Talk:Sun Myung Moon/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Sun Myung Moon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Moon as billionaire

If ya'll are trying to *sell* Moon, you are doing a good job!

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. --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)

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. 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.

 Hehh, he got sent to Camp Cupcake and got the Royal Reception
 just like Martha Stewart did! ;-) Some Jail time.. it worked 
 out well for both of them. GREAT PR, made two crooks heros in 
 many ways!

- - - Actually he did NOT get sent to "Camp Cupcake" AKA "Alderson Federal Prison Camp, also known as Federal Prison Camp, Alderson or FPC Alderson, which is a federal prison in the United States for minimum-security female inmates." (quoted from Wikipedia) which is where Martha Stewart was sent, in the past, when Rev. Moon was there, it was previously an all-male facility.

And he in no way got the "Royal Reception" "just like Martha Stewart". Here is a quote from one of the inmates about Rev. Moon: "He never asked for special treatment. He mopped floors and cleaned tables, and he helped other people when he was finished with his job." http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Talks/sunmyungmoon84/OneOfUs.htm Here is a more complete description of the so-called "royal" treatment Martha would receive: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56757-2004Mar13?language=printer

And he was sent to prison for 18 months for not paying the TAX on $50,000 INTEREST from church funds which were held in his name until the church incorporated in America - a practice common to many small churches! USUALLY the IRS, when dealing with such a small amount, will give the person a chance to pay the tax! I have learned from a senior agent at the IRS, that even in some cases when someone owes over a million in TAXEX, they are given a chance to pay it, rather than waste taxpayer money on an expensive trial! They are not sent willy-nilly to prison! So why was Rev. Moon denied the chance to pay the relatively small amount of TAX that would have resulted from just $50,000 in INTEREST.....? +++ LN, a Jewish UC member June 14, 2006

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). --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.

It wasn't a "vision", but one-on-one conversation.
Jesus didn't "confess" to anything -- the word confess implies wrong-doing
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.
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. That story comes from Washington's Post and Times, and a PR from Rep. Rangel, 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. 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.

The whole quote reads a bit differnt:

http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Talks/SunMyungMoon03/SM030302.htm [.....]

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.

== end Was God powerless in this case? Is Satan in Jewish thought not a loyal servant of God? Some Jews hold also the view that they were punished for their sins several times during history and the holocaust was such a sad event...

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.

StoptheBus18, you are being somewhat irrational and also biased. To answer your question, according to the views of UC, no, God was not powerless, they mean that in more of a symbolic way. It's just that God could not intervene, for humans have their own portion of responsibility and indemnity had to be paid one way or another. If you're going to ask if God was powerless in this case, you should ask if God was powerless to prevent the Fall. And as for what you think of the government crowning Sun Myung Moon doesn't matter as this is supposed to have a neutral POV. Finally, asking whether Uncle Ed had sex with his wife with a picture of Sun Myung Moon in his room is pointless to this topic. It is not constructive at all, if you'd really want to know, try emailing Uncle Ed or something but you don't need to be asking a question like that here. Edit: Man I should look at time and date stamp. My words are worthless cuz he probably doesn't come on to this discussion anymore haha. Jamesters 07:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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.

I can describe it in two words..

    POLITICAL GRAFT.

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 :-)

-NO not justified, or excused but placated.

"A prominent rabbi wrote an analysis paper of the Divine Principle in the late 1970's for The American Jewish Committee and found dozens of anti-Semitic references throughout the book. As I said before, in the world that Moon wants to rule, there will not be room for any other religion beside Unificationism. " The Truth about Sun Myung Moon -Steven Hassan

One) Moon claims 6 million Jews died in the Holacaust in order to "indemnify" the killing of the *messiah* Jesus.

Plus)

One) Moon also claims he stands on the foundation of Jesus.

Equals=

Two) The result is 6 million Jews died in the Holacaust in order for Moon to stand on THAT foundation.

