Talk:Sun Myung Moon - Definition and Overview

HE IS A GHAY ASS FUCKER@@!!

Moon as billionaire

I don't think it's true that Rev. Moon is a billionaire (unless you're counting in Korean won :-)

I rather doubt his entire extended family's assets amount to much more than my own.

Perhaps the previous contributor meant that as founder and leader of the Unification Church, he exercises virtually unquestioned control over all church property and funds -- much as the Roman Catholic pope does -- and thus "owns" those resources. If so, it might be better to make this POV clear.

BTW, most of the other additions are in a similar vein. I'm not going to go through them one by one, nor am I going to revert. If this is what everyone thinks, so be it. --Uncle Ed 20:18, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hm, actually not all of the recent anonymous edits were that bad. I actually like this one (http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Sun_Myung_Moon&diff=1507270&oldid=1507260). --Uncle Ed 21:10, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The Queen of England also technically "owns" a lot of assets. This does not make her the "richest woman in the world". I don't see how there's any debate on this issue. Pakaran. 03:22, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Father came to America in 1971. In 1975 America was defeated in Vietnam. Yes, the US Army could not win the war at that time. At that time anti-communism was virtually dead in America, morale was very low. Carter was president. Father came and boosted up the morale. In 1976 there was a great rally at Washington Monument. In 1978 for the following twelve years, Father completely turned around America's atmosphere. This country changed from a liberal atmosphere to a conservative atmosphere. 1975 was the supreme liberal era of the United States. Five years later, the so called extreme rightist Ronald Reagan was persuaded to run for president. Nobody believed he could become president. Father is the one who in 1980 predicted Father would win, when no one else thought so. Reagan himself could not believe what happened. In 1980 Reagan became president and the conservative movement became top. In 1984 Father was in Danbury. Even from Danbury Father commanded the entire Unification forces. So Reagan reigned in this country for eight years with the Reagan doctre. But who is the author of the Reagan doctrine? SDI, commonly known as the Star Wars program was not widely supported by Reagan and others in government. General Daniel Graham, the founder of SDI came to Father and asked him for support saying it was a crucial program for the nation's security. Father pledged his support. SDI was promoted and finally the defense department and the White House became convinced it was a good idea. Three weeks later Reagan announced in the State of the Union message that SDI would become part of the national defense program. If SDI was not created at that time, the existence of the Patriot missile would be impossible. The Patriot is an offspring of the SDI program. American people today know how valuable that program is. They say, "Thank God for SDI." thank God for Reverend Moon.

Furthermore, Nicaragua was one communist nation which connected North and South America. Even though Cuba is communist it is an island. Nicaragua is strategically located on the mainland. Father was in prison, but at that time said Nicaragua must not be abandoned, the Freedom Fighters must be supported. US Congress abandoned the project, they didn't want to give any money to the Freedom Fighters. So the Washington Times made a special editorial on the front page. You never see front page editorials, but it was published. Many people sent money and letters to Congress and the Senate. The leaders were shaken and knew they had to pass the resolution for support that had already been sent to the trash can. They decided that instead of fourteen million dollars, they would send twenty seven million. That is the money that Father earned for the Freedom Fighters of Nicaragua.

Father made a special film on Nicaragua called "Nicaragua is My Home." That film was made by our dear brother Lee Shapiro. His wife is here. Linda, could you please stand up. Lee Shapiro made this film upon Father's order. This film was shown at the White House first. President Reagan wrote a letter of commendation after viewing it. It was shown on PBS, to different localities all around the country and that completely turned around public opinion. Nicaragua today is free. Communism is gone, they have freely elected a president. As soon as Violetta Chommoro became president, she wrote a letter to thank Father. Another heartwarming story was when Lee Shapiro reported to Father about the Nicaragua film, Father said, "We have to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan. You make a movie." Lee Shapiro was completely determined to make a most dynamic movie in Afghanistan. So he traveled there fearlessly. So many people would not go, but he went with the Mujahudeen even to the front line. He himself looked like a Mujahudeen! He grew a beard. His weapon was not a gun, but a movie camera. He was on camel back with all his film taken on the front line. One day coming out of a fight, Soviet helicopters came. Everyone hid in the bushes, but Lee Shapiro realized he had left the film cans on the camel. More important than his life was this exposed film. So he ran trying to get the film, without any fear. The Soviet helicopter gunned him down. It then landed and picked up all that film and took it away to the Soviet Union. Father is now trying to recover it through the KGB. All the Soviet Congressmen who came this last time were told to bring us back that film. In any case, because of Lee Shapiro's effort the Congress unanimously voted him a Medal of Freedom.

