have it. You would assert that Rev. Moon's view is that his vision for the world is no different than what we have in the U.S. -- "One Nation (World) under God", except that there would be a Monarchy (with SOME level of power or influence) above i.e. "Lord of Lords, King of Kings", but that monarchy COULD have no more or less relationship to the legislative process as the Queen of England has in the U.K. Does that sum up your view?

Now, the very first words of our First Amendment clearly draw the line. Given all Rev. Moon has had to say on the topic, I'd think there would be an explicit statement by Moon on this aspect of the First Amendment.

To move away from or diminish the WP characterization here, I think a couple of important questions should be raised and addressed by the experts here:

Would Moon or "True Parents" be involved in oversight or participation (direct or indirect) on the activities of deliberative process associated with an "Abel" U.N.?

Would Non-UC governments be clearly and unambiguously protected to the same extent that we have in the U.S.?

Would (for example) Tibet be allowed to have it's own "spiritual leadership" in the Dalai Lama, even though that tradition is explicitly incompatible with UC theology? If it were allowed, would Tibet's representatives be legally and explicitly assured that their "spiritual" voice would have "equal time"?

I think that ANY form of explicitly theocratic monarchy, even if (initially) purely "figurehead" in nature, would run into many problems, and once a "seat" like that is defined, the potential for future usurpation is very dangerous, and if history is a guide, inevitable.

Now, purely as illustration...let's say for sake of argument, that the Bush Family's involvement in Moon's effort to set up the "Abel U.N" is not purely "benign". Let's say that Neil Bush was in Japan last month in support of the "Abel" initiative for purely political reasons. History would show that any concerns about how Unification Theology (now) will be "used" (as proto-christianity was then, by Constantine) by non-Church members for political gain -- to create a "world papacy" would be very well founded. This is not just idle speculation, it's historical precedent. This is what critics believe, and I think this is the mainstream view (from outside the church) reflects this fear. If we are going to avoid representing statements by Moon that appear to support this statements this way, I'd maintain that we need some reliable sources to say otherwise.

Thoughts? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Compensated endorsements

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)

Ed, I love the "tub of margarine" comment, thanks for the smile...

I struggled to find this language in an attempt to tone down the pejorative language and tone of the previous section heading "Buying endorsements of celebrities. I was hoping I'd get a few brownie points for that edit  ;=)

riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. I think this section does bring up a legitimate point of criticism. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

. . . . . . . . . . . <= brownie points for River Guy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

World government

Disputed text:

• Reverend Moon teaches that religion and politics are inseparable entities, and has previously called for a one-world government under the United Nations with "True Parents" appointed to the role of Secretary General in "eternity":

• Rev. Moon said, "I established the Women's Federation, Religious Federation, Youth Federation, and all these federations to work with the United Nations for world peace. The day that the United Nations declares True Parents' Day to the world, the entire world will celebrate. Also United Nations should invite True Parents to take the position of Secretary-General in eternity."[13]

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)

I still don't think that anyone, critic or supporter, thinks that he is going to establish a world government in his lifetime. It is possible that sometime in the future most people will believe in him as the Messiah. It is possible at that time that a world "theocratic" government might be established. I hope that the rights of non-believers and believers in other faiths will still be respected, but that would be up to the people then. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The worry (or claim) that "Moonies are out to take over the world" needs to be addressed, even if it's a fabrication of the Fraser Committee and deprogrammers.

The kind of help I'm looking for, is statements by Rev. Moon which clarify this matter. Yesterday, while reflecting during Sunday Service, I wondered just how much authority the church hierarchy has had over members' lives.

Aren't even full-time missionaries and fund raisers simply just volunteers? Can't they pack up and go home any time they want? Hmm. Perhaps this relates to the mind control controversy. Detractors have claimed that "mind control" prevents people from making moral choices - at the very least, they lack informed consent. I wonder who made such an argument and when. We could balance that with anyone else who made the opposite argument. Or, if there's a clear consensus in the scientific community against the mind control theory, we could just write neutrally that it's a false idea, being used to tarnish Rev. Moon's reputation.

Another thing: shouldn't we have a section on "the struggle for legitimization?" Something like this:

1. In the US, the church fell into disfavor when traditional Christians, politicians and deprogrammers combined ...
2. After ___ years, the IRS finally declared that the church was a bona fide religion, granting it permanent tax-exempt status.
3. In _____, New York State stopped insisting that the 'church' was not religious and dropped its demands for real estate taxes on [this and that property]. In Long Island the parsonage was declared to be a church residence in 20__.
4. The idea that Rev. Moon's followers "brainwashed" or duped people into joining was discredited in 19__ when the APA said ... (see Margaret Singer).