It's ALL just HATE speech, there is NO TRUTH to it! It makes EVERY anti-jew happy to hear it. It makes EVERY Pro-Nazi a firm believer. WHY pick on Jews? Cause MANY people can relate to it! Even some Jews who might otherwise feel disgraced by the thought of it. Think of it as a Beauty Pageant and Moon he is the ONLY entry allowed to be in it! Using a virtual army to promote him as the hands down winner! Hard to imagine ANYbody actually losing such a contest to begin with for the position of *messiah*. Not that there would be any sane person to even try it.

  When Jesus died on the Cross, he said "father forgive them
  they know not what they do" He didn't specify who "they" was
  to begin with, and to suggest that a forgiven debt STILL needs
  to be paid, is purely rediculous by ANY LAW!

Wives Issue

There is no proof about the 2nd wife, other than Hak Ja Han. Any Unificationists have any say?

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]

"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], 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.

Just what the world needs, a "rhetorical messiah".. ..NOT! Was Moon being "rhetorical" when he said the following?

"So telling a lie becomes a sin if you tell it to take advantage of a person, but if you tell a lie to do a good thing for him that is not a sin. Even God tells lies very often; you can see this throughout history." (MASTER SPEAKS 3/16/72)

"Evil has deceived goodness into evil. But goodness has not been able to deceive evil into goodness. Perhaps this is why Christianity couldn't accomplish God's will bravely until today." (From WAY OF GOD'S WILL)

  How does one know when Moon the self proclaimed "messiah"
  is LYING, and when he is NOT?

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)

Uncle Ed = Moon follower Ed Poor, do a google on him for more!

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)

-Your business sense is deplorable, or at least unusable. Individuals don't make that kind of money in the fishing industry, the boats or fleets do! Moon has a fishing fleet in nearly EVERY coastal state in the USA. If each boat makes $500,000.00 or more a yearbefore expenses (quite possible). It wouldn't take that many boats or that many fleets to make $600 millon. On another point, who suggested the whole CREW were members? OH that's right, you did! Mind you I'm not suggesting what the other fella said is true, just that your calculations are at best unusable.

  Besides the Fleets of Fishing Boats, Moon also has fisheries, 
  fish packing plants, marinas and shipbuilders that all get a 
  piece of that fishing industry pie.

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)

=

I can understand your reluctance to include it in. Suspicions of an Anti-Christ sneak right in! Son of Satan, Son of Perdition, Helter Skelter that kind of thing!

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.

It's called "repressing dissent" as in the following example.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. IT THUS BECOMES VITALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE STATE TO USE ALL OF IT'S POWERS TO REPRESS DISSENT , for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State"

Propaganda Minister Goebbels of the Third Reich

The BIG LIE in Moon's case is that he is the "messiah". It's all kind of telltale when ya think about it!

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

You make good points and in a very rational and NPOV manner, much unlike Stopthebus18. Jamesters 07:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Rev Moon tends to create controversy and this entry Sun Myung Moon throws into question my whole opinion of Wikipedia, which up to now I have trusted as informative and accurate. I am a member of what used to be called the Unification Church. I do not know who wrote this article - this is a criticism of Wikipedia, it would be an improvement to contain within the article a clear record of who has originated and altered it - but I find it at very best an apologia - by that I mean it starts with all the negative criticisms and then in order to appear balanced answers some of them. This is the opposite of a man being presumed innocent until found guilty.

As far as I know, Reverend Moon has only been found guilty in the West of evading a few thousand dollars tax (which he offered to pay in order to clear things up; but the authorities were determined to get him - though they hoped they'd 'get' him by frightening him away from the US by delivering the subpoena when he was in Korea - but I go on too long), which when seen against the huge nature of his activities (I'm only referring here to finance) is little more than a parking ticket, but it's brought up all the time. When Reverend Moon was in concentration camp in North Korea he was tortured to the point of death; but he says at least the communists had the honesty to say clearly why they were imprisoning him. The American government, to its shame, did not.

I think the Wikipedia editors need to take a hard look at this article. Christopher Davies - chrisvdaviesfwu@yahoo.com if you want to contact.