Father's job is the unification of left and right, but on different levels, the family level, the tribe level, the nation level, world wide level, universal level, cosmic level and God and human beings level. On every level Father is bringing unity. Father united Christian morality and the leadership of this nation. Ever since Father came, since the time of Ronald Reagan, Father has had influence over choosing the right president and Christianity has come to stand more and more on Father's side. This is very important for this country.

The founding of The Washington Times

This was not however the only contribution Rev. Moon has made. Probably the more significant ongoing contribution would be the founding of The Washington Times in Washington, D.C., as the second daily newspaper in the nation's capital, with a distinct conservative outlook - or more correctly, God-centered outlook. Could you imagine what Washington would have been like with only one daily? This is our headquarters. This is our famous newsroom. And this is our printing plant.

The Washington Times has continuously published for the past 14 years at an aggregate investment of well over one billion dollars! It was indeed a most precious investment for freedom. It is now a must-read for all opinion-makers not only in Washington but all over the United States, and indeed ranks among the great newspapers of the world! And, it maintained a staunch opposition to communism and Soviet expansionism until the collapse of the Soviet empire.

The Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, said upon his inauguration, The Washington Times "has the real interests of America at heart."

The Strategic Defense Initiative

Through The Washington Times and other organizations he founded, Rev. Moon staunchly supported President Reagan's proposed Strategic Defense Initiative, also known as "Star Wars," to protect the United States from Soviet nuclear missiles through space-based defense. This is a Washington Times political cartoon from that time entitled "Space Shield." As you well know, one of the critical factors behind the collapse of the USSR was its sheer inability to compete with the United States in this area of cutting-edge technology. Ultimately, President Reagan's pursuit of SDI was a kind of trump card, upon which the Soviets could only throw up their arms in defeat. Yet Reagan could not do it until The Washington Times swayed public opinion decisively towards support of SDI.

Reagan thanked Rev. Moon

When Reagan's term was almost over, he invited me, as the President and Publisher of The Washington Times, to the Oval Office in the White House. As can be seen in this picture, he firmly shook my hand in appreciation and said, "Dr. Pak, no one appreciates the value of The Washington Times more than I. Without The Washington Times, my Reagan Doctrine would have been a failure. It could not have triumphed over the Brezhnev Doctrine. Would you kindly convey my deep thanks and appreciation to Rev. Moon, the founder of The Washington Times, who made this most precious investment for freedom?" At this point, may I invite you to give one warm round of applause for President Reagan?

George Bush and the end of communism

The Washington Times also supported the 1988 election of George Bush as the 41st president of the United States. Today, we should give more appreciation to those great heroes, Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, as the liberators of the communist empire. But in my heart, behind the scenes, who produced these two heroes? It was Rev. Moon and God.

Integration of text

Thanks for posting that speech; I guess Bo Hi Pak made it. Perhaps we can include some of the facts he mentions, in the text of the Sun Myung Moon article. --Uncle Ed 13:37, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits in the first few paragraphs, Eloquence. The text flows more smoothly, and the POV is better balanced than I could have done myself.

At least I know I'm hopelessly biased when it comes to my own church. On the other hand, I'm right about global warming, doggone it! :-) --Uncle Ed 02:19, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I will gladly admit that you're right on global warming if you admit that you're wrong on homosexuality, abstinence, abortion, creationism, drugs, and Mr. Moon's messiah status. Once you're through with that, we can talk about global warming again.—Eloquence 02:23, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

Nice to see that you at least admit you're wrong on global warming!—Eloquence 02:26, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

Ed, ya may wanna take up that Messiah stuff with your own congresscritters (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/290588.shtml). If nothing else see if you can get permission for WP to use that photo of the crowned Father and Missus. 142.177.168.144 18:32, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hum, Ed, why precisely may he not enter France ? Anthère

Twenty years ago, Rev. Moon was convicted in US Federal Court of having committed tax fraud. The money he was keeping in trust for the Unification Church was considered "his personal money", so he was criminally liabile for not paying income tax on the small amount of interest ($50,000) that the bank paid on the account. He served 13 months in prison.

Japan and most countries of the EU don't allow convicted felons to visit their countries.