I'm talking about opposition on religious, political and scientific grounds. Traditional theologians called Rev. Moon's teachings heretical, politicians claimed he was "Communist" or "anti-democratic", and psychologists said he brainwashed people. How much of this kind of talk has died down, and when? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. In general the UC articles need more facts and less opinions. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 03:46, 22 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 agree with you Marknw that these things should be mentioned. But still Rev. Moon is most noted as the founder of a religious movement and as an anti-communist activist, not as the founder of a political party. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with Marknw here. The problem I had before with some of his edits was his repeatedly re-entering exactly the same phrasing (some of it poorly worded) without regard to the surrounding material or the flow of the article. The issues Marknw raises here are important and some such facts should be included - many readers would find those things to be more important than some of the material already in the article. Steve is also right in pointing out that Rev. Moon is primarily a religious leader, so political material should not be so overdone as to dominate. -Exucmember (talk) 00:45, 24 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:

• 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. Sontag (1976)

Marknw quoted from Exposition of the Principle, and here is the same quote with more preceding context:

The Significance of the Separation of Powers

... By analogy with the human body, whose organs function in accordance with the subtle commands of the brain, all the institutions of the ideal global society are to abide by the desires of God. Just as the commands of the brain are transmitted to every part of the body through the peripheral nervous system branching out from the spinal cord, in the ideal world God's guidance is conveyed to the entire society through Christ, who corresponds to the spinal cord, and God-loving leaders, who correspond to the peripheral nervous system. The peripheral nervous system branching out from the spinal cord corresponds to a nation's political parties. Thus, in the ideal world, people of God led by Christ will form organizations analogous to today's political parties. [17]

Moon also told Sontag:

• 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. [Sontag, op cit.]

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:

1. Opponents say that Moon intends to take over the world by force and establish a dictatorship
2. Supporters say this is a misreading of Moon, and that Moon intends only that people of faith and conscience will voluntarily perform good deeds

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)

Generally in agreement with the variety of POVs here, but the reason I introduced the topic in the first place is that "anti-communist" is an explicitly political statement (theo-political in light of his opposition on the basis of the atheistic aspects) , and I felt then and still feel that "anti-communism" was/is being given undue weight in the absence of any other discussion of Rev. Moon's political or theo-political views. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. Moon is outspoken on his theological opposition to Communism's militant atheism:

• Moon to Sontag: "Communism is trying to take the world by force. But God will take the world by love. We must become the embodiment of this love." [18]

The dispute over Moon's political views mainly concerns the degree of force which the two sides maintain that Moon (or his followers) intend to use to enforce their conception of God's will. On the one hand, we have quotes from Moon contrasting the "force" of Communists with his own idea of "taking the world by love". On the other hand there are Fraser, Hassan & others asserting things like, "Moon's stated ambitions include the establishment of a one-world government run as an automatic theocracy by Moon and his leaders." --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate to try to read Rev. Moon's mind, but might "automatic" not also be translatable from the original Korean as "natural"? Hence "love", being the "natural" state then be re-construed in the context of Moon's vision as "natural theocracy" -- a reasonable alternative? Of course this would be synthesis on my part without some reliable source to back it up... riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to dig up the translation that Andrew Wilson made of the passage. Till then, I'm inclined to regard your interpretation as closer in spirit than that of most critics. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool...riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

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)

Well, I'd agree that the changes were extensive. Maybe not so much sloppy as hasty...tag and talk would be better, but I am not inclined to just revert. You (Ed) have earned due respect here as an expert and so (unless others object) let's discuss the several deletions rather than just revert. All in favor???

• 1): Cite critics for "Propaganda" section -- wow, don't know where to begin except to direct attention here. Do we really need to make a laundry list?

• 2): No time now for #2...will add later.

riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I was came to Wikipedia tonight to make some edits Ed might have liked, but I saw what he did here and thought it needed some work (before I looked at this Talk page). Demanding citations for criticisms that have been made in the press at least 100 times seems a bit peevish, considering how much in Unification articles is poorly sourced. On the other hand, finding a single (representative) source should be easy. The criticism section should convey the criticisms accurately, and not be overly apologetic Unification Church POV in their presentation.

The section "Ownership of vast enterprises" is only from Unification Church POV. As I said in edit summary: "first paragraph is somewhat spurious church argument, second paragraph is unsourced OR church argument" -Exucmember (talk) 07:24, 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.

• Point: Rev Moon cannot simultaneously; (1) be a self-proclaimed messiah, (2) be head of a global "church", (3) be the ideological founder of a global media empire with well-known political bias that has existed solely because of billions of dollars of UC subsidies since inception 25 years ago, and (4) be speaking publically about how he covertly uses that media arm in support of various UC related agenda -- without generating well-deserved and well-founded criticism of his media as propaganda and himself as a propagandist, either in the world at large or as that world is reflected here on Wikipedia. The use of the word is clearly supported and IMO is necessary. The criticism of Moon as a propagandist is among the most important and notable criticisms, his media impacts hundreds of millions of people and this is not a place where Wikipedia should be pussyfooting around in deference to the church's efforts to mute, dissipate or mitigate this criticism.
  • Comment on point: Well, he's certainly engaging in advocacy, I'll concede that! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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'm the one who, in restoring lots of deleted criticism, chose not to keep the word "propaganda" in a heading. I hadn't caught your discussion here. It wasn't "the church's efforts to mute."

