Talk:Unification Church and Judaism

Issues with article

I have been working on some of the Unification Church articles to give some information on this sometimes controversial organization in a way the ordinary reader can understand. Some of the articles about it had been written more for insiders. I started this article but I don't want to feel that I "own" it. I also don't want anyone to feel that I am attacking them or telling them what to do. I did try to put information that shows both cooperation and controversy in this article. That seemed like a reasonable thing to do. Borock (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I think it's better to leave the article in chronological order where possible, so that on-going changes or developments are easier to understand. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I just made a couple of changes to do that. I think the article is fairly good. It is a controversial topic and it seems to be presented in a neutral way. I'm a UC member BTW.Steve Dufour (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The Washington Times

The Washington Times is one to the things the Unification Church is best known for. I think some mention of its support for Israel, which has been noted in reliable sources, should be mentioned in the article. Or else you are leaving a big aspect of the topic out. Borock (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is that this is an article about the Unification Church and Judaism, not the Unification Church and Israel. The two topics are quite different. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think most people would relate Moon's well-publicized support of Israel with Judaism. There is also Unification Church and political involvement where the information could go.Borock (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"Most people" doesn't mean anything; we would need to have reliable sources that tie the two together. Certainly none of the sources used did so. One might as well put it in an article about Unification Church and Evangelical Christianity. Please review WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think a paragraph on the topic would be reasonable. Jaque Hammer (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I will put a shorter version of the paragraph back in the proper time frame. Borock (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not enough just for Jaque Hammer to express an opinion; he must also give a rationale. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg. You can't put everything that Jews and Unificationists have done together, or every incident where there is some intersection or indirect connection, and expect people to sort it out. Why single out the Washington Times? Although it is sponsored by the church not every editorial position it takes is going to reflect church policy. I'm not even sure that Rev. Moon or the church has taken a position on Israel, although of course we are against terrorist attacks against its people. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

But still the topic of the article is "Unification Church and Judaism." Borock (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Right. Judaism, not Israel. That issue still remains. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

War in Heaven 2

Here is a comment I made on the original article Unification Church antisemitism controversy, of which this one seems to be a recreation:

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

The information was removed from the first article. Thinking it over now it probably should be from this one too. The JDL is a minor group, and has been labeled a terrorist organization by the US government, and (of course) is not representative of the Jewish community. Besides that the sentence with its incitement to violence is probably offensive to both Jews and Unificationists. The country is also supposed to be heading towards a new civility, aren't we? Steve Dufour (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. The JDL is a tiny, fringe group, and isn't a particularly religious group. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW the original "UC antisemitism controversy" article was merged into Unification Church. This one is part of a series of "UC and..." articles, although I took some information that had originally been in the first article to add to this one. Borock (talk)

I don't really know what to think about the article. What if I was on a cruise ship that was taken over by terrorists and they were throwing Americans overboard. Then one saw my UC blessing ring and said, "I read on Wikipedia that you guys were antisemites so you can stay." That would be a very difficult decision to make. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Info from Rubenstein's article

"Rubenstein began his tertiary education at Hebrew Union College, which is an institution within the Reform Judaism tradition. He graduated from the University of Cincinnati with a B.A. degree. He then was awarded the Master of Hebrew Literature from the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (Conservative tradition) and was also ordained as a rabbi by that institution." Borock (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

His article puts him in Category:American Reform rabbis. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not an expert. I assumed that if he was ordained by a Conservative seminary that would make him a Conservative rabbi. If not then please correct the article. Borock (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you're more likely correct; I don't know anything about him, though, so I just went by the category. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Material removed

"The Divine Principle, the main textbook of church beliefs, written by Moon and other church members and first published in 1966, is based on the Jewish and Christian Bible, but calls for the unity of all religions. It discusses Judaism and draws parallels between Jewish history, as recorded in the Bible, and later Christian history; controversially saying that Jesus should have been accepted as the Messiah during his lifetime."