Interestingly, the US offered to drop the tax fraud charges if Rev. Moon would return his green card. I guess he decided that being able to visit America was more important than being able to visit Japan and Europe. --Uncle Ed 21:58, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This phrase, like many others, is troublesome.

confessed to failing in his mission

I don't know why this idea keeps cropping up, but I've explained in several places that it was John the Baptist who failed -- not Jesus. The non-completion of Jesus' mission was not Jesus fault, and Rev. Moon has not accused Jesus of "failing" at it.

This is POV, and it should be properl attributed. Something like:

For Unification Church critics, Rev. Moon's views on Jesus' "mission" remaining uncompleted amount to an accusation that Jesus failed; an accusation they find both insulting and blasphemous, since God cannot fail at anything.

Yet the church insists that these critics have misunderstood Rev. Moon's views, emphasizing that it was not Jesus but rather John the Baptist who failed. The church claims that, like other contemporary Jewish leaders, John did not understand understand the will of God. Church theology cites Jesus words as evidence: "This is the will of God, that you believe in him whom He has sent." (Jn. 6:29) Unificationists interpret this verse to mean that John the Baptist (among others) should have believed wholeheartedly that Jesus was the Messiah and given Jesus their unswerving devotion. Anyone who failed to do that, especially anyone whose words or actions led to his crucixion, was a failure in the eyes of God, according to the UC.

--Uncle Ed 20:02, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The Clouds inconsistency

The last of the introductory paragraphs says 'In 2003, Rev. Moon announced that...several dozen dead U.S. presidents...declared him to be "the savior and messiah of humanity."'. Is this the Clouds of Witnesses? But the Clouds say it is the communist leaders -- which is basically the opposite of US presidents. Also, the Clouds were in 2002, not 2003 (although this is an easy typo). Is the president thing an error or another cloud declaration? --Menchi 03:13, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That was something "206" added in late September this year. I still haven't finished corrected all the errors (and bias) he introduced. The president thing is another cloud declaration (see, for example Proclamation of Resolution of Former US Presidents (http://www.messagesfromspiritworld.info/United%20Nations/United%20Nation4.html)). --Uncle Ed 22:46, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Mission of Jesus

According to Moon, in this vision, Jesus confessed to failing in his mission -- as he'd never gotten married -- and implored Moon to complete his work in purifying the sex-corrupted lineage of mankind.

1. It wasn't a "vision", but one-on-one conversation.
2. Jesus didn't "confess" to anything -- the word confess implies wrong-doing
3. Rev. Moon never said Jesus "failed" but that John the Baptist failed. This bit about Moon supposedly blaming Jesus for "failing" has dogged the UC for decades and is based on a misreading (possibly deliberate) of UC doctrine about Jesus' mission. It's the single most damaging thing Christian opponents say about Rev. Moon, so I should write a paragraph or two about it and stick it back in.
4. Most of the encounter with Jesus was about the 15-year-old Moon picking up the mission where Jesus left off. I never heard that "purifying the sex-corrupted lineage" was specifically mentioned.

Sheesh! Where do people GET this stuff? --Uncle Ed 17:12, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah; Jesus was clearly married - he could not have been a rabbi otherwise - and probably to Mary Magdalene.

The better story, though, is Moon's being crowned Messiah by a bipartisan group of Congressmen on March 23 (http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=131). That story comes from Washington's Post and Times, and a PR from Rep. Rangel (http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog/2004_04_01_barchive.html#108224416705418552), supposedly. 142.177.18.22 17:28, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

hmm...

the religious articles throughout wikipedia must reach some sort of compromise, or this whole thing is a joke. we're all getting into petty semantics arguments. maybe we should divide up religious topics (at least) into multiple viewpoints in the index. that way, each point of view is supported, since everyone seems to have a biased opinion of objective reason and investigation on these issues that invlove their own way of life and morals.

furthermore

it seems that the one person here who is actually of the church and apparently quite knowledgeable about its fonder (despite obevious biases) is getting ignored by those who share beliefs more akin to my own. despite our "beliefs"/"reason", we do all supposedly share a single conviction in mind: that of the necessity of representation of all viewpoints for proper analysis. i may be beating a dead horse, but there is a definite underrepresentation in this "article" of adherents to the faith being discussed, which you will not find in the section on Jesus Christ, Messiah, or Paul (i noticed a lack of Saul's belief in Mithraism prior to conversion, and there is no mention of the fact term "Christ" came from Paul, being a Hellenistic term).