But I would guess that your wording is doomed, and, I'm afraid, rightly so. I very much appreciate your looking into this and getting support for your arguments, which I agree with. But the "Point" paragraph above, though well-argued and logically valid, is essentially original research. Equally important, a heading is not the right place for a pejorative term. It will just be changed repeatedly by both church supporters and those who are not but who are nevertheless fair-minded people who don't think a pejorative is appropriate as a statement of fact in an encyclopedia article. It seems to me the appropriate place for it is in the text, putting the statement in its proper place - in the voice of the critic - citing at least one published source (preferably quoting them) that concludes "propaganda" or "propagandist" rather than this conclusion coming from a Wikipedia editor. As an ex-member, I'm aware that Rev. Moon frequently makes outlandish, boastful pronouncements about how great or influential he is (one humorous one was boasting about how masterful he was at learning English, which, at that very moment, more than a decade after moving to the U.S., was about 60% incomprehensible). Based on my extensive knowledge of such statements, I would say he's really not as dangerous as some might fear, and I personally would vote for Moon's claims about the Washington Times responding to his desires or directives be set in the context of his fanciful boasting in general. -Exucmember (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ex...I agree that pejoratives should be avoided if at all possible, but this one is the uniquely and particularly appropriate word, it "Does no harm" (that isn't already done, as previously established), and is off the charts on the "notability" scale. I am sensitive to your concern over WP:OR relative to the point I made, but that's just a supporting argument. The main point is that Wikipedia is, by intent and design, a reflection of the world of reliable sources on any topic. We neither add nor take away "weight" from whatever the sum-total of reliable sources are saying, we reflect notability as it's found (including mainstream criticism), and in the context of a BLP we "do no harm". I say we keep it, and get an outside opinion if we continue to disagree. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said, you make a compelling argument. Perhaps a pejorative word that actually reflects the criticism can be retained in a title, and WP:OR avoided, if right in the first phrase of the sentence that follows the title it is clearly stated that the word "propaganda" is used by critics to describe his media. Even so, there's one point that you haven't directly addressed. If Wikipedia is to be a "reflection of the world of reliable sources," then I assume you mean the word "propaganda" is there because it is what critics are saying. In that case, the word "propaganda" in the heading should be in quotation marks. Are you arguing that the article should imply not only that critics are calling it "propaganda" (quotation marks in heading) but that Wikipedia is calling it "propaganda" (no quotation marks in heading)? -Exucmember (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh...very good counterpoint! I would counter-counter (mildly) that the heading in question is under "criticisms" and thereby all subheadings will easily and readily be identified by readers as criticisms. But I think we're on to something larger here WRT the overall construction of the article. In the meantime, I am OK with doing something to make it clear that we are documenting the criticism of Moon as a propagandist as opposed to presenting the criticism as a "Wikiopinion" on the matter. For now, if that means putting propaganda in quotes (in the section preferably, in the heading if you must), I'm fine with that at least for now...no time at present to add more. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh...forgot to mention...I understood your first invocation of WP:OR as you applied it to the POINT I made here on the talk page, but I'm unclear how you see WO:OR as being relevant to the use of the p-word in the article. Is it just in the way the word is presented? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR in the article (as opposed to in your POINT paragraph) is only relevant if you were trying to argue that Wikipedia (rather than critics) can call it "propaganda."

Btw, Ed - or someone who knows how to archive pages - isn't this discussion page getting too long? -Exucmember (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Communist

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)

"As head of the UC"

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)

Mostly agree, Steve, but don't forget that opponents of the church see him as the "cult ringleader". I've been in for 30 years (99% of my adult life), and the anti-cult aspect of it used to be just as big as the theological and political.

Opponents oppose the church and (its founder) Rev. Moon, because BOTH challenge the status quo. Moon (and we 'Moonies') did not merely show up with a few novel theological ideas (like "Eve seduced by Archangel Lucifer" and "Jesus did not come to die"). The man and his movement are trying to change a world which would rather carry on business as usual.

Communists don't want to give up their power. Traditional Christians don't want to offer their loyalty to a yellow-skinned "Second Coming". Parents who want their children to get good jobs after university don't want their kids in a mind control cult.

Apart from these concerns are legitimate worries (even of mainstream Americans) about what Rev. Moon's real plans are. So this article needs to be greatly expanded. My cuts from 2 days ago were indeed hasty, but ExUC caught my biggest errors - no harm done, eh?

We need more about Rev. Moon's accomplishments, especially in terms of organizations he started which have had an impact on society: businesses he inspired (whether church-owned or member-owned); schools and colleges; hospitals; newspapers, magazines (any cable TV channels or videotape distributors maybe?); theological and scientific conferences; peace-building activites like MEPI and international diplomacy (like meeting Gorbachev and Kim Il-sung).

Did Moon's visit to Kim Il-Sung have any effect on North-South Korean relations? Did the Gorbachev meeting merely foreshadow the renaissance of religious freedom and private property onwership in Russia, or did Moon stir Gorby to action?

