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)
I think the gist of the statement is true, but I have to agree with Low Sea.
  • 1. Perhaps the statement can be made that a careful re-translation was done (because Ms. Choi simplified the content and summarized a lot of material quickly in the original simultaneous interpretation). No claim needs to be made that the new translation is superior.
  • 2. It is not a "word-for-word" re-translation and shouldn't say it is.
  • 3. The original Korean may have been full of questions. Ms. Choi simplified things. Korean is very different from English, including in terms of usage conventions. I don't see the problem here.
  • 4. I don't believe that the "Pope & Satan" section appears in the retranslated excerpt. In other words, I don't think that the excerpts exactly match in terms of how much of the original Korean passage is there. The beginning and end points of each translation should be the same. If Ms. Choi threw in the examples of Pope & Satan herself (or from an earlier passage that she missed from lack of time), that should be explicitly mentioned by the second translator.
Someone needs to check into this, and it should be carefully reported. This is one of the most common quotations that members say is mistranslated. It would be worth some time to make a better case for defending this assertion. -Exucmember 16:22, 16 February 2007 (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)

Wait a second, how can it be "indisputably true" that religous aspirations or beliefs about a future kingdom of God on Earth ("Cheon Il Guk") are "a future worldwide nation"? Like the Islamic "Caliphate", it's definitely disputed except by those who believe in it. Moreover, rightly or wrongly, on a more visceral level the "Moonies" were opposed by those who basically resented them as overreaching cultural aliens with little background in or appreciation of American culture. It must be our karma though, having colonialistically foisted our missionaries on distant lands for so long. Tom Cod 19:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UC political ideology is codified in church teachings

Hi All,

May I respectfully suggest that you go back and read the Divine Principle Part 2 (half of the DP):

Part 2
Introduction to Restoration
Chapter 1: The Providence to Lay the Foundation for Restoration
Chapter 2: Moses and Jesus in the Providence of Restoration
Chapter 3: The Periods in Providential History and the Determination of Their Lengths
Chapter 4: The Parallels between the Two Ages in the Providence of Restoration
Chapter 5: The Period of Preparation for the Second Coming of the Messiah
Chapter 6: The Second Advent

This whole section of the "Divine Principle" is a self-referential religious and specious rewrite of Western political history based on a literal interpretation of Bible stories. The conclusion clearly outlines a near future led by the family of the "Lord of the Second Advent" (Moon) and the "analogous" political parties organized by his followers, with all people speaking Korean. The political vision codified in the Divine Principle is a fundamentalist/literalist theocracy headed up by a royal family. It is characterized by supporters in benevolent terms and kind means, but it is a religious theocracy none-the-less. Considering our mixed and often repressive and violent history, past and present, with well intended religious theocracies, don't you think we owe it to the Wikipedia public to make the Moon/UC political ideology and intentions clear?

It is impossible to attempt a definition of Moon, his movement, and beliefs without describing his codified political ideology and goals at length. Like other "isms" unificationism has the strong world view that "History" (with a capital H) has a definite purpose, and that purpose is outlined exclusively in their teachings. This world view is the main motivating factor behind the well known unificationist political activism. Moon's vision of religion is a strongly external and political vision. Moon's version of a "messiah" is also a political one of kingship and monarchy. Moon's recent proclamations, coronations and palace building point to the fact that he intends to carry out what was already outlined in his book. In our culture we have drawn a clear line between religion and government so that all religions and all governments can be free. Moon and his ideology crosses that line. This point needs to made clear in an article like this.

Divine Principle

Marknw 06:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted for good reasons

Something that is deleted with reasons given on the talk page should either be modified, or arguments made here against the specific objections. Marknw, you have not done this. Your editing style is decidedly anti-social.

  • 1. You did not answer the specific objections made by Ed or me or scattered others, on this and other pages where you have added your identical material.
  • 2. You have never attempted to modify major or even minor wording that we raised objections to explicitly and implicitly. Why are you so stubbornly attached to your exact original wording?
  • 3. You seem to make little or no effort to integrate your material into an article with an eye toward the overall quality of the article, preferring instead simply to plop down a section that would push your POV (point of view). In some cases it was clear that you did not even read the surrounding text (or didn't care how it fit, such as its repeating was was just above, for example).
  • 4. Much of your material, as presented, is original research. This is independent of whether or not you quote someone. It has to do with the way you present it and the conclusions you draw.
  • 5. A minor point - Your failure to use the "Show preview" button when editing the talk page is inconsiderate. If an editor wants to know whether you've added anything other than at the end only, instead of being able to step back through the edits, we have to go to the history, scroll down to find your first edit, select the radio button for your beginning edit, scroll back up to your ending edit, and click on "compare selected versions." I have mentioned this before, but as is your pattern in editing article pages, you ignored this. Your latest addition to this page took up 21 edits in the edit history, but could easily have been 1 edit if you had simply been considerate and used the "Show preview" button. Of course, on article pages, you may want to make a series of individual edits in order to say what (and perhaps why) you're doing each one, but on talk pages, it's just sloppy. -Exucmember 16:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] say what?

Hi Exucmember

I am sorry for my sloppyness, but I haven't been here for months. I'm not sure what you are so upset about. My understanding of Wiki Etiquette is you don't out right delete something just because it is not your own POV.

Last year Moon had a huge coronation ceremony at a multi-million dollar palace and delcared the establishment of a new national government. Some reference to this needs to be added to this article. It is a clear real life example of his politics.

