Talk:Unification Church antisemitism controversy

message: The article says:
:"To recreate Israel, the church and the state must become one as Cain and Abel. Instead they became one with Rome and captured and killed Jesus. They united with Rome. Who are the Jewish members here, raise your hands! Jewish people, you have to repent. Jesus was the King of Israel. Through the principle of indemnity Hitler killed 6 million Jews. That is why. God could not prevent Satan from doing that because Israel killed the True Parents. Even now, you have to determine that you will repent and follow and become one with Christianity through Rev. Moon." 
:In this passage, Moon clearly calls on Jews to repent and join his movement, if not his church per se.
Is it supposed to be self-evident that calling Jews to repentance is anti-Semitic? Was Moses anti-Semitic when he punished the worshippers of the Golden Calf by Mt. Sinai? Were Isaiah and Jeremiah anti-Semitic? 
Is the last book in the Old Testament anti-Semitic?
:"He will turn the hearts of parents to their children and the hearts of children to their parents, so that I will not come and strike the land with a curse." (Malachi 4:6)
I'm not deleting the sentence from the article, but I wish someone would tell me WHO SAYS that asking someone to repent for their role in the crucifixion is anti-Semitic. --Uncle Ed 22:23, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: By saying the Jews must repent, he is saying the Jews CAUSED the crucifixion. It is that implied statement that causes people to label him as anti-Semetic. Not only does he blame the Jews for something that happened 2000 years ago, that the Jews in all probability did not commit, but this same act (Killing Jesus) was used as the justification to rape and murder countless Jews over the centuries. Don't try to compare it to Moses and the Golden Calf. In the Bible Moses was a a prophet and leader of the Jews, and the sin happened then, of course it was his responsibility. To the Jews at least, Moon is a nobody, and they do not recognize the sin he accuses them of. If you still cannot see how Moon could be construed as anti-Semetic, you are hopeless.70.111.0.17 03:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Repentance

message: This article is wordy and repetitive. I want to rewrite it completely, but:
*I don't really know enough about why Jews think the church is anti-Semitic.
*Since I'm a member of the church, I might (unconsciously) harbor bias in favor of the church and thus paint too favorable picture of its views.
So would Vicky or Rhmermen or RK like to work on this? --Uncle Ed 15:53, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Help!

message: I am taking them out of the article, which should be about serious concerns not the opinion of an extremist group. Steve Dufour 14:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: JDL

message: I feel this article is giving too much weight to a less-accepted position --- that assigning blame for Jesus's death to the Jews *may not be* antisemitic. Regardless of the intent of the Unification Church on this point, charges of deicide are widely held to be a cornerstone of antisemitism, and have historically used to justify all sorts of horrendous actions. See here. Also see the section on Repudiation; this has been enough of a problem that the Lutheran Church, and to a lesser extent, the Catholic Church, have taken a position.
SheRay7 (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. Another issue that could be brought up is the UC's ties to Islam, including the Nation of Islam, despite the pro-Isreal stance of the church owned Washington Times which doesn't always represent Moon's point of view. Borock (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deicide 

message: * Moon (speaking in 1977): 
*:Recently a major Jewish magazine proclaimed that after long research and investigation they had come to the conclusion that I was not ever anti-Semitic. A Roman Catholic magazine recently published the opinion that the Unification Church is part of the Christian heritage and is not heretical. 
Can someone help me identify that major Jewish magazine?
Also, we know the conclusions drawn from some rabbi's reading of the Divine Principle (DP), but can we get his analysis? I'd like to see a few dozen passages that he regarded as anti-semitic, and (for at least a few representative passages) his precise chain of reasoning regarding them. For example, does DP say that that Jewish people were more ungodly than the average person of the Old Testament age? Or does it say that the Jewish people were more religious and closer to God than average, while also taking them to task for some specific failings?
In particular, does "anti-semitism" entail any broad criticism of Jews or Jewish life? Or is it okay to point out Jewish moral/ethical failings provided that one places these into the context of humanity's general lapses? For example, the New Testament says, "None is righteous, no not one." Does this make Christan scriptures anti-human? Or does it just uphold a terribly high standard? 
Here's another way to approach it. I'm going to call this the "feet of clay" effect. Reverend Moon called Martin Luther King Jr. the 20th century American he admired most. On the other hand, the Unification Church calls adultery "the greatest sin", and it is fairly well known that King committed adultery. Putting 2 and 2 together, what does this mean about the UC position on Dr. King? Are we exalting him or condemning him? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ed. I think the article is heading towards saying that the DP has some passages that have been criticized as antisemitic but that church members are not hostile towards Jewish people. I think this is the information people are looking for if they have questions about this issue. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pros and cons on the issue