Let's create an outline and get to work. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed, Communists didn't want to give up their power, and neither do the neocons.... Let's make room in the outline please for a section on Moon's accomplishments in helping establish neoconservatism, ok? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, WRT: "Apart from these concerns are legitimate worries (even of mainstream Americans) about what Rev. Moon's real plans are." -- Actually, I think the more legitimate concerns are (based on historical precedent) that the political 'leaders' Team B have "used" Rev. Moon's anti-communism to recruit him and his followers to an agenda he (they) probably were not aware of. History teaches that it's not the 'church' that uses the state to meet it's goals...history teaches that it's the other way around. I doubt that Rev. Moon has ever read Leo Strauss..., so he'd have had no way to know who his "friends" were or where thier plans would lead us. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Critics and the Commies

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 guess even 'Reverend' Moon needs somebody to help maintain the image of his self-proclaimed divinity.

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)

The following sources call the church a cult: The Washington Post [19], The Guardian [20], and Brittanica says "many people consider the church to be a cult" [21]. JBKramer 14:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Rotten.com has an interesting article on the reverend [22] -- MakeChooChooGoNow 15:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to focus on undeniably reliable sources. JBKramer 15:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Anybody who claims that 'Reverend' Moon is not a cult leader must be brainwashed themselves. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 04:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it utterly amazing that the administrators here on Wikipedia allow the truth to be edited out for fear of offending somebody. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 04:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We can say that According to periodical X or author Y Moon is a cult leader. We just can't state it as a "fact". We must state it as a "point of view". --Uncle Ed 20:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A Bit Tilted

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 get the feeling from reading this, that the author is doing a little bit of damage control for the Papists. And yes, they are the Papists. That's his or her right though, and to have acknowledged the controversy is better than ignoring it. As to whether the Papists 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 New York City (Never in Boston though, which is far superior to New York City!). 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, even those groups are not as Popish. Hell, my religion has been called a cult. It's all good, but they are Papists!

Okay, please don't anyone take offense at this; it is meant as a friendly jab at ignorance of an issue of religious bigotry and intolerance. The origin of the term "Moonies" is that it was intended as a demeaning and pejorative slur, and reflects prejudice. At least "Papist" was originally neutral. I added the Wikification in his paragraph (perhaps if he had been aware of the contents of that page, his comments might have had a different tone). -Exucmember 19:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, now, let's not fight. Amongst ourselves, we freely use the word "Moonies" much as urban blacks sometimes can be heard using the "N-word". I have vivid memories of singing "I want to be a Moonie in my heart" as an extra verse to Lord, I want to be a Christian. --Uncle Ed 20:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ed. I would nonetheless advocate against the word "Moonie" here on Wikipedia as I think (a) it's slang, (b) it's offensive to SOME, and (c) I personally think it tends to be primarily used by critics as a pejorative. I think it's comparable to "Jesus Freak" in effect on MOST of the readers we're writing for.riverguy42 (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph removed

I took out this paragraph, which has been floundering around being changed back and forth:

"Some critics describe Moon as a billionaire businessman (although Forbes Magazine does not include him on their list of billionaires; major assets are held in the church name) who uses his followers as political footsoldiers. They also accuse some conservative figures like Jerry Falwell of compromising their Christian beliefs to take his millions (Moon lent Falwell US$3.5 million for his struggling Liberty University.)"

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)

Good call, Steve.

This page is shaping up pretty well (at least compared to the Unification Church page; see my comments there soon), except for the quotations section, which is atrocious. The quotations should be representative of what the man has said in his life! At the moment, most of the quotations were very selectively chosen in an attempt by one ex-member to say something about politics in Rev. Moon's teachings. (That sort of thing should go in its own article, which I created - Politics in Divine Principle - but he didn't like it.) The "automatic theocracy" quotation should be kept - as an example of the problematic nature of simultaneous interpretation, and how it can lead to misleading results sometimes; Andrew Wilson's comments and retranslation must be included. Perhaps the quotations could be grouped by topic. -Exucmember 04:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the quotation section is bad. You could try putting them in order of date. That might make them seem more organized. Steve Dufour 05:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Corrections on material regarding tax crimes

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)

Thanks for your contributions. Steve Dufour 11:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yours, Famspear 13:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: I have added some detail about why the Reverend Moon requested that he NOT have a jury trial. As some readers may know, a defendant in a criminal case generally has a right to a jury trial. In this case, the prosecution successfully fought Moon's attempt to NOT have a jury trial. Moon was concerned that certain statements he made (now quoted in a footnote in the article) could adversely affect his chances in front of a jury. He wanted to have the case tried "to the bench." (Both jury trials and non-jury trials are fairly common.) Moon ended up with a jury trial, and a conviction.

I have not yet located any information that would either confirm or negate the article's assertion that the trial court did not allow mention of "religion." Yours, Famspear 04:43, 30 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:

[1] disputes over tax liabilities ten or a hundred times as much, have been regarded as mere accounting oversights when the taxpayer was popular, and [2] it doesn't make sense for someone to put his own money in the biggest bank in America and then give the money to a church without claiming that funds transfer as a non-taxable donation (it would have reduced Rev. Moon's adjusted income for that year to zero, and he wouldn't have had to pay ANY taxes on the money he spent on his family).