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]

Mullahs: Rev. Sun Myung & Hak Ja Han Moon - 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. --user:Ed Poor (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. --user:Ed Poor (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]

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)

Dogs and fornicators

The last couple of verses in the New Testament apparently refer to sexual morality as a requirement for citizenship in the Kingdom of heaven:

Outside the gate are the dogs and fornicators. (Rev. 22:13-14?)

Rev. Moon has adopted this metaphor, frequently focusing on homosexuals. Gay rights activists seem to think he's singling them out and seem unaware that he also speaks out against heterosexual fornication, especially incest and adultery. They also regard this ruling as an unfair restriction, and they never engage the Reverend on his reasoning.

Moon and his chief followers condemn sexual immorality because it leads to unhappiness, not because they're trying to mean or selfish! Rev. Moon said (in a public and carefully translated speech):

According to what I have perceived, the most serious problem to beset humankind in the future world will be the issue of immorality and moral decadence destroying family values. Moral decadence is truly the original sin that pushes humanity into the abyss of suffering and despair. [5]

My take on this, as a follower since 1977, is:

If unmarried, you shouldn't have sex (but a heterosexual union can be Blessed if they join our church.
If married but you have sex with anyone other than your wife, you're in deep trouble dude.
But noone is allowed to be homosexual - that's totally outside God's Principle. Homosexual activity cannot be accepted, even retroactively by gaining God's Blessing on your relationship. In a way, it's even worse than adultery, so watch out.

So you might say homosexuality is at the "real bad" end of a continuum of sexual sin. User:Ed_Poor

  Or you might say that Moon is simply *using* the HATE being 
  generated by such talk to galvanize alliances with the 
  Religious Right!

It's kinda funny to watch Moon DOG the minority groups in order to galvanize the majority opinion for himself! The Jews being a minority Moon felt safe to suggest the following..

"By killing one man, Jesus, the Jewish people had to suffer for 2000 years. Countless numbers of people have been slaughtered. During the Second World War, 6 million people were slaughtered to cleanse all the sins of the Jewish people from the time of Jesus." (MASTER SPEAKS 2/14/74)

By the way, the Jews don't consider Homosexuality a Sin, and NOwhere in the OT does it actually say that it is. It's just more HATE speech, and the Jews recognize it for what it is!

There are guidelines within Judaism meant to foster GREATER understanding of psychosexual relationships, but lack of Tolerance for the belief of others is NOT among them.

Does this have anything to do with the editing of this article? Because that's what discussion pages are for. They aren't really for telling people why they shouldn't be gay and things like that.MikeRipper 23:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The talk page is not for contributors to tell people "why they shouldn't be gay". But it *is* for plotting our strategy for describing the subject of the article, a man who is world-famous for tellinging people "why they shouldn't be gay".

Get the distinction? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:30, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Reverted Ed's Poor Edits

Ed, your last edits were blatant POV. You capatilized he when refering to Moon. The line " 'The cross' is a symbol of the New Testament Age that Jesus Christ brought, and The Second Advent trumpets a New Age, which will start with the foundation to restore the Kingdom of Heaven to Earth, as it was before the Fall of Adam and Eve." is also very POV. Some of what you wrote may not have been POV but I am not going to pick through it. You have to do better than that to contribute to this encyclopedia.JesseHogan 00:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand. Those were not my edits. I merely undid your reversion of the original anonymous contribution. Copy-editing is what they need. If there's a stray capitalization, isn't it easier to fix it than to revert the entire edit?

Also, if a statement about the significance of the cross is expressed as fact rather than as opinion, please just add the appropriate phrase, such as: "Moon teaches that..."

I don't revert twice on articles about my church, so I just trust you to do the right thing. Thanks! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:41, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Your correct, I didn't notice at first that those were likley not your original edits. And I did notice that you made several efforts to remove the original POV problems. However, you also missed some opportunities to correct those problems. I just think it would be great if the we could work to improve the quality of this page and pages like it to remove the "The neutrality of this article is disputed." tags at the top. I could have picked though your edits instead of reverting them but I didn't have time and I made the assuption that much of the information in the edits weren't factual. I won't revert that particular edit again but could you please make sure that you correct the lapses of professionality in them. Thanks. JesseHogan 21:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the general rule around here is that if 2 or 3 people agree work together to fix some POV problems - and they each agree that the article is now okay - they can remove the NPOV-dispute tage. I look forward to working with you on this. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

[Uncle Ed, said] "if 2 or 3 people agree work together to fix some POV problems"

2 or 3, in intelligence circles that is known as a "cell", Naturally in an intel coup there would be NO dissenting opinion present in a "cell" from the very beginning. One mind, one body. That's not what I would call a "general consensus" on ANY subject especially one of a political or religious *persuasion*!

