Talk:Unification Church and political involvement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Page started

I gave the page a start. Lots more work to be done. Steve Dufour 13:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Starting the article was a wrong thing to do because it generates unnecessary work. The article Politics_in_Divine_Principle should have been moved to this title. The edit history and the talk page history of that article would have been here too. I also remove the controversial tag because the editing history of this article does not provide indication let alone evidence that this is a controversial article. Andries 16:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
On seconds thoughts, I think that this title is wrong because ambiguous. Readers may initially mistakenly think that the title refers to rivalling factions and persons in the Unification Church. May be we could change the title into Political views in and political activism by the Unification movement. Andries 16:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe The Unification Church and politics. Steve Dufour 23:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)p.s. If the two articles were put together then it would be a controversal topic for sure.  :-)
well, that is a better title because less unwieldy, but I thought that the Unification movement is more than the Unification Church. May be the title should be Unification movement and politics. This title will enable is to include Collegiate Association for the Research of Principles activities in it. I think that the title The Unification Church and politics does not allow this. Andries 08:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I tend to think of the "Unification Church" as meaning the whole community of people who are following Rev. Moon, not just a church organization, the HSA-UWC. But if you want to use "Unification movement and politics" I would have no objection. Steve Dufour 16:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand. The article HSA-UWC states that it is the official name for the Unification Church so it should be merged with that article. But may be I miss something. Andries 16:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The word "church" can also mean a group of people who share a common religion, as well as meaning an official organization. Steve Dufour 00:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Steve ("The word 'church' can also mean a group of people who share a common religion, as well as meaning an official organization.") Recently he made edits to Unification Church which say it began in the 1940s. This view is incompatible with the narrow "Unification Church = HSAUWC" view. But nobody has challenged Steve's edit. There is another, more serious problem with the narrow view, namely FFWPU. Is it merely a name change, as Andrew Wilson has written, or is it a different, broader organization? Because even members can't agree on this point - and even if they could it would be more confusing for the public - it seems better to define the Unification Church as the community of Unificationists. This is probably where readers are going to look anyway. They are not going to know all the various names, which may look like proliferation out of control, and may even open Unificationists up to the charge of creating "front groups" to hide their identity. So a shorthand for the broad definition could be "Unification Church = the community of Unificationists."

My only strong opinion is that I think a decision needs to be made first on this general point, and perhaps also about whether to merge Unification movement into Unification Church, before creating an article named "Unification movement and politics," which presupposes the narrow definition of the Unification Church. -Exucmember 16:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The set of articles regarding my former group has more or less the same problem. See category:Sathya Sai Baba for how I solved it. Andries 18:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Church and movement are distinct, albeit with significant overlap.
  • They are distinct: CARP and the "HSA-UWC" / "Unification Church" are separately incorporated in the U.S. The Unification Church is a religious organization and has severe restrictions on what political activity it may legally do (practically none, that is) and political statements (can't endorse a candidate). CARP can do political demonstrations, etc. as much as it wants.
  • They overlap. Nearly every member of CARP is a "Unificationist" who attends weekly 5 A.M. pledge service and believes in Divine Principle. CARP and UC members are interchangeable; one's "mission" can be "changed by Father" from one to the other.
Declaring that they are one and the same, however, buys into the presuppositions of the Fraser Report, i.e., that all the various organizations Rev. Moon has founded are in effect one monolitich organization. Thus, every part should be treated the same, implying that when CARP or CAUSA gets involved in politics the church is violating the law. I'm not sure Wikipedia wants to endorse this view.
It's the difference between "brotherhood" or "common cause" on the one hand, and "affiliation". Boston's Channel 5 is a CBS affiliate, and if the do anything wrong CBS can be blamed. CARP is not "affiliated" with the Unification Church of America; if those wild colleged kids do something zany, the church cannot be blamed. Rev. Moon himself will take responsibility, though.
Steve, chime in any time, okay? :-) --Uncle Ed 21:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I think you've missed Steve's point, which is easy to do, because we're not used to thinking that way (but his proposal might be better - less confusing - for Wikipedia readers, as it has a precedent in the use of the word "church" in Christianity). We usually think of "Unification Church" as a shorthand for (the informal name of) HSA-UWC. Steve is proposing that we think of the "Unification Church" instead as "the community of Unificationists." This would make the "Unification Church" broader than HSA-UWC. No one here is advocating that the broader Unificationism should be equated with HSA-UWC. HSA-UWC is legally and conceptually distinct from CARP and other Unificationist legal entities. That is not the issue. The issue is whether "Unification Church" is HSA-UWC or whether "Unification Church" is "the community of Unificationists" (thus different from HSA-UWC). I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but let's be clear about what the issue is. -Exucmember 21:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I got the point. (It's one that's been much on my mind for nearly 30 years. :-)
I make a distinction between:
  • the religious beliefs of Unificationism: Divine Principle, Unification Thought, VOC ideology
  • the body of believers (Unificationsts or "Moonies")
  • incorporated church bodies such as HSA-UWC, Unification Church International; and UC organizations established in various countries, such as the Unification Church of America.
  • church-related educational and political organizations: Little Angels (Korea), ICF, PWPA, FLF, CARP, ACC, etc.
  • church-related businesses, which are for-profit and must pay taxes; unlike the church itself and other church-related non-profit organizations.
Donald Fraser, along with the bulk of church critics, want to lump all this into one monolithic body. They want each separate institution judged the same way, on the grounds that they share a common overal purpose.
The Unification Movement disagrees with the desire to have all its parts judged the same way. A business which catches, processes or sells fish should (in the UM view) pay taxes. A "church" should not, at least not in countries which routinely provide tax-exempt status to churches. --Uncle Ed 17:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I still think you didn't get the point, because your long entry didn't address it directly.