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)

They were probably by Ed Poor, a long time UC member, as am I, who has been active here on Wikipedia for quite some time. Steve Dufour 00:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's sounds like something I would write. Bush senior owed around 200,000 dollars and was simply permitted to mail in a check, no questions asked. Why did they make a federal case out of Moon, when the estimated liability was much lower? --Uncle Ed 20:31, 2 October 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)

Tax case its own article?

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)

I went ahead and did this. For one thing it seems that there are some people who are interested in the case itself as a legal issue without having any special interest in Rev. Moon. Steve Dufour 13:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I support it, and I intended to say so. It seems to me that any time there is one particular topic within an article that gets large (legitimately), that has a coherence of its own, and that (as you mentioned) may be of interest as an independent topic, we should consider making it a separate article. I thought these criteria were met also by the topic Politics of/in the Unification Church / Divine Principle, but the author of the borderline original research didn't agree. I still believe that his material needs some cleaning up, and I still believe quotations should be few and representative (not selective in order to prove a thesis). Btw, Isherwood's book may be a good source (or point to good sources) for some missing references. -Exucmember 16:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see Politics of the Unification Church as a separate article. See Wikipedia:making a spin-off for tips on organization and formatting. --Uncle Ed 13:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back Ed! Good idea. I promised Exucmember that I would start an article on UC opposition to communism, when I find the time. Maybe it could be included in the politics article. Steve Dufour 22:34, 3 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)

Thanks. That is something to watch out for. I also followed your link to the main fork article: Wikipedia:Content forking Steve Dufour 01:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, we should leave behind a reasonable summary of the material that is split out. Otherwise we are forcing readers to read both articles in order to get the basic facts. In this example, we should have a paragraph explaining the basics of the matter, including the nature of the infraction and the penalty. Not too long, but more than what we have now. -Will Beback 04:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Steve Dufour 11:54, 4 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)

Thanks Ed. Still it is a good point that all the new articles have a NPOV. Keep up the good work. Steve Dufour 22:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

How Many Wives?

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)

You have it a little wrong. The second marriage, to Myung Hee Kim, was a common law marriage that has always been a part of the official biography taught to members. This was not considered extra-marital by the Unification Church. The "providential" sexual relationships are of two kinds, one based on rumors or allegations by critics (including Chung Hwa Pak), and another that have been admitted by members of the True Family (including by Sun Myung Moon) but not acknowledged publicly. All such "providential" sexual relationships, however, were officially denied, and were hidden from the members. Those of the first type may or may not have actually happened (though I heard Dan Fefferman say he believes they did in the case of the p'ikareun/ 6 Marys). Those of the second type are now only denied by members who would rather not know the truth, as the evidence is pretty overwhelming. A son who was born from one such union confronted Hyo Jin Moon seeking acknowledgement as a member of the True Family. Nansook Hong reports in detail in her book the reaction of Mrs. Moon when she asked about this, and then about Sun Myung Moon's explanation to her justifying it. I don't think it's wrong to say that this particular "providential" sexual relationship (and resulting birth) is common knowledge among the members (but only in the last decade). In another case that would have fallen in the second category, Mrs. Moon and oldest daughter Yejin Moon adamantly protested Sun Myung Moon's plans to have a "providential" sexual relationship with the Korean woman whom he had blessed with Jesus, and Sun Myung Moon backed off and didn't go through with it. I think this one is pretty well-known among members who've been around for a while.

The situation with the first wife was that she wouldn't accept Sun Myung Moon's mission as messiah and the relationship he had to his disciples, but neither would she grant him a divorce. So he couldn't legally remarry for some years. What surprises me is that some long-time American member would write on Wikipedia that Hak Ja Han was the second wife, contradicting the official biography. I assume he thought that since this was technically correct, since Sun Myung Moon was not actually legally married to Myung Hee Kim, that it sounded better that there was only one marriage that didn't last. But in this interpretation Sun Myung Moon was an adulterer, something that member wouldn't want to say. I think this is an excellent example of something that is a little more typical than ideal in Korean culture (a pattern transported to a surprising extent into the culture of the Unification Church in America) of what outsiders call deception but which is really a person fooling themselves into thinking that they can say something that is technically correct from one point of view (or just slightly incorrect) but is actually misleading, and that it's somehow okay. In one sense we shouldn't be too harsh on the Koreans for this, as they lived in a society where honesty might be met with brutal repression in the first half of the 20th century and violation of rights and priveleges by the powerful during the second half. In other aspects, Korean culture has its strong points, but if American Unification Church members don't insist on honesty, fairness, transparency and other virtues which are relatively stronger in the West, the Unification Church in America can never succeed here. Outsiders might be surprised at the lack of awareness of within the American Unification Church of the need for correcting such obvious, basic problems. But any criticism by subordinates (or of course by outsiders) is seen as a threat by most Korean leaders, and, unfortunately, there is far too little reform-mindedness among the members. -Exucmember 21:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just trying to get the facts straight. So let me try to clarify this. He married his first wife Sungil Choi 1945 and they eventually divorced due to conflicts of beliefs. His second wife was Myung Hee Kim but they were not officially married. Now, was Sun Myung Moon still married to Sungil Choi when he had a relationship with Myung Hee Kim, and I'm not just talking legally, but was Sun Myung Moon's relationship with Myung Hee Kim considered extramarital or not? Then of course Sun Myung Moon's third wife is Hak Ja Han. So did he have an extramarital relationship with someone else while married to Hak Ja Han? If so, who was this woman he had sex with?