I need to clarify Rev. Moon's position on world peace, particularly on (a) obstacles to peace and (b) comments on prospective or on-going wars. Is Rev. Moon "against all war", or has he occasionally identified one side in a conflict as the good guys?

(Must contrast this with the West's so-called "anti-war movement" which does NOT use the term anti-war as a synonym for pacifism although it generally sounds that way - a situation that they PROBABLY are exploiting, i.e., deliberately deceiving people with political rhetoric. Most "anti-war" protestors I've met were only against the anti-communist half of any war: they had no objection to a communist victory. But this goes beyond the scope of the current article. Anyway, that's one reason why it's so tricky to explain anyone's position on "peace".) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:19, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

-Ed are you suggesting here that Moon's followers are willing to fight for what they believe in? I just want to be clear on what you are suggesting.

Prefixed-Style of Formal Address

Per current Wikipedia policy, as claimed by jguk to have been adopted by a prior consensus, I am prefixing the formal style Reverend to the present biographical entry. Do not revert this edit unless you can dispute the existing Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) policy regarding Honorific Prefixes, and the entry on Style (manner of address) containing examples.

Please note that it is my preference that the prefixed style not be used, however if it is used in some cases (such as for Pope Benedict XVI) but not for others (such as Sun Myung Moon) then this may constitute improper POV by the Wikipedia community. Because of the existing division of opinion regarding the appropriateness of this policy, a survey is currently being conducted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles in which I encourage you to participate. Whig 04:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, user:Whig. My only comment would be to ask user:Ed Poor, or any other editor who knows, if that is the most correct honorific to use. -Willmcw 09:14, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

"The Reverend Doctor Sun Myung Moon" is what we've been going with the last few years. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:57, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Recently, I've been hearing "Father Moon" a lot. Ministers who take a favorable view of him tend to call him that. Uncle Ed 14:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

mishmash

This is a horrible biography!

Topics are introduced willy-nilly, then re-introduced all over again later. The chronology skips all around. And that's not even addressig the POV issues. I propose that this articel needs to be re-written substantially, on a chronological basis. A few general topic, like undated criticism and terms of address, could be handled in separate sections. In the meantime, I've moved some logical sections together without merging them. The two (yes, two) sections labelled "Controversy" and the section labelled "Opposition" are moved to the end (they really need to be merged/weeded). The more biographical info is moved to the top. I hope we can find a straight biogrpahy of the subject somewhere to use as a guide. -Willmcw 23:42, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone object to our re-writing this article to put the events into chronological order?

Most sentences/paragraphs/sections deal with specific events and so ordering them shouldn't be hard. I'd found a good bio on a Unification site - now I have to find it again. If there's no opposition then I might set up a temp page for editing. -Willmcw 23:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Chronological order seems best. Just start right in, after the intro. Like: Sun Myung Moon is a Korean whose followers say he's the Messiah - but this is controversial. He was born in 1920, says he met Jesus in 1935, was attended a Japanese-run high school in occupied Korea and also studied in Japan, etc. You could mention his ministry in Korea, imprisonment in the Communist north, escape from Heung Nam during the war, the trek from Pyung Yang to Pusan, culminating with starting the church in Seoul in 1954.

After that, his life is so tied up with that of the church itself that it might be better to concentrate on Unification Church history for the next 50 years. But we could hit on high points like the Holy Wedding of 1960 - which is a big deal to church members (ordinary to outsiders, I guess); arrival in America in late 1971; tours and campaigns and 3 big speeches / rallies in 1974 and 1976. For a Korean War refugee to address an overflow crowd at Madison Square Garden is quite an impressive accomplishment, I'd say - but how to characterize it I leave to others; I know I can't be neutral about this.