Oh, that's okay. I'm used to being misunderestimated. This is an example of the kind of situation where the process is just as important as the product. I feel a burden to exemplify my church's teachings via my edits to this article; being heavy-handed would violate those teachings, so I'm trying to be lowly and meek... --Uncle Ed 00:03, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Rangel proclamation

Be it known...I, CHARLES B. RANGEL, Member of Congress, 15th Congressional District, by the power and authority vested in me, this 16th day of April, 2004, do recognize you as "True Parents" exemplifying self-giving service and leadership and of "King of Peace" in the key areas of reconciliation and peacemaking over fifty (50) years.

This is not quite the same as an "unsolicited testimonial". At a recent church meeting I heard that these specific words were suggested (or perhaps written) by a church leader; Rep. Rangel merely SIGNED them. I think there's a qualitative difference: "here's what I think" vs. "okay, I'll go along with that". --Uncle Ed 00:08, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Added section about coronation

I added a section about Moon being crowned by US congressmen, kooky fucking shit if you ask me. This man is plumb insane. Check out the Salon.com article about the incident:Hail to the Moon king (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/06/21/moon/index.html). How does a noted homophobe, anti-Semite and all around crazy asshole get so much power and influence in our government? Sigh...

Well, for one reason, his followers are mellow and tolerant people like me who refuse to take offense at comments like 'kfs' and 'ca' above :-)

We just go out and serve our communities. I've served the online community at Wikipedia so long that I was first "bureaucrat" elected; and people are frequently calling on me to bring harmony to articles which are deadlocked in POV squabbles.

But more to the point: perhaps the idea of any one being crowned King of Kings sounds kooky? Or is it just that you don't think Christ would disapprove of (a) homosexuality or of (b) turning over Jesus to the Romans for execution? Or don't you take Isaiah 9:6-7 literally: "of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end"?

I would think believers would be saying Hallelujah! --Uncle Ed 01:12, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm a Jew so the whole Christ thing for me is intself kinda funny. And as for your tolerance, I don't think that really holds up well either. How do you tolerate a man who said: "Through the principle of indemnenity (spel?) Hitler killed six million Jews" Yeah when you say stuff like that it kinda pisses us off. And congrats on being the first bureaucrat, you must be an amazing person.

Lastly I think the idea of members of our government crowning a noted felon, anti-Semite, homophobe, and crazy man kinda scary. StoptheBus18 15:44, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

PS Hey did you have his picture in your room the first time you had sex with your wife?? Cause if I had to do that, it would just freak me out so much.

Politial or religious

'Cut from intro:'

the Unification Movement, which is as much political as it is religious.

As a member of the church, I regard it as much more religious than political. Opponents who call it a "cult" paint it as political to discredit it. It's no more political than Catholics and less political than Unitarians. We pray, read scripture and attend church; there's very little political activity, although what little there is gets a lot of free publicity from opponents (but only to denounce these activities as anti-liberal or as 'evidence' that the church is spurious. --Uncle Ed 01:19, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'Also cut:'

Moon met with enormous opposition, but through canny and expensive PR strategies has become a VIP among national-level Washington, D.C. politicians

You can say this if you describe these PR strategies. As little as ONE SINGLE sentence is enough. Or simple QUOTE a source, like this: A Salon article claimed that it was through "canny and expensive" PR strategies that Moon won the favor of DC politicians. See, I'm helping you express your POV -- not censoring! --Uncle Ed 01:25, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Crucifixion and indemnity

StopTheBus wrote:

Well I'm a Jew so the whole Christ thing for me is itself kinda funny. And as for your tolerance, I don't think that really holds up well either. How do you tolerate a man who said: "Through the principle of indemnity (spel?) Hitler killed six million Jews" Yeah when you say stuff like that it kinda pisses us off.

If you are not familiar with "indemnity" I can see why you would be angry. It probably sounds like Hitler's genocide is being excused or justified.

What Rev. Moon is teaching is different from that. It's more like the Old Testament period, when God repeatedly allowed Egypt, the Philistines, the Babylonians, etc., to conquer and enslave the chosen people. Why did He do that? Because He hates Jews? No, because they departed from His will and fell into sin. On the other hand, when they listened to the prophets and repented, God blessed them again and protected them from their enemies.