Also, Exumember I totally loved your wikipedia profile page! I really agree with you and those are some inspiring words! Ya, there are a lot of flaws in the Unification Church. Maybe I can one day be that member you speak of. Jamesters 00:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see the section expanded to include the events of his earlier marriages. After all this is supposed to be the story of his life. As a church member I don't think I am the right person to write it however. Steve Dufour 01:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

munitions manufacturing

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)

Politics in the Unification Church

I've just started this article. Please check it out. Steve Dufour 13:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Why shift the picture to the left?

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.  :-)

Thanks for changing it back exucmember. Steve Dufour 20:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote section

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)

We can post as many quotes as we like to Wikiquote. However there are now far too many in this article. The usual rule of thumb in bios seems to be no more than five. -Will Beback 04:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I just checked out Wikiquote. Never noticed it before. I didn't start a new article since I wasn't sure how what the standards are. Steve Dufour 10:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the "Quotes" section should be deleted. People usually cherry pick quotations, often out of context, to prove a point with an unspoken agenda. The quotations chosen are often not at all representative of what the man has said, overall, in the many (surely over a thousand) speeches he's given in his life. There's a certain dishonesty in it. A brief quotation in a section on a particular topic to illustrate a point is a much better way to handle quotations. Keeping them in a separate section is just asking for a low quality result in perpetuity. -Exucmember 06:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and take out the section then, if that is what you feel is best. Steve Dufour 09:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I see exucmember has gone ahead and moved to quotes to Wikiquote, good work. Steve Dufour 00:33, 16 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)

Thank you for commenting. (I recommend commenting on a Talk page before making a controversial edit, to give time for those opposed to answer before they revert.) I mentioned above that "A brief quotation in a section on a particular topic to illustrate a point is a much better way to handle quotations." There are already such quotations in the article, and I don't have any prolem with more being added. The quotation section was originally added as a way for one editor to get his POV across by cherry-picking quotations that fit the point he was trying to make. There will always be the temptation for editors of this page to add such quotations in the future. That's why I said above "Keeping them in a separate section is just asking for a low quality result in perpetuity." What do you think about this problem? Do you have a proposal for solving it? You know that editors are going to come along and want to add a quotation to this section. Are you going to police it forever and tell all of them that their additions are not welcome? What do you think of having, as I've recommended, quotations that support statements made in the article? Advantages include a greater likelihood that the quotation will be representative, as the editor will have to justify some general statement about Sun Myung Moon. The "Quotations" section could be removed entirely and a link to Wikiquotes put in the "See also" section. -Exucmember 19:47, 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 didn't know how to do it either, but I was pretty sure I could figure it out. I went to the Winston Churchill page and took a look (figured they'd have it). There was a "wikiquote" template at the top of the "External links" section. I'm adding it and removing the "Quotations" section. Is this what you had in mind? -Exucmember 20:42, 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)

---

"Dung-eating dogs"

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 FAMILY FEDERATION FOR COSMIC PEACE AND UNIFICATION AND THE COSMIC ERA OF BLESSED FAMILY

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)

Recently this edit had the effect of "toning down" Moon's words, spreading his criticism more broadly across all forms of sexual immorality. Not one critic I've seen took Moon's words this way. So, I disagree with this "softening" of Moon's comments.

I think it's very clear from the original church published version, that Moon made a solid distinction between "free sex", "incest" etc., calling that behavior merely "confused", and only after and in direct response to his own rhetorical question on homosexuals does Rev. Moon introduce "dung".

As you read this, please pay attention to Rev. Moon's "rhetorical question and answer" device, a device common to virtually all his speeches. In here Moon asks two distinct questions and gives two distinct answers in leading up to "dung":

• "Because absolute settlement should be one vertical settlement, it cannot be swayed. It is centered upon one spot. Without establishing this absolute vertical settlement, there will always be the complications of zig-zagging and swaying in different directions. Without this absolute settlement there is room for free sex. Also incest will occur between grandparents and grandchildren and even mother and son. Far too many complications would occur without this absolute settlement. There is a loss of direction and we see this zig-zagging complicated phenomena taking place in America today. Sexual intercourse complications. Is the world around us a peaceful world centered upon God, or is it all confused? That is what is called free sex. (Q-A #1) What is the meaning of lesbians and homosexuals? That is the place where all different dungs collect. (Q-A #2) We have to end that behavior. When this kind of dirty relationship is taking place between human beings, God cannot be happy. That is what the secular world is like. As the lord of all creation, are we seeking that kind of world?"