Beginning in the mid-1970s, it's mostly church administration as the UC in America did ecumenical outreach and grew from about 300 members to a peak of 5,800 - I have a list of all their names, so that's a fairly accurate count. The church has had a disproportionate impact on the world, considering its small population. (But now I'm leaking into the companion article, Unification Church.

Feel free to do as much or as little of this as you have time for. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The best pre-1954 biography is Sun Myung Moon, The Early Years, 1920-53 [6] by Michael Breen. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:22, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. I'll give it a start on Talk:Sun Myung Moon/temp. I'll probably do it quickly and roughly, and then do the cleanup back in the main article space. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:19, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

That was easier than I thought. Still much work to be done. Some undated criticisms are date-specific and should be moved into the right position. I think this format highlights the fact that much information is missing, e.g. there's nothing between 1960 and 1971 (maybe nothing interesting happened). Cheers, -Willmcw 01:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

LOL, that was a crucial period of church growth. But Rev. Moon spent that time in Korea, except for a brief 1965 visit to America. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:32, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Article needs images

I'm adding a request for images for this article since it is seriously lacking in images, considering how long it is. --tomf688^(talk) 19:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but couldn't you put it a little lower down, or borrow a thumbnail? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:30, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

It should be near the top so people can see it. It's the standard {{reqimage}} template as well. --tomf688^(talk) 02:47, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

  You might ask Gary Fleisher over at TParents.org who owns the 
  rights to his collection of photographs on Moon and his 
  Church. Perhaps he could consent to thier use, if you ask 
  him..   ..personally!

draft=

He was also charged with draft evasion; these charges were eventually dropped, after it was determined that Moon himself had not signed the papers allowing him to avoid serving in the South Korean military.

I don't understand this sentence - the logic of it. What sort of law drops charges of failure to comply, on the grounds that they HAD NOT gotten permission for an exception? Ordinarly this would be grounds for conviction, not exoneration. Where did this factoid come from? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:30, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's tricky, but I think I see the logic. Let's say the draft law exempted men for several reasons, i.e. flat feet, etc., and that the person's file had a certification that incorrectly said he met that criteria. If he had signed it himself then that might be draft evasion. But if the head of the local draft board had signed it, then it would just be a mistake (or corruption) but not draft evasion. Does that make sense? Let's leave it in for now. NPOV it any way you wish. I'll try to get over to that book on Rev. Moon's early life and see if it is more clearly described there. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:57, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

No luck- the Breen book doesn't seem to mention the draft evasion charge issue, which may have occured after 1953, the conclusion of the book. It does mention that on one occasion, after being released from prison camp, Moon and a companion were exempted due to poor health,[7] but it doesn't say if that if that was related to the evasion charge. It's a mystery. [Shrug]. The current, revised wording looks reasonable. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:12, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

people who dont believe in evolution are never going to agree to a point that isnt personally flattering.

Impartiality ?

An encyclopedia is not about justifying actions but citing them. This part of the article bugs me the most:

Rev. Moon's concern was not insensitivity towards the plight of the Kuwaiti people, whose homeland had been seized, nor was it unawareness of the human rights atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein, and the dislike of even much of the Muslim world for this dictator. Rather, he was concerned that a limited coalition of Christian nations acting against Iraq could inflame the Muslim world and increase religious tensions, and the aftermath could be worse than the original incursion. After the subsequent support of the coalition by Muslim nations, including joining and aiding the coalition, Rev. Moon expressed support for the success of this broad coalition.

Justifying or not, I'm not sure how we know any of this. I suggest that we remove the entire paragraph. Some of the sentiments may be encyclopedic and should be re-added if we have a source for them. -Willmcw 22:18, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

crowning

Cut phrase:

, which omitted the coronation as Messiah

It's not clear to me (as a member of the church myself) that the crowning was a crowning as the Messiah. If this is so, even I (an insider) have managed to miss this. Whose conclusion or assertion was this? Uncle Ed 23:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, I ddidn't add it. But oif the problem is with the use of the term "messiah" why don't we just replace it with "ceremony"? That would give us, "which omitted the coronation ceremony". Would that be NPOV? -Willmcw 05:10, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course. (Now why didn't I think of that? :-) Uncle Ed 16:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I like to contact Uncle Ed

I am a unificationist, and like to know how I can contribute to this encyclopedia. lafamilyfed@gmail.com Thank you p.S. All of you are doing a great job, as editors of this encyclopedia.