message: Are criticism, rebukes and censure always or automatically antisemitic? According to the Jewish Encyclopedia Amos "disturbed the national self-complacency by citing and denouncing the sins of the people and of their civil and religious rulers, declaring that precisely because God had chosen them to be His own would He punish them for their iniquity. He rebuked their oppression of the poor, their greed, their dishonesty, as sins against Yhwh Himself; assured them that their excessive religiousness would not save them in the day of their deserved punishment; that, as far as judgment was concerned, they stood no better with Him than did the Ethiopians, or the Arameans, or the Philistines." 
Or is it only antisemitic when an outsider makes such a sweeping critical statement? In other words, does our classification of a remark as "antisemitic" depend on who makes the statement?
:Yes: Amos can criticize the ancient Israelites, and no one considers him anti-semitic but actually a good prophet conveying a valuable divine message. But since Rev. Moon is not Jewish, he may make similar criticisms.
:No: Anyone can be a prophet and convey divine warnings, even to people of other times and places. 
Which is it? Or, specifically, which standard of antisemitism do Rev. Moon's opponents such as Rabbi Rudin use? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not go by the standards set by Conservapedia? By their implicit definitions, Moon is certainly anti-semitic. 76.105.223.232 (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ed. If all the controversy was taken out of the article there would be no article. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The value of censure

message: Here is a quotation which may be familiar to writers studying this matter:
* The Unification Movement categorically condemns anti- Semitism, the most hideous, abject and cruel form of hatred. We regard the murder of six million Jews in Europe the result of political short-sightedness and lack of moral responsibility on the part of Germany's political and religious leaders, and statesmen from among other nations, in the period between the Two World Wars. 
* Ignoring the basic teachings of the Scriptures, they acted too late to block Hitler's ascent to power, they postponed the action for his downfall, and they did nothing to rescue the victims who were the captives of his satanic plans and designs. (Statement On Jews And Israel December 1976 )
Would I be right in concluding (or wrong in violating WP:OR) that Rev. Moon is hereby calling the Holocaust satanic - as opposed to saying that it was God's will? Look at it this way: "We regard the murder of six million Jews in Europe [as being due to Hitler's] satanic plans and designs." (5 words added for clarification)
Am I in fact clarifying, or am I imputing meaning that is not there? You decide.
In the very next sentence, it is made clear that the implementation of the Final Solution was "a Cain-inspired action". If you know anything about UC theology regarding Cain and Abel, you can recognize that Father Moon was labeling the Nazi extermination program as bad. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a good idea to attempt to draw conclusions from the sayings of religious leaders beyond what they have actually said. Jayjg (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The founder's views on the Holocaust

message: No Steve, it is not necessary to "present both sides by quotes" from WP:PRIMARY sources ad nauseam. The correct way to present a "controversy" is by WP:SECONDARY sources. I am restoring the template.
And the Moon quote fails WP:SELFPUB #1 "unduly self-serving". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edits, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Individual's self-published explanations of their words/acts are allowed per WP:NPOV and are not self-serving unless WP:UNDUE. One little sentence (just added by someone else) mentioning Rev. Moon's relevant comments during the time period in question would not be undue. And it gives people enough information to judge for themselves, which is our main job. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

text: (i) This is NOT an 'explanation of their words/acts' -- it was made in Jan 1976, approx 10 months before the Rudin report was released. (ii) Whether a statement is "self-serving" is unrelated to whether it is given WP:UNDUE weight -- the former is a quality of the self-published source itself -- the latter of its treatment by WP editors. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

text: (iii) The piece was WP:SELFPUB by Mose not Moon, so #2 "it does not involve claims about third parties" is violated -- Mose is making claims about Moon. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

text: (iv) I would further note that the Mose piece makes no mention of Rudin or the American Jewish Committee. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

