Talk:Unification Church and antisemitism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


Unification Church and antisemitism is part of WikiProject Jewish history, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history.

If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Added a paragraph from a very recent sermon by Moon--I think we can agree that Moon's statements are Unification doctrine--and explained what is anti-Semitic about it. (I admit to not understanding what he means about Cain and Abel.) I put this at the end of the article, in part because it's the most recent data, and in part to avoid breaking up the flow of the earlier material. Vicki Rosenzweig 13:58 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind attention to this article. I myself am often baffled by the apparent contradiction between my church's pro-Israel stance and large proportion of Jewish members vs. its consistently adverse portrayal of Jewish people in regards to the crucifion. Some days I think "it's a mystery" as Catholics are often heard to say of the puzzling doctrine of the Trinity; other days I think I have it all reconciled... --Uncle Ed 14:08 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

This formulation is awkward: it makes it seem like Unificationists are denying something which is obviously true.

Many Jews feel that certain teachings of the Unification Church are anti-Semitic. The head of the church, Sun Myung Moon, has said that the Holocaust was due to the Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus, and has called on them to repent.

Church leaders have vigorously and repeatedly denied this accusation, even taking out full-page newspaper ads to call attention to the church's pro-Jewish and pro- Israeli stance.

A hasty reading of the above sentences gives the impression that church leaders deny (a) that Rev. Moon has said that Jews bear responsibility for the death of Jeses or called on Jews to repent or (b) that Rev. Moon has called on Jews to repent for Jesus' crucifixion.

Surely the article should say rather that church leaders deny the charge that the church's teachings are anti-Semitic.

If no one objects, then tomorrow or Monday I'll rearrange the sentences to clarify what is and is not being "denied". --Uncle Ed 22:31 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

I object. Sorry, Ed, the church's leaders are denying something that is manifestly true. If (hypothetically) person X asserted that blacks were inferior, and then denied being racist, we wouldn't be forced by NPOV to find a phrasing that glossed over the racism of that person's position. Vicki Rosenzweig

Apparently it's just as unclear and muddled as I thought. The rearrangement I propose is

  • not to gloss over any teaching, statement, or position

but

  • to clarify and reaffirm the relevant positions, and
  • to state that church leaders continue to deny that the church is anti-Semitic

I think reporting a "denial", even in the face of "obvious damning evidence" is still neutral. For example, this morning's NY Daily News carried a couple of denials from the mother of the US soldier charged in this weekend's fragging incident. She denied that her son could possibly have done anything of the sort.

The point is that the News was being "neutral" in what I think is Jimbo's sense of the word by reporting her denial.

Anyway, I'll post the proposed text of any changes here on talk for your perusal. I want to get this one right, and despite thinking about it all weekend I'm still not sure what to say. In any case, I should probably write a comprehensive article on the UC's doctrine of indemnity. --Uncle Ed 17:54 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

If I understand what you plan, it seems plausible. Post your draft here, and we can hammer something out.
I thought you were going to post your proposed text here in talk first.
One immediate substantive question--and I realize that this may be deep theological waters from your viewpoint--is, if the Unification Church recognizes that it was Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus, why is Moon asking Jews, rather than Italians, to repent for this action? Vicki Rosenzweig

Sorry, I was planning to post a draft first; then I suddenly got inspired and just jumped into it. I have no objection to a pereremptory reversion.

And your question about Jews rather than Italians is an excellent one. Let me reflect a bit more, please... --Uncle Ed

RK, Vicki: I made some more changes, but as usual I worry intensely that I'm just making the article worse. Please make any corrections you see fit.

One thing I've neglected to mention is the concept of collective sin. Another point that probably needs emphasis is the role of John the Baptist. I mean, if it's a matter of "fault" and someone has to be "blamed" for the crucifixion then IMHO it's more John in particular than humanity in general who is responsible for the people's failure to support Jesus as the Messiah.