I would observe that (a) Rev. Moon's introduction of "dung" (excrement) at this point (and not before) is a scatological reference clearly intended to be associated with homosexuals specifically, and (b) as such references are SO common in the anti-gay lexicon in all languages, I think it's fair to say that Rev. Moon is describing a spectrum of immoral behaviours in which "free-sex" is "confusion of God's intent" while homosexuality is worse -- "the place where dung collects" (anus), "dung eaters" etc. etc. Also note as a reinforcement that he refers in the singular ("this kind of dirty relationship") rather than plural ("these kinds of dirty relationships").

Based on the entire paragraph in context and the fact that everyone outside the Church took Moon's words to be anti-gay, I'm reverting the edit to match the generally accepted meaning of Moon's words among critics (and I've checked Google's news archives to confirm that the critical comments made do take the view that it was explicitly anti-gay). Now, if the Unification Church has answered critics by explicitly refuting the "gay specific" context in which his comments were taken, then we can add a statement to the effect that "the Church believes that Moon's critics have misinterpreted his statements..." and so forth. Otherwise I think it's WP:OR and synthesis. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Views on Communism "and" Democracy

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 think that sounds like a good idea.Steve Dufour 00:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There could also be Views on the Bible and Views on other religions. Steve Dufour 01:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Some Christians"

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)

It might be better to call it an anti-crusade. :-) Steve Dufour 15:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

True enough :) StuartDouglas 11:19, 20 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)

hmmm..... Could Rev. Moon's controversal points of view be given by themselves without the mention of spokespeople for the other side? I'm not sure if this would work. Steve Dufour 12:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now I see your point, that in a biography of a living person, the burden is higher, and that if there is negative uncited negative material it can be deleted immediately. I think this guideline is designed to prevent gratuitous criticism that may be damaging to someone, when in fact the allegations may be completely without merit, not having actually even been made except by that particular editor. In Rev. Moon's case, we know that certain allegations have been made, so sources should be provided. Perhaps tagging "some civil libertarians", "some Jews", and "some gay rights groups" now with the tag and giving those who would like to preserve those allegations some reasable period of time to respond is appropriate. As far as this specific allegation, I thought StuartDouglas was saying that the allegation is cited by Rev. Moon in his speech. I guess I'll let him speak to that. -Exucmember 15:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no - apologies if I was unclear. All I did was change the text to better reflect the article which was being cited. Initially the text on the Rev Moon's article read "some Christian ministers began joining" Rev Moon's campaign, with a footnote to an external article which was supposed to support that statement. It seemed to me that the external article in fact said almost the exact opposite. I wholly take the point that in a bio of a living person the burden of proof for any statement is higher than for a historical figure, but I also think it's important that apparently supportive citations are exactly that - supportive. As it happens, I think Steve Dufour's change is fine. StuartDouglas 16:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I think I remember finding a citation somewhere just like that myself. The cited article was saying something almost exactly opposite of the assertion in the article that was supposedly supported by the citation!

And I agree that Steve Dufour's change seems fine. -Exucmember 17:57, 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)

Unification Church Cult Statement

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)

The Jehovah's Witnesses, which are utterly non-political, are also often called a "cult". Steve Dufour 15:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the text I think we're referring to:

• Other writers have asserted that Moon's anti-communism is a reaction to his personal suffering, as opposed to having any spiritual or religious basis. Critics have seized upon this point of view as evidence for their claim that the Unification Movement has primarily a political basis; thus, they argue, his Unification Church is a cult as opposed to a religion.

These are specific claims and so should have references. Which critics have said this? -Will Beback 22:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about "critics" per se, but 20 years ago a court judgment said the 'church' was less religious than "political and economic" - the opinion was later overturned or invalidated, but it was a common sentiment at the time.

Opponents frequently have argued that the church's views on political and economic matters are so intrusive into these areas as to disqualify the church as a bona fide religion. They seem to think there is a limit to how much religion should be allowed to affect politics.

This is their opinion, and it is relevant - however much church supporters (like me!) disgree with their point of view. --Uncle Ed 16:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Views of the cross

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)

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. --Uncle Ed 16:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW in the opening paragraph it says that Rev. Moon claims to be the Messiah. We probably don't need John's opinion about it. Happy Thanksgiving everyone, or whatever fall holiday you celebrate. Steve Dufour 16:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No, but the church's point of view clearly favors the idea that Rev. Moon is the Messiah, and this is probably the single must controversial aspect of church teachings. Indeed, one of the foremost aims of the church is to get recognition for Rev. Moon as the Messiah (or "True Parent" or "King of Peace", etc.) as part of what DP calls the Foundation for the Messiah. By the way, would you like to start writing that article? It's a red link right now. ^_^ --Uncle Ed 16:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

O.K. Give me some time to think about it first. Steve Dufour 16:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Added some more to what you did. It is not so easy to explain! Steve Dufour 18:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Cut from article:

which was started in the belief that the cross was a symbol of religious intolerance to many non-Christians, especially Jews and Muslims. Freelance journalist John Gorenfeld, who has researched Moon and the Unification movement, said, "You couldn't really spell it out any more explicitly short of renting a blimp to carry a fluttering banner."

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.

Cross as a symbol of conquest

It was said above:

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.

