Talk:Sun Myung Moon/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Critics and the Commies 

message: 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)
replies: text:  The following sources call the church a cult: The Washington Post , The Guardian , and Brittanica says "many people consider the church to be a cult" . JBKramer 14:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, Rotten.com has an interesting article on the reverend  -- MakeChooChooGoNow 15:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried to focus on undeniably reliable sources. JBKramer 15:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Cult leader" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A Bit Tilted 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Steve Dufour 11:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Tax case its own article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  munitions manufacturing 

message: I've just started this article. Please check it out.  Steve Dufour 13:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Politics in the Unification Church]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for changing it back exucmember.  Steve Dufour 20:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why shift the picture to the left? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Go ahead and take out the section then, if that is what you feel is best. Steve Dufour 09:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see exucmember has gone ahead and moved to quotes to Wikiquote, good work.  Steve Dufour 00:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Quote section 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think that sounds like a good idea.Steve Dufour 00:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There could also be Views on the Bible and Views on other religions.  Steve Dufour 01:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on Communism "and" Democracy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Claims" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestions for improvements 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  John Gorenfeld  article removed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "an extensive history of making political donations" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unbalanced 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other Issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Moon's political ideology and views on democracy 

message: 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)
thread_title: See also

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fact tag removed 

message: Cut from intro:
:He has said that he is humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent.
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Who says he's the Messiah? 

message: 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."A campaign to put the cross in the Dumpster concludes in a Senate ballroom
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)
thread_title:  Moon and Jesus 

message: 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)
replies: text: There seems to be plenty of criticism left. Steve Dufour 11:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section gutted 

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

text: *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)

text: *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)

text: * 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)
thread_title:  "crush individualism" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Theocracy dispute 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Role of women 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gulf War 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fishing paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anti-Communist 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  The following sources call the church a cult: The Washington Post , The Guardian , and Brittanica says "many people consider the church to be a cult" . JBKramer 14:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, Rotten.com has an interesting article on the reverend  -- MakeChooChooGoNow 15:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried to focus on undeniably reliable sources. JBKramer 15:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Critics and the Commies 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A Bit Tilted 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Steve Dufour 11:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Tax case its own article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  munitions manufacturing 

message: I've just started this article. Please check it out.  Steve Dufour 13:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Politics in the Unification Church]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for changing it back exucmember.  Steve Dufour 20:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why shift the picture to the left? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Go ahead and take out the section then, if that is what you feel is best. Steve Dufour 09:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see exucmember has gone ahead and moved to quotes to Wikiquote, good work.  Steve Dufour 00:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Quote section 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think that sounds like a good idea.Steve Dufour 00:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There could also be Views on the Bible and Views on other religions.  Steve Dufour 01:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on Communism "and" Democracy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Claims"