Anonymous: you just did ;) Just edit the article itself and read and add comments to the talk page for any major or potentially controversial changes. Antonrojo 13:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

APA?

"The APA's pronouncement that there is no scientific merit behind the theory of mind control removed the legal basis for deprogramming in the US." What's the meaning of the acronym APA in this sentence? The American Psychological Association? It would be helpful if APA linked directly to the right article instead of to the APA disambiguation page like it does now. --x-Flare-x 07:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are there so few references for this article?

I am aware that providing references is tedious and hard work, but let's please give it a try for at least some of the contents. Andries 19:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV template placed upon article

Unfortunately, this article seems to be taking a turn to provide an apologetic justification upon Mr. Moon and his practices instead of being an objective and informational portrait of the man. I feel that this article needs to be edited against advocacy and towards neutrality.--Folksong 21:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I went about editing, and I think that the article has been closer to NPOV. I'd like to hear from everyone else.--Folksong 21:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Needs sources at least

This section of text is poorly written and error laden:

By 1976 Moon had homes and training "camps" in San Francisco, CA having new recruits of his "Church-State" organization transported to Boonville. They were considered taken from their parents and told not to inform their real families where they would be and what will be their mission. Moon had his followers, called "moonies" sell flowers and raise more money for his own home in Westchester County, New York. Boonville was a "chicken coop", very difficult for people taken there for training to escape. The Pacific Heights home in S.F. was closed later, and was a local headquarters for religious training and bringing in new people literally off the streets.

It ignores the previous treatment of the term Moonies". It does not explain what "Church-State" means or who applied the term. It asserts that Father Moon had homes (plural) in San Francisco - implying multiple private residences for himself. The scare quotes around "camp" are not explained.

It doesn't say who "considered" that recruits were "taken from their parents". However, if church members did tell recruits to conceal their location from their parents, this is easily sourced and should be in the article. Perhaps the book "Crazy for God" by Christopher Edwards [8] would help, here.

The "difficult to escape" claim is not true. There was a chain across the main driveway entrance, but no fences kept people from leaving. But if there are indeed contradictory sources on this, one should be produced.

The term "chicken coop" is misused here. One of the dorms for men was called that - not the entire farm.

The phrase "literally off the streets" is poor writing. If it meant that recruitng began with meetings on sidewalks and in parks, it should be rewritten to say so. I believe Fisherman's Wharf was the primary witnessing area.

The "selling flowers" part is half correct. At some point fundraisers started using fresh flowers as "product" (their term). However, Father Moon did not order Boonville recruits of the 1970s and 1980s to raise funds for his personal residence. Rather, on two distinct occasions, when church leaders gave money to Rev. Moon to purchase an home for his family, he accepted the money but spent it on inter-religious conferences instead, much to the leaders' consternation.

The Tarrytown estate was bought at the ridiculously low price of $625,000 (it's worth many millions now) and used as a residence and training center for members. The Moons lived in small quarters on one floor of the main house.

Please, try to get the facts straight before adding them to this encyclopedia article, and use sources. You can ask me for help with sources, if googling doesn't do it for you. I've been a member of the Unification Church since 1977, and I know a lot about it. --Uncle Ed 13:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Schengen treaty

The article Schengen treaty does not state that individual countries can make exceptions and it seems unlikely to me, because making an exception means of course that banning a person is unenforceable, because of the open borders. In other words the paragraph that Moon is banned from by the Schengen treaty seems to contradict itself. Can somebody please provide references? Thanks. Andries 14:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Andries. It's been a long time.