"True Love King"

How is it that you could think it does not belong in this article?

Please put it back. Or at least suggest a better way of including it.

Respectfully Marknw 17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "a huge coronation ceremony at a multi-million dollar palace and declared the establishment of a new national government" ought to be in the article. Why not add that very sentence (as long as it's faithful to a reference)? That sentence is not what you added to this or any other article. You added the verbatim text that you put in months ago, on several pages, that has been commented on in some detail already. I have also made suggested alternatives in the past, which you deleted or reverted to your own unaltered version. If you don't remember any of the critiques of your material, perhaps you should go back and read them. -Exucmember 22:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Exucmember, Just because you and Uncle Ed, and Steve Dufour critique something does not mean I agree with your critiques just as you don't agree with mine at times. This article is about the political ideology of Moon and his organizations. What better place than here to bring out his politcal beliefs and actions? I think it is much more powerful to let Moon's own writings and his actions speak for themselves, don't you? If I insert that sentence it is just my opinion isn't it? What I added was something more direct:

[edit] Moon portrayed as a monarch

The Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church, is portrayed in some church publications as a monarch of the nation 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 portrayed as the leader of all religions in the online article "Cloud of Witnesses" and the church website "Messages From Spirit World."

As they say, "a picture is worth a thousand words."
Respectfully Marknw 23:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You have not quoted here; you have paraphrased/characterized. www.trueloveking.net is not a church publication. It's not clear what 65.127.137.224 is (does not appear to be a RS), but the word "monarch" does not appear on the page you cited. The word "monarch" does not appear on the www.familyfed.org page you cited either. Neither does "king."
As I said before, the phrase "was also portrayed" is misleading, especially after just having referred to church publications, because those "referring" in this case are spirits purportedly communicating through mediums. You need to explain the context accurately.
If you would simply respond to some of the issues raised, you'd find that people here are a lot easier to work with than many on Wikipedia. -Exucmember 04:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moon's Divine Principle as a political ideology

Dear Exucmenber

Thank you for your response. I don't find people on Wikipedia hard to work with. I enjoy it. I enjoy the exchange of ideas. I don't find you hard to work with. I don't have as much spare time as some folks to get the Wiki Etiquette down pat, sorry. Does that mean I should stay away from it? You don't make me feel very welcome at times.

I think you are splitting hairs here. What is the overall point you are trying to make? Are you saying that Moon does not see his roll in the church, society and history as a monarch? "True Love King" is a site maintained by Bret Moss who maintains another site tenbiggestmyths.net where he attacks Buddhism using the Divine Principle. At definingmoment.tv he defines himself as an ambassador in one of the UC organizations and graduating from the Unification Seminary. How affiliated does a person need to be? Also the content of the "True Love King" site is exclusively very official looking news, photos and speeches by Moon and church officials.

I defend the right for the Unification Church to exist. I think it is very important, however, that Wikipedia be used as a balanced outlet for information. The articles now on Wikipedia about the UC do not give a clear picture. They are heavily edited by folks like you, Uncle Ed and Steve Dufour to reflect a certain point of view. This needs to be balanced.

You guys seem to be very critical and Wiki legalistic about certain views and styles, yet when you read the UC articles on Wiki, they are full of blatant POV slant and sloppiness that you seem to turn a blind eye to.

My question is: can anybody have criticism for certain church doctrines, positions and actions without being characterized as "negative" or a "church critic?" Sincere criticism can be a very positive thing. Can someone even inside the church community itself be critical of Moon and his doctrines without being ostracized? Are these doctrines not to be questioned and examined?

My concern is that the "Divine Principle" itself reads like a political manifesto with definite calls-to-action politically. Recent events within the church seem to show that Moon and his followers have taken the biblical "Kingdom of Heaven" literally rather than as a symbolic metaphor. This has real life political implications. This point needs to be made more clearly in these articles. Whether you see these ideas and events as "positive" or "negative" would be up to the reader.

To quote Moon again:

"we are now in an era where we must create a new constitution...The constitution which will protect the era of God's Fatherland will be built from True Parents' words, from the words of Hoon Dok Hae. Now, since the laws of the world of man do not apply in this age, we must live in the manner of the True Parent, True Teacher and True Owner. Since Father has allowed you to inherit the position of the owners of Cheon Il Guk, you must all now live as the owners of God's Fatherland and as the citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven living a life of one [devoted] heart, one body, one mindset and one harmony until that era of total unification comes about centered on your relatives and kin who act as your nation." - source


Church members all over the world now seem to be required to pledge allegiance as citizens of the nation of "Cheon Il Guk" -- which seems to be an actual place in Korea -- not just a kind of metaphor.

It would be a disservice to all to bury this out of sight and mind. You all have relegated this subject over here to the Wiki hinterlands, whereas I would prefer it to be a part of the main Unification Church article.

The way you have re-characterized the first sections, "Future leadership of the world, etc.", is written form the point of view that only "church critics" think Moon has political ambitions. This is not relevant. The subject is NOT the "future leadership of the world" or "what the church critics say", it is the actual political ideology of Moon that is simply and clearly codified in his Divine Principle, speeches and actions -- not just someone's opinion. This point is totally lost in the way the article has been changed. Again, I ask you, can we please restore the main idea of the section to the way it was written before. Thank you.

Worth reading:

"Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them."

The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
- Thomas Jefferson, 1786

Oath of citizenship (United States)

With all due respect Marknw 16:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)