The reason I included this in the first place was to show that Unification Church beliefs are ultimately derived from Judaism. I don't see how that is irrelevant to this article. Borock (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think you'd likely have a debate as to whether or not the UC's beliefs are ultimately derived from Judaism. In any event, it didn't seem to me to be well sourced in terms of being relevant to the relationship between the UC and Judaism today. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that UC beliefs are correct, just that they are based on Jewish teachings -- as is all Christianity.Borock (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any sources that make that point, as reasonable as it is. Without that you really shouldn't make it in the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose by strict WP rules you are right. As I said, I don't want to feel that I own the article. Borock (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Other people

There are other people who could be mentioned in the article. For instance Steven Hassan. His article mentions both that he is Jewish and that he is an important critic of the church. Wolfview (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how you are going to choose people to mention. Is the fact that someone in both Jewish and concerned with the Unification Church enough? As it is the two rabbis being put together in one paragraph is somewhat original research. The vast majority of rabbis did not get involved with either supporting or criticizing the UC. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Wolfview, I have no idea why Hassan's view would be appropriate in this article; the fact that he was himself Jewish is not particularly relevant to Judaism. Kitfoxxe, your statement is most likely true, but completely unsourced - and I doubt a source could be found for it. I'm removing all unsourced material. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The two people now mentioned, although rabbis, are not very representative of Judaism or the Jewish community. They probably should be taken off too. I don't think the sources mentioned anything about a relationship between Judaism and the UC in reporting on their activities. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Dan Fefferman corrects the record

Two minor points. 1. I did not convert to the UC from Judaism. I was never a practicing Jew in any religious sense, never bar-mitzvahed, and raised by non-theistic parents who were ethnically and culturally Jewish. I suggest the follow language: "Dan Fefferman joined the UC from a culturally Jewish family" or something similar. 2. I prefer "Dan" rather than "Daniel". Thanks for your consideration. 96.255.129.100 (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Dan:

1. According to Google Books Gifts of Deceit does not mention you on p152, and does not appear to discuss you in connection with Judaism on p164.
2. The Boston Globe piece does appear to discuss both you and Judaism, but a paywall prevents me from seeing that it says (if anything) linking you & it directly.
3. You have offered no WP:RS to WP:Verify your own version of events.

Therefore, per WP:BLP, I'm treating this as "poorly sourced contentious material" and removing it here, until more solid substantiation of either version can be found.

Daniel Fefferman converted to the Unification Church from Judaism in the 1960s as one of its first members in the United States. He has been active on interfaith and religious freedom issues especially those concerning relationships between the church and the Jewish community.<ref name="ire">{{cite news | last =Ribadeneira | first =Diego | title =Ire at school Star of David ruling unites ACLU, Pat Robertson | work =[[The Boston Globe]] | page =B2 | publisher =[[The New York Times Company]] | date =August 21, 1999 }}<nowiki></ref><ref name="gifts">{{cite book | last =Boettcher | first =Robert|coauthors=Gordon L. Freedman | title =[[Gifts of Deceit]] | publisher =Holt, Rinehart and Winston | year =1980 | pages =152, 164 | isbn = 0030445760}}</ref>

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably the other two individuals listed should be removed too. I don't think any of the sources talk about them in the context of "Judaism and the Unification Church." Borock (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The references for Davis, at least, are all about his relationship with the Church. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If he and the other people are important to the topic it might be better to talk about them in the body of the article, rather than segregate them at the end. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the material on either reflects (without implicit synthesis) a wider relationship between the "Unification Church and Judaism" -- it's perfectly possible that Davis simply got up Moon's nose and/or Rubenstein was simply appointed as a token Jew, as part of a promotion of Moon's general views on religious unity. I am therefore for removal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I will remove it then. Some of the other comments on the page are saying the same thing. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Anderson is not a Church Spokesman

The article identifies Damian Anderson as a UC webmaster and church spokesman. He is neither. His web site is privately owned and sometimes runs afoul of church policy. He has never worked for the church as a spokesmen. Please update the article by changing his I.D. or removing his statements as representing church policy 74.96.5.235 (talk) Dan Fefferman

Intro is not balanced

The introduction to this article does not mention the church's responses to the allegations mentioned. Please fix this. 74.96.5.235 (talk) Dan Fefferman

I will try to address your concerns. Borock (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Value of this page

Almost all the material seems to be the same as the main Unification Church page (which references THIS page for "more information." Either the detain on the larger page should be reduced, or this one should be deleted.72.77.250.162 (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)