Jesus had indicated that John was in some way Elijh, whom Jews expected to appear before the Messiah appeared. When John denied being Elijah, this made Jesus look like a self-aggrandizing upstart and destroyed what little remaining credibility he had at the time.... --Uncle Ed 15:00, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A recent change to the article, from linking "Land of [[Israel]]" to linking "[[Land of Israel]]" has the effect of stating that the Unification Church says that Israel, including the West Bank and Gaza, and possibly also Jordan, is a refuge for Jews. Is this an accurate statement of church position?Vicki Rosenzweig 12:23, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't know exactly, but I'm fairly sure that Rev. Moon never called Jordan a "refuge for Jews". I think that he formulated his policy on Israel as a Jewish refuge (1) well in advance of the creation of Jordan out of Trans-Jordan, and (2) possibly also in advance of the creation of Trans-Jordan out of the Palestine.
Regardless of what he meant in his 1976 Statement on the Jews and Israel, I think it's safe to say that the UC DOES NOT have a policy one way or another on the question whether the West Bank & Gaza "belong" to Israel or are specific parts of a "haven for Jews". (It should be fairly obvious that to take a position on the specifics would just embroil the UC into partisanship.)
Anyway, we're probably more interested in his current position, which is
  1. that God is sad to see His children fighting
  2. that force won't bring a lasting peace
  3. that the conflicts in the Middle East require the cooperation of religious leaders to be solved

--Uncle Ed 13:51, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

On another note, these explanatory words aren't part of the original text. I'm moving them here, lest someone consider them part of the long bulleted quote from Rev. Moon.

i.e., the Ten Commandments God gave to Moses according to the Bible

Possibly this phrase could go back into the article verbatim -- just not tacked onto the last bullet point? --Uncle Ed 14:12, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

And, calling Moon's words "medicine love" that doesn't necessarily taste good, Unificationist FAQ-master Damian Anderson has warned against watering down the message.

Damian Anderson is member of the Unification Church but does not speak for it. Let's stick to official statements. --Uncle Ed 22:10, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Repentance

The article says:

"To recreate Israel, the church and the state must become one as Cain and Abel. 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. Even now, you have to determine that you will repent and follow and become one with Christianity through Rev. Moon."
In this passage, Moon clearly calls on Jews to repent and join his movement, if not his church per se.

Is it supposed to be self-evident that calling Jews to repentance is anti-Semitic? Was Moses anti-Semitic when he punished the worshippers of the Golden Calf by Mt. Sinai? Were Isaiah and Jeremiah anti-Semitic?

Is the last book in the Old Testament anti-Semitic?

"He will turn the hearts of parents to their children and the hearts of children to their parents, so that I will not come and strike the land with a curse." (Malachi 4:6)

I'm not deleting the sentence from the article, but I wish someone would tell me WHO SAYS that asking someone to repent for their role in the crucifixion is anti-Semitic. --Uncle Ed 22:23, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

By saying the Jews must repent, he is saying the Jews CAUSED the crucifixion. It is that implied statement that causes people to label him as anti-Semetic. Not only does he blame the Jews for something that happened 2000 years ago, that the Jews in all probability did not commit, but this same act (Killing Jesus) was used as the justification to rape and murder countless Jews over the centuries. Don't try to compare it to Moses and the Golden Calf. In the Bible Moses was a a prophet and leader of the Jews, and the sin happened then, of course it was his responsibility. To the Jews at least, Moon is a nobody, and they do not recognize the sin he accuses them of. If you still cannot see how Moon could be construed as anti-Semetic, you are hopeless.70.111.0.17 03:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

This article is wordy and repetitive. I want to rewrite it completely, but:

  • I don't really know enough about why Jews think the church is anti-Semitic.
  • Since I'm a member of the church, I might (unconsciously) harbor bias in favor of the church and thus paint too favorable picture of its views.

So would Vicky or Rhmermen or RK like to work on this? --Uncle Ed 15:53, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeah...could we possibly just incorporate this into the anti-semitism article? Otherwise, this could set an ugly precedent...I can see all of the proposals for Judaism and racism articles now... --Yodamace1 21:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

      • Hi, just a quick 2cents worth: one part said that the UC was "anti-semitic" for mentioning that the ancient Israelites were "faithless". First of all, "faithless" is a broad and sweeping term, especially when it's taken out of context, the context being that it is stated in the Bible, many times that the ancient Israelites were indeed faithless. (Jeremiah 3, Exodus 32, Numbers 14 (especially Num 14:33) as examples)
      • LN - A Jewish member of the UC. June 14, 2006

[edit] JDL

I am taking them out of the article, which should be about serious concerns not the opinion of an extremist group. Steve Dufour 14:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)