Talk:Unification Church political views
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Merge
It is fine with me if the two articles are combined. Perhaps under a new name as was discussed on the other article's talk page. Steve Dufour 12:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the title "Divine Principle political ideology" (the title favored by ex-member User:Marknw) is inherently POV as a statement of a thesis which amounts to original research. He can make his points within the slightly broader framework of "Politics in Divine Principle." It further seems to me that "Politics in Divine Principle" is a little too narrow at this point for a stand-alone Wikipedia article, as the relatively few political statements in Divine Principle as subject to interpretation. But I think it should be a significant section (perhaps the main section) of the "Politics in the Unification Church" article, where it very naturally fits. -Exucmember 17:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- There has also been a suggestion to try again with a new article Unification movement and politics. This suggestion was made on Talk:Politics in the Unification Church Steve Dufour 11:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Automatic theocracy
I don't think a Wikipedia should cite a transalted quotation by a church leader, when the Academic Dean of the church's seminary has said the quotation was mistranslated and has offered a corrected translation. --Uncle Ed 14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- There are OBVIOUS credibility problems with the statement...
-
"... but Andrew Wilson had the recorded speech re-translated and exposed the discrepancy. Here is the word-for-word re-translation:"
- Perhaps the gist of this statement is true (I do not know) but as-phrased it is non-supportable as a fact because of the following four reasons:
- 1. Not Verifiable ... other than a WP link to Andrew Wilson (which itself has no reference to this translation issue) there is no source citation to support the statement.
- 2. Wrong Grammar ... If this was in fact a word-for-word translation of the recorded speech the grammar would be of Korean structure, not English.
- 3. Textual Inconsistency ... the "re-translation" is full of questions, the "original translation" has none.
- 4. Explicit Ommissions ... the "original translation" references the titles/names of Pope & Satan. The "re-translation" does not include anything like these names. Low Sea 19:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dispute over meaning of quotations
The article takes a negative, one-sided slant -- or it did before I started NPOVing it. Essentially, Mark is using Wikipedia to express the POV that Rev. Moon is against democracy (implying that he is therefore "bad" or "anti-American").
The church view as that Rev. Moon is for democracy, and that democracy is good (albeit not perfect). I daresay the UC view adheres rather closely to the observation by Winston Churchill:
- "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." [1] (emphasis added for Wikipedia discussion)
I do not find fault with Mark for his work to date. However, he is only presenting one side. I think church proponents (and ex-members who while disagreeing with church POV actually understand it fairly well) should do the labor of expressing what the church actually teaches about politics.
I daresay the UC view on politics is more complex and/or nuanced than a simple "good or bad" evaluation of democracy. Even more complex is the notion of "government" in the desired and predicted "Kingdom of Heaven".
This will not be a quick fix. The Wikipedia List of types of democracy references 28 different articles! --Uncle Ed 14:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that Mark's POV in his arguments and in his selective quoting is one-sided. There are a number of different (sometimes conflicting) interpretations among members of the Divine Principle view on this matter. Nevertheless, the controversial statements that he quotes need to be presented along with a more nuanced view and alternate interpretations. -Exucmember 17:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vague stuff
Cut from article:
According to some other non-UC interpretations of church publications, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church and main author of the Divine Principle, is not only "True Parent" but as a monarch of a future worldwide nation, roughly corresponding to the biblical "Kingdom of God," known as Cheon Il Guk.
"True Love King"
"Family Federation for World Peace and Unification"
"Declaration of the Establishment of Cheon Il Guk"
Rev. Moon was also described in a nationwide USA Today advertisement, which quoted spirits ostensibly speaking through mediums, as the leader of all religions."Cloud of Witnesses" and the church website "Messages From Spirit World."
First of all, the fact that Rev. Moon is the founder of the church and called a True Parent by members isn't a "view of church critics". If it's not common knowledge, it should be moved up (out of this section).
Secondly, it is indisputably true that Cheon Il Guk is a future worldwide nation, roughly corresponding to the biblical "Kingdom of God," and this is an especially clear and concise description. Let's keep it! (But it's not a "view of critics" either.)
The disputed part is whether the church teaches (or members believe) that Rev. Moon intends to become, or ought to be, or is destined to be a monarch in God's Kingdom. I'd like to see some sources (if only from church critics) on this point.
We should distinguish more clearly between (A) church teaching about Rev. Moon and God's kingdom and (B) how and why critics object to church teaching. Also of interest is critics' disputes with members over what the teaching is.
I daresay there are scads of critics who object to the idea of any being (God or mortal) controlling human life on earth. How these objections intersect with church teachings is fodder for an article in itself.
We need to say more about Rev. Moon's concept of the role of the Messiah, especially as it contrasts with the messianic expectiation of the Jews 2,000 years ago and with traditional Christian interpretations. This will touch upon topics such as Christology and the doctrines of the Trinity. I think I started to write a Failure of John the Baptist article. But the doctrine of Last Days and Second Coming also need more explanation.
It's impossible to describe church members' views of Rev. & Mrs. Moon without reference to these 5 articles. --Uncle Ed 15:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