The principle is: obey God and be blessed; ignore God and suffer (basically). Remember what God said to Cain? "If you do well..." --Uncle Ed 18:39, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wow. You are an idiot. StoptheBus18 00:36, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

PS Do you smell your wife's stool? Because if you don't you are not totally one. Words to live by my friend. Words to live by.

Please don't call me an idiot. According to an IQ test I took once, I'm at least a moron or an imbecile :-)

Quotes

• "The separation between religion and politics is what Satan likes most."

• "Through the principle of indemnity, Hitler killed 6 million Jews." - The word "indemnity" is a reference to Moon's belief that Jews are largely responsible for the murder of Christ; taken from the speech "Father's words and Hoon Dok Hae" [3/02/03]

• "I am determined to liberate all the Jewish people and protect them and restore all of this history." [1] (http://www.familyfed.org/board/uboard.asp?id=tp_news&skin=board_urim_simple&color=eng&page=1&u_no=360)

• "Do you like the smell of your husband's semen? Answer to Father. Does it smell good or bad? You may not like the smell of your wife's stool, but do you smell your own? Why don't you smell your own but you smell your wife's? Because you are not totally one." - From a speech entitled "WHO WAS I?" [2/13/94]

None of these quotes is related to the article text, but were apparently added to the article to show Rev. Moon in a bad light. Please either:

• clarify the point that Moon's opponents are using these quotes to make; or, preferably,
• Research the context these quotes are form and give both (a) Rev. Moon's intended meaning and (b) opponents' rebuttal. --Uncle Ed 01:18, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here's a point: NO. They are related to the article in that HE SAID THEM. It's obvious that you are a moonie and that you are just trying to not make your leader look bad. Fair enough, add in some quotes that you don't think show him poorly. And it is not NPOV to explain intention. Most othe places see Rush Limbaugh do not have explinations about quotes. Grow the fuck up. Sorry you're in a cult.StoptheBus18 14:29, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I guess part of growing up would be to tolerate your insistence on adding quotes which (while authentic) seem calculated to make Rev. Moon look bad. Sorry you're not in my "cult". ;-) --Uncle Ed 12:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey you want to add some quotes that make him look like an amazing guy, go ahead I will not stop you. The reason they make your leader look bad is... gee... I dunno... THEY ARE BAD! What sane person advocates taking a pair of pliers to your junk???? Oy gevalt, who are these people?? StoptheBus18 14:24, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey, what kind of people let a rapist go because the girl "could have screamed" because she was inside the city gates? There are many apparent inconsistencies in the Bible; does this mean there's no God, or that Judaism has no value at all? Anyway, Jesus is famous for saying that if your right eye or right hand causes you to sin you should pluck out your eye or amputate your hand -- but no one sticks random quotes like that onto the Jesus Christ article.

The point is to explain these sayings in context -- not to pick the most extreme quote possible and palm it off as summing up an entire philosophy (that would be sophomoric at best). --Uncle Ed 02:16, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If people want context they can look at the speeches, which is why I added a seperate section about them. But honestly, theres kind of a difference between something a man said 2000 years ago and something that Moon says today. No rational person would say that you should take pliers to your dick, I'm sorry, that's just fucking insane. What if people took that literally (as some kooks do when it comes to the bible and other matters), they could really fucking hurt themselves. By the way you never answered my question but never mind. How long did it take to put "holy salt" in your room, I imagine that must have taken all the fun out of the honeymoon... StoptheBus18 14:31, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PS Where do you get holy salt? Can you use normal salt and then bless it? Or does it have to be purchased from like a special Moonie supply store?

LOL! You can use normal salt, mix it with some previously-acquired holy salt, form seven piles and then bless them. It doesn't take very long, unless you like saying long prayers ;-)

Jesus, like Rev. Moon, sometimes said things which he could expect reasonable and responsible people not to take literally. Is there any record of someone plucking out his right eye ("It made me sin! I had to do it!!")? Once Rev. Moon said that if you can't control your desire for sex-outside-of-marriage, "cut it off, barbecue it, put it in a shoe box and mail it to me" -- come on, man, no one takes that sort of thing literally... It's a classic rhetorical technique: you exaggerate your point as a way of highlighting its importance; and if you can't understand that, why I'll simply have to track you down, tie you up, and tickle you with feathers until you do!! (Note: don't take this literally, hee hee! ;-)