Anyway, if the merge doesn't happen (I tend to agree with Ed that they could be kept separate), what about these as article titles: Unification Church political views and Unification Church political involvement? This follows closely the wording of Andries's suggested combined title (but which I think is way too long as a single title). -Exucmember 18:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsnarling the mess

Andries is right about "moving" the page. However, the role of politics in the Unification Movement is complicated. We contributors will benefit from temporarily having several articles.

I am interested in several subtopics:

  • What does the Divine Principle textbook say about government and politics?
  • What has Rev. Moon stated about government and politics?
  • What does the Unification Church of America do, politically; and what are its "political ties"?
  • What other organizations have Unificationists created (like CARP, VOC, FLF, ALC, CAUSA) which are not "church" but still tax-exempt?
  • Does the Unification Movement have any political organizations which are not tax-exempt?
  • Last but not least: what are Rev. Moon's real political and economic goals? And why is there so much disagreement between members and non-members about what these goals are?

There is no quick fix. Moving or not moving an article is not the issue. There is tons of work to be done here. Unification Church and politics is a huge topic, and relates to almost every church controversy:

  1. Mind control and brainwashing - to get recruits to make Moon rich and powerful?
  2. Sun Myung Moon tax case - he was caught trying to build his empire in America?
  3. Fraser Report - charges that the "Moon Organization" is trying to take over the world (like Pinky and the Brain?)

We need to work together to do a lot of writing. I suggest we let Andries take the lead, as he is the most neutral among us. --Uncle Ed 14:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One point: People are going to look mainly at the article "Unification Church" to find out about us Unificationists. If the article is only about the HSA-UWC organization they are going to miss out on a lot. Steve Dufour 02:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arms dealing

Critics like to point out that a UC-owned company was an "arms dealer", as if it were self-evident that helping the military of any country is automatically unethical for a church. They usually hint that the motive was either (1) to make more money for Rev. Moon; or (2) to give him a power base of weaponry to take over the world by force.

The article should re-cast this as a dispute between critics and supporters of the church, with explicit quotes from each side.

We need a quote from a named critic who says that the church's "arms dealing" was wrong - and preferably the critic's reasoning as well. --Uncle Ed 17:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone established that Seilo, I'm pretty sure that is the company in question, is owned by the church itself? I know that it is, or was, started and owned at least by members. Its main business is the manufacture of machine tools, work for the South Korean military was secondary. Steve Dufour 02:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibility of a merge

I boldly moved the page, because the topic is not just internal church politics, or political "church activity" but also the views of the church about politics. Of particular concern is the church's expression of its ideals about the Kingdom of Heaven.

Everyone is worried whether Rev. Moon will use force to impose his authority. Some prominent church opponents insists that this is the plan, even implying or outright stating that they (the critics) know this, even though members have been duped and are unaware of the "truth".

Despite their taking various quotes out of context, I am unconvinced. I don't think I could be a successful computer programmer (and a Wikipedia pioneer for that matter!) and simply not "get" what Rev. Moon was all about in his core. --Uncle Ed 18:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ed, you did not give any indication of what you thought of my proposal above:

Anyway, if the merge doesn't happen (I tend to agree with Ed that they could be kept separate), what about these as article titles: Unification Church political views and Unification Church political involvement? This follows closely the wording of Andries's suggested combined title (but which I think is way too long as a single title). -Exucmember 18:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you changed your mind about whether the articles should be kept separate, or do you think they should be merged?
What do others think? -Exucmember 20:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been busy with off-wiki stuff. Could you please list the articles which are to be merged? Last time I checked, there was Unification Church and Unification Movement; and also two or more "political aspect" articles. What sort of merge do you propose?
And do we (Andries, Exucmember, Marknw, and I) all agree that the separate articles are factual and neutral as they stand? --Uncle Ed 15:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Google search for Unification + politics OR political