This is true and is in fact the same as the Unification Church position:

• "It was introduced by Constantine, over 300 years after the death of Jesus. What is of God always unites his children. The fact that the Cross is a symbol of division, shame, suffering and bloodshed prove that it is not of God but Satan." [23]

"Claims"

This is from Wikipedia:Words to avoid:

The word claim can be used to mean "assert, say". In this sense, it carries a very strong connotation of dubiousness: by using it, you suggest that the assertion is suspect. The American Heritage Dictionary notes this connotation explicitly in their definition of the word: "To state to be true, especially when open to question". Of course, there are other definitions of claim as well. These generally don't have the same connotation, and the word can be used freely in those senses. For instance, making a claim in court or claiming a piece of land are valid.

...

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)

Opposition from a salon.com staffer

Cut from "crowning" section:

According to blogger John Gorenfeld, most particants later said that they were misled about the event [24]

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)

Thanks, 198. I recognize all those quotes as "verifiable".

Remember, though, that in religion the interpretation of scripture is of paramount importance. What may be a symbol of redemption to one group may be a symbol of conquest (think Constatine) or of unmerited suffering (Unif. view).

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.

The distinction between "tear down" and "take down" is metaphorical, having to due with (1) violence and/or aggression vs. (2) voluntarism and permission. In contrast to the "take down the cross" campaign, partisans spoke of "tearing down" the Berlin Wall; no one asked permission, but crowds gathered and destroyed the wall by force.

Unificationists are well aware that Christians have traditionally viewed the cross as a "burden ... to take up" (like Simon of Cyrene who helped Jesus along the route to Golgotha) - and also viewed it as a symbol of redemption. I neglected to start an article on Redemption by the cross explaining the Unification view that believing in Jesus' resurrection provides tremendous spiritual benefits to the reborn Christian; there are limits to the salvific power of the cross, though, and believing that one has been "washed in the blood" and therefore may regard oneself as sinless is considered a great heresy in our 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.

Our general policy is to agree to disagree, which accords well with Wikipedia editorial policy. Each article on a controversial subject describes the opposing points of view without declaring either side as correct.

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.

More than 90% of Christians disagree with each of the various Unification viewpoints on Jesus, salvation and the cross. Articles should note the percentage of agreement or disagreement when this is known. --Uncle Ed 14:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Dividing the "controversal" from the "uncontroversal" might be harder than it sounds. But as far as I know no one has removed any quotes from the wikiquote page. Steve Dufour 16:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not refering to the quotes already there which a cursory reading of which all sound favorable to Moon, I mean the addition of the controversial ones (such as those I listed above).

If you add them with cites no one will remove them. Steve Dufour 06:00, 23 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)

Comments and opinions (about the cross)

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:

Others, though, see this reasoning as a convienient stepping stone for the usurpation of Jesus with Moon, especially given some of Moons own comments about Jesus.

Michael Schwartz of Concerned Women for America said, "The cross does not, by any means, symbolize a 'history of religious intolerance, forced conversions, inquisitions or racism. That is an outrageously bigoted statement."

On the other hand with regard to the Crusades we read that "Like pilgrims, each crusader" was "granted a cloth cross (crux) to be sewn into their clothes. This 'taking of the cross', the crux, eventually became associated with the entire journey; the word 'crusade' ... developed from this." Crusades. See also The Burning Cross Spanish Inquisition Witch-hunt Salem witch trials New Christian Marrano Morisco Ku Klux Klan

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.

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)

I removed Kingara's comment that says the same thing as Wilsons. Also it cleaned it up a bit and tried to give all the legitimate sides a voice. 4.246.206.62 08:35, 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.

I went ahead and took out the unsourced back and forth comments on the cross. This is an article about Rev. Moon, not one about the cross or about how people feel about the cross. Plus there was not any notable "blacklash" against the campaign by other Christians, which is shown by how far down USA Today (if it was them wrote the orginal story quoting Mr. Schwartz) had to dig to find someone in the Christian establishment who cared to make a comment on it. Steve Dufour 17:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Article is losing valid criticism

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)

1) The intro paragraph says that Rev. Moon has said that he is the Messiah. If the opening sentence said "Sun Myung Moon is a man who believes himself to be the Messiah" that would be fine with me also. However it is not clear that Representative Danny Davis crowned him as the Messiah.

Just bringng out a small flaw. You may do with as you wish.

2) I don't think that "many" would believe it was possible for Rev. Moon to "usurp" Jesus.

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"?

3) The coronation has its own article; Ms Lisi could be quoted there with no complaint by me.

Might you re-add it then?

4) The article is about Rev. Moon. Not about the cross or how the great majority of Christians feel about the cross. Steve Dufour 23:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well some people might feel that it's ALL ABOUT the cross, and the whittling away of its significance while simultaneously puffing up Moon.

If you want you could make a section "Christian reaction to Moon", or something like that. Steve Dufour 03:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Thanks. I think you are doing well too. BTW I would prefer not to see a totally positive article with all the controversy and criticism taken out. People would find that boring. Have a great Christmas. Steve Dufour 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)