To answer your other question, no, the pictures and holy salt didn't take the fun out of our honeymoon; it was great! (Just because Unificationists are too modest to discuss their sex lives doesn't indicate any lack of enjoyment; and by the way, remind me to finish that article on "absolute sex".) --Uncle Ed 21:48, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oy. StoptheBus18 23:01, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm going out on a limb and saying that the question was asked to be offensive and cause embarassment - NOT to gain information. A google on holy salt took me about thirty seconds to find this: [2] (http://www.unification.net/tradition/tt1-08.html), and I note that Unificationists use holy salt for a lot of other things apparently. I'm an Atheist, but I believe in google ;) Pakaran (ark a pan) 14:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Jesus, like Rev. Moon, sometimes said things which he could expect reasonable and responsible people not to take literally. Is there any record of someone plucking out his right eye ("It made me sin! I had to do it!!")? Once Rev. Moon said that if you can't control your desire for sex-outside-of-marriage, "cut it off, barbecue it, put it in a shoe box and mail it to me" -- come on, man, no one takes that sort of thing literally... It's a classic rhetorical technique: you exaggerate your point as a way of highlighting its importance; and if you can't understand that, why I'll simply have to track you down, tie you up, and tickle you with feathers until you do!! (Note: don't take this literally, hee hee! ;-)"

holy cow, stopthebus you got ur ass whupped by uncle ed! whoo that was fckin awesome.

Court verdicts

It has been pointed out to me that I used an appeal to authority when it favored my point of view about mind control or deprogramming, saying that we should listen to scientific organizations or courts when they uphold the right of believers to participate in Unification Church lifestyles. But that I call into question other court opinions, like the sentence in North Korea (in the 1950s) or New York (in the 1980s) which I regard as persecution.

Okay *blush* I admit there's a bit of a logical inconsistency here.... --Uncle Ed 20:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Industries

Cut from article:

Today Moon's Unification Church International controls industries all over the world, ranging from a third of the U.S. fishing industry to $300 million in cultural and political enterprises in the Washington, D.C. area alone, as the Washington Post has reported.

Please provide a source for the preposterous charge that one third of the US fishing industry could be controlled by a church.

And please give an additional example of an industry which UCI "controls". Otherwise, the article should say UCI has industrial holdings all over the world -- not "controls" these industries.

Also, the church spends millions of dollars for cultural work -- I'm not sure how this becomes an "enterprise", in the sense of a for-profit industry. Rather, the church uses donated funds for the sake of public projects instead of enriching itself.

Finally, the quote I cut implies that the church is improperly mixing business and politics.

Just saying "as reported by the Washington Post" is not enough. The complaints need to be more detailed, and need the primary sources. Did a Post reporter discover these things himself, or merely quote some church critic who made various disparaging statements? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fishing industry

The US exports over $2 billion of seafood annually. If the Unification Church had one third of that, its share would be $600 million. With just under 6,000 members in the US, that would be $100,000 per member -- our families wouldn't have to work at all!

I suggest that the "one-third of the fishing industry" was simply made up, possibly to promote the charge that the church isn't really religious but just a money-making scheme. Please present documentation for such serious charges, or at least give the name of the critic making it. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:54, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Evil Messiah

I don't think that UC members regard Moon as an "evil Messiah". Maybe the latest edit was just graffiti. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 17:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Serious Changes Needed

Coming across this article, it is clear to me that serious changes are necessary. While the article gratuitously addresses "both sides" of the debate over the nature of the Unification Church, it reads more like a justification - criticisms of the church are recounted, in highly skeptical prose, only to be shoved aside with comfortably and confidently written rationalization.

This starts in the second paragraph of the article. It begins to degrade into unsubtle hero worship: "In 2004, members of Congress crowned him the 'King of Peace' in ceremonies on Capitol Hill. But when he first came to the United States, Rev. Moon met with enormous opposition..." First of all, referring to "members of Congress" is incredibly misleading. It implies that perhaps a large number of members of Congress, or maybe the body itself, "crowned" Rev. Moon as "King of Peace". In reality, there was only one representative (Danny Davis) involved in the crowning. Other Congressmen in attendance have almost uniformly attempted to downplay their involvement in any event that day. The passage pretends that the ceremony constituted some sort of victory for Rev. Moon; a triumph in the court of public opinion and society, when in fact the case was precisely the opposite. The immediate reaction of bewilderment and disgust to the incident, and the fact that many Congressmen attempted to so sharply distance themselves from the event, points to the reality; Rev. Moon, within the United States, is a marginal figure at best.

