Talk:The Unification Church and politics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This contains content from

Draft:Automatic theocracy
and these pages are necessary for attribution. Fix this later

We have a very large archive period of 400 days. This is meant to be the case because this is an old page which was revived so a lot of people might want to reply to necroed threads. In 2025 change the archive period to something more reasonable

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)[reply]

It seems to me that the title "Divine Principle political ideology" (the title favored by ex-member
Politics in the Unification Church" article, where it very naturally fits. -Exucmember 17:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
There has also been a suggestion to try again with a new article
Talk:Politics in the Unification Church Steve Dufour 11:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
@Steve Dufour that suggestion is in the section § Page started. I ultimately decided on the title The Unification Church and politics as per discussion in section § There is no 'Unification Movement' independent of the Unification Church. I am not attached to the names and made all proposed names into redirects here (in draftspace since this article is now in draftspace). Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Ed Poor@Exucmember@Low Sea sorry to tag y'all over a decade after but do any of you have newer resources on the Automatic theocracy concept or better sources? It is one of the more questionable parts for this article but I think it is highly notable and worth keeping Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply
]

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)[reply
]
I think this is resolved. Going through this entire talk page since this is definitely a complex topic with lots of maintainance templates from the time. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vague stuff

Cut from article:

According to some other non-UC interpretations of church publications, the Rev.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Unknown user (possibly Marknw???) 17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who said thsi unsigned comment but I think it is resolved now, or at least I do not understand the context.Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moon portrayed as a monarch

The Rev. Dr.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I think this is quite valuable to keep in the article. Although keep in mind Donald Trump has also been called a monarch a lot by supporters, particularly religious ones (although "God Emperor Trump" is a secular example) Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Marknw I would love for this message to get to you and you to be able to comment on the new development of this draft. You have good takes that we need here even though maybe not entirely agreeing with the final article. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merged from Talk:Unification Church political activities

Content here is merged from the other talk page. History is somewhat confusing due to multiple merges but here it is for record keepingImmanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page started

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

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)[reply
]
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)[reply
]
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.  :-)[reply]
well, that is a better title because less unwieldy, but I thought that the
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)[reply
]
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)[reply
]
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]

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)[reply
]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, I got the point. (It's one that's been much on my mind for nearly 30 years. :-)
I make a distinction between:
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)[reply]

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 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)[reply
]

Good work, but we will need fresh title discussion in the future if anyone objects to the modern titles Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Fraser report might be worthwhile, but mind control and taxes go elsewhere. This article is not
Criticism of the Unification Church Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cut from article:

The Church is known to have been involved with gun manufacturing in Korea since the 1960s, as documented in a 1978
United States Congressional Report on the Unification Church
. The explanation given by Korean Unification Church members is that all manufacturers seeking to do business in South Korea were required to supply the military, and the actual products made were shell casings.

These sentences were in the "improper ties" section. I fail to see how obeying a government's orders constitutes an "improper tie". Also, some churches in the U.S. own stock in arms manufacturers. Does this mean those churches have improper political ties? --Uncle Ed 10:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need evidence of conflict of interest for this to be notable. Also links would be desirable. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 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)[reply]
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 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)[reply]

Google search for Unification + politics OR political

  • Sun Myung Moon - founder
  • Unification Church - the religious body + doctrine + membership organization(s)
  • Unification Movement
    - related organizations other than "church" per se
  • Politics and the Unification Church
    (Oct. 27)
  • Politics in the Unification Church
  • Politics and the Unification Church
    - the current article
  • Unification Church and anti-Semitism
    - a "model spin-off" I created a few years ago

--

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
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)[reply
]

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)[reply]

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
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)[reply
]
In practice now
Unification Church political views is a subsection of this article Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply
]

Redirect created. I think the current state is pretty good as far as this section goes. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. 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)[reply]

The idea of it being illegal is interesting as a potential thing to mention in this article as to why it at times appeared politically uninvolved. I think laws are looser now so it is more partisan Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply
]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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." [2]
Hmm. It's not easy being a partisan and trying to write neutrally. --Uncle Ed 18:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I think this is based on older notions of neutrality not reallty used anymore by modern wikipedia Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. [3]

He was clearly politically involvedImmanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Coercion?

The article cites Moon's statement that his group eschews coercion, commenting on a spirit of voluntarism that is different from the Taliban. I think this ignores the heavy handed psychological methods used by Moon's organization to obtain followers and keep them in line which are consistent with the social psychology of cults generally which have their most success with naive and gullible persons who may be going through some type of personal crisis, what in the law is sometimes referred to as "undue influence." While it may be true that the Taliban is not above coercing people to cooperate with them, for the most part their members are enthusiastic volunteers, "jihadis" who have gone out of their way to join it at great personal sacrifice to themselves, a fact that is actually fairly well-known.