--

Ed, I was referring specifically to the politics article(s): my proposed names are in BOLD RED just above. (This is the 3rd time I am offering an explicit or implied request for a comment.) An alternative to having these two articles is to merge them into one article, presumably named Politics and the Unification Church. Obviously Politics in Divine Principle would either go in Unification Church political views (or whatever it's to be called) or into a combined article (presumably named "Politics and the Unification Church"). P.S. Steve Dufour should be included in "we" (and his valuable opinion sought). -Exucmember 22:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes on both points: we're only considering a "politics" merge and STEVE should be included. Sorry, Steve, for accidentally leaving your name out. It wasn't deliberate...

The big question is how to do the merge. I propose that we identify the issues first:

  1. Church opponents claim that Rev. Moon and/or Divine Principle call for a Taliban-style forcible suppression of all opposition (see Fascism).
  2. Church members and/or supporters call this a (deliberate?) misreading, pointing to innumerable references to the voluntary nature of heavenly citizenship.

However we merge the articles, I think the dispute over "force vs. freedom" needs to be considered. I don't want a whitewash that ignores claims of abuses perpetrated by church leaders or which leaves out questionable passages cited by opponents ("My word will serve almost as law ... automatic theocracy"). But I don't want the article to take as its basis the assumption that that the UC has plans for a totalitarian dictatorship.

We need a balanced, neutral article which explores why the two sides disagree over what the church intends to do. --Uncle Ed 16:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we use this section to talk about whether to merge and what the name(s) of the article(s) should be, and start a new section to hammer out details and move toward neutrality?
I am leaning a bit toward keeping two articles. I proposed the names Unification Church political views and Unification Church political involvement, which are close to the wording of Andries's suggested combined title (and, btw, no one has commented!). Whether we have one article or two, Politics in Divine Principle would almost have to be merged in, as it already goes way beyond the scope of that very narrow title. If we have one combined article, it could get quite large, and it seems to me we would have two sections - along the lines of the two titles I proposed. COMMENTS? -Exucmember 19:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I keep seeming to skirt the issue. I favor separating "views" from "involvement". Talking about ideals is one thing. Creating organizations or promoting specific candidates or policies is another thing.

How about an article entitled Kingdom of Heaven (Unificationism) about the ideal way of life Rev. Moon espouses - and methods for transforming current political, economic & religious systems into this ideal? Then another article about political organizations formed by Unification Church members, such as CARP, CAUSA, etc.? Steve, any comment? --Uncle Ed 19:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Church and political campaigning

Cut from accusations section:

However, Moon himself has boasted that his order to Unification Church members to support the 1980 Reagan campaign in New York City was instrumental in winning the Big Apple for the Gipper.

Use of the word "however" implies that the previous sentence was a lie. The article should not take sides like this. Especially at the end of the section, where it takes a "summing up position".

If Moon himself ordered members to campaign for Reagan (which is illegal), Wikipedia should provide proof. How about a quote from a church website including the alleged boast?

Before I Google this, I'll just say that I recall the situation 25 years ago:

  1. The church was told to stay out of it, due to U.S. laws separating churches and politics. The UC could lose its tax-exempt status if, for example, a pastor endorsed a candidate or full-time missionaries campaigned for a candidate.
  2. CARP, then an ascendant part of the U.S. Unification Movement, operated under different restrictions.

The distinction among Rev. Moon's followers, between (A) those who are "church staff" (like pastors and missionaries) and (B) those who are in legitimate, independent educational or political organizations is crucial here. --Uncle Ed 14:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name of page

The page Unification Church political views exists; a complementary article or section is "involvement." Content should be moved to appropriate pages, or, in the case of a merge, to appropriate sections. We should not have political views‎ on two different pages, as is the case now. Whether there is a merge or not, there is a natural division/categorization of "views" and "involvement" which has been implicit in the comments that everyone who has said anything about it on this talk page. So whether there is a merge or not, the content needs to be organized into distinct parts (pages or sections).