Are we exploring the question of whether one country can use the treaty to keep an individual from entering any of the other countries which have signed the treaty? So if Germany calls Father Moon undesirebale, this requires France to stop him from visiting Paris? I think it's more like they share data with each other, and it's meant for ordinary criminals. --Uncle Ed

18:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ed, yes a long time indeed. From my understanding of the Schengen treaty there are no exceptions. The access that is granted or not granted applies automatically for all countries that implemented the Schengen treaty. In other words, the paragraph sounds very implausible to me, if not self-contradictory. Andries 18:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ed, Yes, I had read the external link by the church activist about the ban, but again, I find the paragraph ver implausible and I hope for some more reputable references for this statement. This is the only reference that I could find for the assertion that exception to the Schengen treaty are possible. Andries 19:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely cannot understand this paragraph and I will try to re-word it a bit into a statement that a Dutch court (which one and when??) did not agree with the ban, according to a US govt. report on religious freedom. Andries 09:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Raw fish section has a bad smell

The article says:

In 1975, Moon and his followers started the True World Foods, Inc. sushi empire. It has since grown to massive proportions and provides most of the raw fish to the United States. So prominent is their influence and market dominance, that of the 17 most prominent sushi restaurants, 14 receive their sushi from Moon's businesses.

"Most" of the raw fish? Wow, I had no idea. This would make me very proud, even arrogant, if only it were true. The last I heard (from inside church sources), the movement's Japanese restaurants were so unprofitable members were fundraising on weekends!

"Receiving sushi": I thought sushi was always prepared fresh. It goes bad in a few hours, which is why the stuff you get at supermarkets tastes terrible. Did the contributor mean Sashimi, the raw fish from which sushi is made? Even then, I'd like to see a source for that claim. I'd even like to see someone try to list the top 17 sushi restaurants.

Come on, admit it: you just made this up, right? --Uncle Ed 20:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Moon followers' seafood operation is driven by a commercial powerhouse, known as True World Group. It builds fleets of boats, runs dozens of distribution centers and, each day, supplies most of the nation's estimated 9,000 sushi restaurants. Although few seafood lovers may consider they're indirectly supporting Moon's religious movement, they do just that when they eat a buttery slice of tuna or munch on a morsel of eel in many restaurants. True World is so ubiquitous that 14 of 17 prominent Chicago sushi restaurants surveyed by the Tribune said they were supplied by the company. [9],
Each day, beginning in the early hours of the morning, we deliver sushi quality seafood to more than 6,000 restaurants across the United States. We believe this is a testament to the "value" that we are able to offer to them. [10]

Near as I can tell from this graphic [11], True World catches about 8% of the fish in Alaska. That's a far cry from "most". Maybe somebody misintrepreted the part in another web site which said that "most" of True World's customers were sushi restaurants, and mutated that into "most sushi restaurants" are its customers. Reminds me of Lewis Caroll and "Do cats eat bats? Do bats eat cats? And since Alice could not answer either question it didn't matter." --Uncle Ed 21:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And here Alice began to get rather sleepy, and went on saying to herself, in a dreamy sort of way, `Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats?' and sometimes, `Do bats eat cats?' for, you see, as she couldn't answer either question, it didn't much matter which way she put it. [12]

Political donations

Could someone explain what Rev. Moon hopes to gain by all those millions in political donations? Steve Dufour 16:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I am impressed by how Rev. Moon's entry into Wikipedia has been hijacked by members of the Unification Church. His extremist views and statements have certainly been played down to a large degree.

Check out some of the other articles on religious groups. For instance the Unity Church, the Unitarian Universalists, and the Mormons. They are all have something in common with the UC in that they grew out of the Christian tradition, they are rejected as "cults" or "non-Christian" by Christian fundamentalists, and in the case of the last two are criticized for being too involved in politics. Yet their wiki articles are much more favorable than the UC's.Steve Dufour 12:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

One word: Influence. "Moon Crowned by U.S. Congressmen..." would be an obvious start. FeloniousMonk 00:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In what direction is he trying to influence them?Steve Dufour 06:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Cult leaders category

I restored the cult leaders category, on the basis of the fact that he's been frequently accused of being a cult leader. I don't think this is factually controversial, though I'm sure that his followers would disagree with the accusation. Nonetheless, the category does not require that the accusations be true, only that they exist, and this is incontrovertible. Does anyone disagree? Al 02:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you also going to include the popes in this category? The Roman Catholic Church has also been frequently accused of being a cult.