text: (v) Contrary to this edit summary, there is no evidence that the quotation Mose makes of Moon is the "recent statements by Rev. Moon in which he said that he 'categorically condemns anti Semitism and anti-Christian attitudes'" mentioned in the NYT piece. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unencyclopaedic quotefarm 

message: If the article is about a "controversy" then both sides need to be presented, including pro-Jewish quotes from UC sources. And everything in the article is from people taking sides in the "controversy", there is no secondary coverage.Steve Dufour (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, Steve, the arguments that need to be presented are those that reliable secondary sources make, not arguments invented by Wikipedia editors. The "primary sources" are the statements by Unification Church on Jews. Jayjg (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then both statements saying that the church is antisemitic and statements saying that it is pro-Jewish should be admitted to the article.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If "there is no secondary coverage", then there shouldn't be an article. Also, although a pro-Israel/antisemetic position is inconsistent, it is hardly unknown in conservative Protestant circles. Prejudices are generally not the product of logic, so are quite frequently inconsistent or even incoherent. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has said that UC members, or Rev. Moon, are prejudiced against Jewish people, just that our understanding of religious history is incorrect according to modern sensitivities.Steve Dufour (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "More troubling is the unmistakable anti-semitism I heard expressed by a highly placed and veteran Korean Moonist…" = "UC member … prejudiced against Jewish people" HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did say "members." Most UC members are very pro-Jewish, as is Rev. Moon. This is understood by informed Jewish people. Why don't you write to your Senator or congressperson and ask him or her what he or she thinks about the alleged "antisemitism" of the UC?Steve Dufour (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Given how tight-knit and authoritarian the UC is, I'd be surprised if this "highly placed and veteran Korean Moonist"'s prejudices aren't held by others. I would suspect that many "informed Jewish people" would have problems with Moon's Holocaust=indemnity explanation. Why on earth would you think that I would have a "Senator or congressperson"? Most people in the world don't. And why would you think that the UC is even on my political representative's radar? Outside the US, Korea and Japan, the UC has a negligible presence. Get over yourself and your ethnocentricism. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. Most people in the United States, and certainly in Washington, are well aware of the UC's pro-Jewish attitude.Steve Dufour (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, it is far from unknown for a politically-"pro-Jewish" (generally approximately equivalent to a pro-Israel) position to be simultaneously held with personal/cultural antisemitic prejudices. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I was to decide based only on self-interest I think I would choose to be thought anti-Jewish, 'cause I am fairly confident that the Jews ain't going to kill me.Steve Dufour (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Maybe the title of the article should be changed to "American Jewish Committee news conference on the Divine Principle" since that seems to be the main topic now. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV and primary sources

message: I removed these from the "see also" list. The UC does not strictly teach supersessionism since we believe that Christianity itself misunderstands Jesus' teachings and that faithful Christians are  co-sufferers along with Jews, and with God Himself (a point that some Chistians as well as Muslims also find offensive BTW.) As for Zionism, WP's article defines it as support for the creation of a Jewish state. Since the UC was founded, and the DP written, after the creation of Israel this has nothing to do with us.Steve Dufour (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Supersessionism and Zionism

message: Here's an interesting article, not sure if it would count as a reliable source however. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting article

message: I just checked the AJC website and found no mention of the UC or Rev. Moon. Hmmm. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: AJC website

message: I just added info on the Jewish Defense League's "declaration of war" against Rev. Moon. This must have been one of the shortest spritual/ideological wars in history. I took part in an earlier skirmish when I was going door to door in a Jewish neighborhood in LA handing out invitations to a speech by Rev. Moon. A JDL member threatened me and I told him that I wasn't going to stop. I then pointed out that the church was actively protesting Soviet persecution of Jews. He couldn't argue with that and didn't bother me anymore.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: War in Heaven

message: This material appears to be both irrelevant & WP:UNDUE, as:
#The topic of the article is "Unification Church antisemitism" not 'Jewish anti-Unificationism'
#The Jewish Defense League is on the "violent, extremist and terrorist"/"hate group" fringe of Jewish thought, and thus unrepresentative of Jewish thought.
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The AJC press conference is also unrepresentative of Jewish thought.  However thank you for the additional information you added on the JDL. I certainly didn't intend to imply that they in any way represented all Jews. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Defense League