In its summary of Rev. Moon's life, it also makes the assertion that "Unable to convict him of political malfeasance, the probe landed him in court on charges of tax fraud and conspiracy to obstruct justice." The strong implication here, and throughout the article, is that the prosecution was politically, and not legally motivated, in pursuing its actions. That may be true. However, it is not the purpose of a Wikipedia article to make such a conclusion.

Another claim, coming shortly afterward, is patently absurd: "By the early 1990s Moon and his church had largely rehabilitated its public image." Granted, there has not been an substantial amount of research into public attitudes concerning Rev. Moon. In fact, public knowledge is likely not very deep in this arena. However, as noted before, it is highly revealing that so many Congressmen who had participated in a Moon event were forced to immediately distance themselves from it. From an anecdotal (although naturally, any non-scientific conclusion is open to debate) perspective, I can deduce that support for Rev. Moon's organization is extremely low, and among Americans with more detailed knowledge of his organization, there is a strong feeling of contempt (although this is usually tempered by moderate hilarity).

Another quote: "His followers love him in spite of the criticisms, which they have often portrayed as an organized smear campaign." Rev. Moon is the purportedly semi-divine leader of a religious movement - obviously, his *followers* love him. The phraseology here is completely gratutitous.

"By 2003, Unificationist missionaries were working for their longtime goal of sex purity in New Jersey public schools, on a government abstinence-based sex education grant." - This is another claim used to bolster the perception than Moon has become a productive and respected participant in American civic life; revealingly, there is no mention of the incredible controversy surrounding such grants.

I do not pretend to be an expert on the specifics of Moon's tax evasion trial, and consequently I will not attempt to modify the article in that respect, at this point. However, the narrative on his legal issues during this time period appears to have an incredibly pro-Moon slant.

A final quote: "Critics claimed later that most of the congressmen in attendance didn't expect a coronation but thought the awards dinner was only to honor activists from their home states as 'Ambassadors for Peace.'" The use of the word "critics" here seems incredibly insidious - this, of course, is not a view held merely by critics (and 'critic' usually has a negative connotation), but by the congressmen themselves. The congressmen are obviously competent to judge what their own expectations of the event were - and if they are not telling the truth when they say that they did not expect the circumstances that unfolded, it is important to discern *why*; perhaps, being politicians, they sensed that public opinion would be overwhelmingly in opposition to the crowning of the leader of a unconventional sect as "Messiah" on Capitol grounds.

The task of modifying this article appears to be a monumental one - I doubt that I have the time, knowledge, or writing ability to do so in the near future. However, for those who disagree with my points, I welcome commentary. I apologize if my commentary was too belligerent; I would like to have discussion on this very controversial issue so that we can determine the best article for Wikipedia.

--mrognlie

Style

• criticisms of the church are recounted, in highly skeptical prose, only to be shoved aside with comfortably and confidently written rationalization.

Well, thanks for the compliment. I hadn't realized that my rebuttal of the countless groundless charges against Rev. Moon had shown so much confidence. I'm actually a rather timid fellow.

Mostly, though, you harp on the 'coronation' thing, repeating the argument that the Congressmen "immediately" reacted with disgust, etc. when they found out what was really going on. This is a typical PR tactic church opponents use. Entertainers Whitney Houston and Bill Cosby similarly professed having been duped into associating themselves with church events.

The fact is -- and the article reflects this -- it took weeks for church critics to contact the congressmen and coax them into expressing their 'bewilderment'. Only after a couple of months of this monumental work did the critics have enough ammunition to support an attack article in the media.

Content

If any criticism can be made, it is that the article does not explain the church's rationale for putting on the Ambassadors for Peace programs. The article should explain what the church wants people to think about the 'crowning'.

Specifically, is the church trying to insinuate that Rev. Moon is the Messiah; or that the US Congress has on some level recognized Moon's claim to be the Messiah?

I address the issue as someone who is both an advocate for the church and a contributor to Wikipedia. Please don't just make a drive-by criticism, but stay and help us improve the article. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 16:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Content and Editing

Sorry if I was unclear; I had no intent of doing a drive by criticism.