Crowned by U.S. Congressmen

Do you think this should be moved to its own article? It seems to take up a lot of space here. I will not move it unless other people think that is a good idea.Steve Dufour 07:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

any objections?

It was taking up a lot of space. It is a prototypical section to move to another article. (Another one is the "Divine Principle political ideology" section on the Unification Church page.) I'm glad you moved it even though no one commented. There are reasons that Wikipedia encourages people to be bold in editing; it seems those most qualified are often the most reticent! -Exucmember 23:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Steve Dufour 00:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Christian Criticism of the UC + Rev. Moon as Messiah

I think this is an important subject that deserves its own section. p.s. I think your addition of the quote to the introduction was a good move, Exucmember.Steve Dufour 06:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It seemed the best quotation to summarize the important issue of his identity as understood by himself and by his followers. -Exucmember 21:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree. I think that is the single most important fact for people to know if they want to understand what he is about: That he thinks he is the Messiah. Everything he has done stems from that. Steve Dufour 17:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Naturalized citizens of the United States???

Is this true? I would have thought he was still a citizen of the Republic of Korea.Steve Dufour 04:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless something changed in the last few years this is not true. Mrs. Moon is a naturalized citizen. Rev. Moon kept his Korean citizenship. -Exucmember 06:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I will take the tag off then. If he had become an American citizen I think I would have heard about it.Steve Dufour 16:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

birth date - lunar calendar?

The article begins by describing his birth date as: born February 25, 1920, lunar: January 6, 1920. The word lunar sounds odd to me in this context, and I suspect that the intention might have been for the Julian calendar, though the Julian and Gregorian calendars are not nearly that far apart. Another possiblity: A new moon did occur on or about Feb 20 1920, which would have made the 25th to be on the 6th day of that lunar month, but is there any calendar in the world which would refer to that lunar month by the name 'January'? I haven't heard of any, but perhaps there is some significance here which members of the Unification Church would notice and could clarify. --Keeves 18:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is the traditional calendar used in China and some other Asian countries. I have never really checked it out so I don't know how it works. It certainly has nothing to do with the Julian calendar.Steve Dufour 06:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Julian and Gregorian calendars are solar calendars. Many Westerners haven't heard of lunars calendars, but I think most have heard of "Chinese New Year," which is based on a lunar calendar. It's based on the revolutions of the moon and has a leap month. Calling the first month of a lunar calendar "January" is just a translation convention. In Korean and other east Asian languages, the literal translation of the first month of the Gregorian (Western, solar, "regular" - most commonly used in the world) calendar is "Month One." The lunar calendar also starts with "Month One." So it's translated "January." -Exucmember 06:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Project article on Sun Myung Moon

Steve, I noticed you corrected a typo in:

biography in Wikipedia-like Unification Church sponsored online encyclopedia

but have you gone to the page? This article has not been made available to the public yet. Until the article becomes a "sample" article or until the official launch, it can't be viewed by the general public. In the meantime, I think the link to it should be deleted. -Exucmember 05:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I am a member of the encyclopedia project and can view the page. I didn't know that it wasn't open to the public.Steve Dufour 16:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Photo of Sun Myung Moon

Steve, I think you should leave the photo request in place. I'd like to see a photo that represents his core identity, such as he and Mrs. Moon praying. There's plenty of room on the page for another picture, and I think a picture that suggests religiosity would improve the page. -Exucmember 06:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. In fact I will check the encyclopedia project and see what they have.Steve Dufour 18:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Archbishop Milingo has his own article

The whole thing is up in the air about his marriage. He seems to be back with his wife now. I would like to take his reference back down to one sentence. If people want to know more they will link over to his article. And who knows, history might judge him more important than Rev. Moon in the end. Unless Rev. Moon really is the Messiah after all. :-) Steve Dufour 04:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)