I personally agree with Ed that keeping them separate seems to make more sense. -Exucmember 18:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the recent move. I wish there had been a vote. The title implies that the church itself gets involved in political activities, which is a point which the church vigorously disputes. Thus the title violates neutrality by taking the side of church critics against the church.
I would prefer Politics and the Unification Church. --Uncle Ed 18:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to imply anything, and personally I don't think it implies what Ed says it does. I have raised this issue 3 times in bold type over the past few weeks and no one has responded. I specifically complained in bold type that no one has responded, and still no one responded. Before making any more changes, how about if we TALK ABOUT IT! I believe there is a natural division between ideas/philosophy/views/ideology on the one hand, and involvement/activism/activities on the other. I believe this categorization would apply to two sections in the case of a merge, or two articles in the case of keeping them separate, which Ed expressed a preference for, and which I think makes sense. If people think the title "Unification Church political involvement" is biased, let's come up with an alternate phrase that means the same thing. Before the name change, the organizational scheme was sloppy and needed to be fixed. -Exucmember 18:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not griping, just tweaking. ^_^ --Uncle Ed 18:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am re-thinking my position on the merge. Any political involvement by Unificationists is highly likely to be based directly on political views. Almost any Unificationist would give a philosophical or ideological reason for any political position. Thus separating views from involvement into two articles may be undesirable and, practically speaking, over the long term, unmanageable. Having sections in the same article about views and involvement would keep them closer, and would allow naming flexibility that would address Ed's concern (e.g., "Political involvement by Unification Church members," "Political involvement by Unificationists," "Political involvement and the Unification Church," or even simply "Political involvement"). -Exucmember 18:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your attention to this issue. I am not sure what the best approach is, myself. I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of issues like:
  • Is Unificationism really a religion (or just a cult fraudulently posing as one to take advantage of the unwary)?
  • Is it a church, or what? 25 years ago, the New York Times reported: Justice Harold Birns wrote this week for the three-judge majority in the first case: "We conclude that political and economic theory is such a substantial part of petitioner's doctrine that it defeats petitioner's claim that its primary purpose is religious. Although religion is one of petitioner's purposes, it is not its primary purpose." [1]
Hmm. It's not easy being a partisan and trying to write neutrally. --Uncle Ed 18:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, it's hard for me to believe that an intelligent person who investigates the UC in detail in an objective way could come to either of the two cynical conclusions that you mention. It's hard even for a judge to get an unbiased sample (and impossible for him to get one in much depth). Obviously, the judge's opinion was outweighed by all the others in government who granted and sustained tax-exempt status for the church over all these years.

Even though Sontag later concluded that the UC was losing some of its spirituality and becoming "more of a business," he said after his 11-month in-depth study in the mid-70s that one of his firm conclusions was that the movement was genuinely religious. (Btw, that quotation ought to be in the UC article if it's not already.)

I suggest we encourage people to comment soon on a merge. After the decision, let editors hash things out with sourced comments as they like on politics and the UC (not an area of particular interest of mine, btw). -Exucmember 19:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we can stop beating up exuc for his page moves now. No one else can think of a better name, and he has been listening to us all. Let's move on to content, okay? --Uncle Ed 21:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moon interview

Sontag: The political involvement of the church is highly controversial too. Would you comment on just how you see your own and the church's relationship to political and secular authority?

Moon: Our movement is basically a spiritual and religious one. We are destined to change the world because our goal is not just spiritual but physical as well. It involves everybody. How shall we do it? Not by military take-over or violence, but through a process of education, particularly education of the leadership of nations. This is where the Unification Church and I get involved. We go out and witness about God not only to the multitude of people on the streets, but also to those people who could lead the country toward God. Our desire is to put new life into their hearts, that they might become God-centered leaders. This is our process for changing the world.

I do not think in terms of taking over the power or government of a nation. I am not ambitious to become a senator or the head of state of this or any other country. But as a messenger of God, my responsibility is to relay the message of God to the people who actually run the country and the society, to those who can actually influence the nation.

During the Watergate incident people said, "Oh, this is a political organization; they support Nixon. Their motivation is political." However, what did we actually do? We organized the Prayer and Fast Committee for a national emergency, and we prayed and fasted a lot. Many members of the Unification Church fasted three days and even seven days consecutively for the nation. We prayed on the Capitol Building's steps in an overnight vigil. We prayed in front of the White House and at the Lincoln Memorial, We prayed for congressmen, for senators, and for the President. I remember President Lincoln issued a proclamation to call the entire nation to confess its national sins and to pray for mercy and forgiveness during a time of emergency.

I felt that the Watergate was a national emergency. It was a moral crisis, a national sin. While American soldiers were dying in Vietnam, the people at home were deeply wounded internally and divided. They were losing faith in everything and couldn't support those abroad. I felt that the healing grace needed could come only from God, and the power of prayer could invoke it. I wanted to call this nation to its knees in repentance. I hoped the President would issue a proclamation again, as Lincoln had, calling for national prayer. Our movement wanted to set an example, and we did. I wanted to awaken the conscience of America. Is this a political action?

If you read my Watergate statement, you will find it is a genuine sermon filled with the same spirit as the Sermon on the Mount: Forgive, love, unite. These three words truly express the essence of Christian teaching and are far from any political ambition. [2]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/Talk%7EUnification_Church_and_political_involvement_9da5.html"