I'm not sure if we really disagree about the nature of the reactions of the congressmen to the event. I don't have any idea about what their reactions were; I suspect that they were not particularly disgusted, considering that they made no attempt to discuss the incident until they were pressured into doing so (which I think is your point). Indeed, evidence has since appeared that indicates that the congressmen likely knew exactly what to expect.

My thought was that it isn't the fact that the Congressmen later expressed "bewilderment" that is important (since their actual reactions are quite suspect); instead, the interesting point is the fact that they were capable of being forced to so completely back down in the face of criticism, denying their participation to the point of actually lying. Being politicians, I assume that they reacted to their fears and perceptions of public opinion. Essentially, I think that the "spin" on this event isn't correct; the event and its aftermath do not, as the article suggests, indicate that the Unification Church has achieved the status of a generally respected civic institution in the US. Instead, it shows that the subject is so controversial that politicians were forced to distort their participation in the Ambassadors for Peace program to escape association with the church, which they perceived to be damaging to their political prospects.

--mrognlie

Source of some criticism

Joel Pelletier wrote:

"Rev. Moon's followers see him as a new Messiah, the second coming of Christ, commissioned by a failed Jesus Christ to establish the Kingdom of god on earth. In the face of such extravagant claims, Moon met with enormous opposition, but through canny and expensive PR strategies has become a VIP among national-level Washington, D.C. politicians, who have crowned him the "King of Peace" in ceremonies on Capitol Hill." [3] (http://www.joelp.com/americanfundamentalists/cast/moon.html)

• Mullahs: Rev. Sun Myung & Hak Ja Han Moon (http://www.joelp.com/americanfundamentalists/cast/moon.html) - Joel Pelletier

This bit of criticism is distorted and misleading. And I seem to recall someone quoting it without credit, but I might have misremembered. Anyway, the failed Jesus Christ bit is untrue. That's not how Moon or his followers see Jesus at all. I might have to write a sidebar article just on that one point. (deep or sour) 19:40, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

True Parts:

• Rev. Moon's followers see him as a new Messiah
• Rev. Moon's followers see him as ... the second coming of Christ
• Rev. Moon's followers see him as ... commissioned by ... Jesus Christ to establish the Kingdom of God on earth.
• In the face of ... extravagant claims, Moon met with enormous opposition

False Parts:

• Rev. Moon's followers see him as ... commissioned by a failed Jesus Christ (no, Jesus didn't fail. John the Baptist failed. I just talked with a Baptist minister about this point today; maybe I can get him to write an article?)
• Moon ... through canny and expensive PR strategies has become a VIP among national-level Washington, D.C. politicians (it was not just PR, and he's hardly a VIP as of yet)
• D.C. politicians ... have crowned him the "King of Peace" (I dispute this, but I'll check it out before cutting it from the article)

Sloppy blogging

Some of these bloggers aren't very careful about fact-checking. I think they just pick out whatever is the most "damaging" idea they can find and trumpet it, regardless of its distance from reality.

Here's an easy example:

According to Steven Alan Hassan, a licensed mental health counselor who specializes in de-programming people who have been involved in destructive cults ...

Hassan himself denies any involement in deprogramming over the last 25 years, so it's a bit of a stretch to say he "specializes" in this. Hassan takes pains to distance his "exit counseling" (which is voluntary) from "deprogramming" (which is coercive).

A fine distinction? You decide. (deep or sour) 20:09, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Good blogging

David McNair wrote:

In many ways, the growth of Moon’s global spiritual conglomerate over the past twenty-five years seems to embody the idea of bringing humanity together into some kind of harmonious whole. The Unification Church has launched countless civic organizations around the world to promote women’s rights, world peace, and traditional family values. The World's Federation for World Peace, the Family Federation for World Peace, the International Cultural Foundation, the Professors World Peace Academy, the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, the Summit Council for World Peace, the American Constitution Committee, and dozens of other organizations present themselves as nonpartisan, nondenominational groups. [4] (http://www.rutherford.org/oldspeak/blog/articles/religion/oldspeak-mooning.html)

Family Section

"True Parents to UC members." What are true parents? and who are UC members? Since i'm familiar with rev moon, i know he has declared him and his wife "true parents", but somebody reading about this for the first time wouldn't. I don't know what UC means - is that his cult? Jm51 03:55, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

UC is the Unification Church. cult is a word we don't generally use on Wikipedia, but see cult and new religious movements among other articles. I believe "True Parents" means that he and his wife were sent to lead the world or osmething like that. Pakaran (ark a pan) 19:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)