I think we actually need to cover this claim. As it involves what the church considers to be "voluntary" which is a philosophically quite interesting topic.Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title change?

It was suggested on another page that the title of this article should be something like "Unification Church political activities." I think that's a good idea since it is easier to document activities than something more vague like "involvement." Borock (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to
Unification Movement political activities --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I think that is opening up a whole new can of worms. Is every political act by any church member or supporter a "Unification Movement political activity"? Even my wife and I don't always agree on how to vote. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think every political act which is notable is worthy of coverage. Muslims interpret politics in many different ways and the same is the case for the unification church. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage counseling & celibacy

Cut from article:

Starting in 2001 Unification Church members in the United States worked to support President
Healthy Marriage Initiative and other faith based federal programs. Moonies knee-deep in faith-based funds Pushing celibacy, marriage counseling under Bush plan, San Francisco Chronicle
, October 3, 2004

In what way is the above "political"? Please restore the paragraph if you can answer that. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is political Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'Unification Movement' independent of the Unification Church

The organisations that constitute the UM exist solely to further the aims of Moon, and thus of the UC. They were created by and are funded and led by the church hierarchy. Thus any political activities they have are controlled by the church and in furtherance of its aims. The UC is the sole unifying element to this 'movement'. This retitling appears to be an attempt to obscure this power relationship, and to attempt to confer on the UM an independence that it completely lacks. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving your opinion. Now all you have to do is find a reliable source that says the same thing, and you can put that viewpoint in the encyclopedia. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, "Unification Church" is the name that's well-known, and the term used by the sources, so unless you're going to make a case for Rep. Donald Fraser's "Moon Organization", you should accept "Unification Church" and not try to change the terminology here to in-house Unificationist language ("Unification Movement") that has no currency in the wider world. If you sincerely have a problem with the word "affiliated" because you are interpreting it in a strictly legalistic sense, perhaps you should propose changing it to "related". Otherwise the move does look like an attempt to hide the material about Unification-related political activities (and criticism of it) from public view. Anyway, the bottom line is that the sources overwhelmingly use "Unification Church" and not "Unification Movement" (and rightly so; there are non-religious arms of the organization - or tightly interconnected network of organizations if you prefer - but it can hardly be called a "movement" in the normal sense). -Exucmember (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that in the first place most of the material in this article is already in others, especially Sun Myung Moon and Unification Church. Picking things out and putting them here since they seem political is probably original research. (Maybe the mass weddings are also political since they result in more voters for the Moon political agenda.) Steve Dufour (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand ExUC's comment about making a case. Or perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

What

Moon Organization
.

As such, they insisted that each part of the 'organization' be treated the same as all other parts. Specifically, this would mean that the church proper ought to have its tax exemption revoked, because the MO engages in political activities (which US churches are forbidden to get inolved in). Likewise, donations should be taxed just like business income, because the church-owned and church-related businesses are taxpaying entities and therefore the other parts of the MO should also pay taxes.

Their argument was that the entire MO was a combined theological, political and commercial enterprise - and a menace to America as well, one which must be stopped.

As a matter of historical interest, we should cover the Fraser perspective in detail, because to this day there are people who agree with his viewpoint - even if the

IRS does not. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Ed: "what [you] understand about the
WP:OR & thus irrelevant. What is relevant is what RSs (and particularly what prominent RSs) say about the subject. I note that while a number of the titles and quotes in the references section contain "Unification Church", none of them currently contain "Unification Movement". This would seem to imply that most of the RSs consider the UC not the UM to be the central 'actor' in the narrative. The article's title should reflect this. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Agreed with this subject. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

  • I see that Ed proposed this article for merger shortly after he created it.
  1. Ed, if you're just going to propose that an article be merged then don't create it in the first place!
  2. Ed, if you DON'T HAVE SOURCES then don't create it in the first place!
I therefore suggest that it should be merged as bare redirect, as hopeless & stillborn
WP:OR. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
For clarification this is a merger from the
Automatic theocracy talk page Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 16:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Update

This article *may* need to be updated. It is unclear as while a lot of the base article comes from 2006, it has parts which are far more recent. Still I feel it focuses too much on the 20th century and not enough on recent events of the 21st century past the death of Moon and involvement with the more contemporary far right. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding this
  • On October 1st 2023 the Japanese government began to pursue an attempt to dissolve the Unification Church in Japan.[1]
Has been part of a good effort into trying to get it updated
However we still face the reality that about ten years or so is missing. So I do not consider it remotely updated. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Author, No (2023-10-01). "Government to seek court order to revoke Unification Church's status". The Japan Times. Retrieved 2023-10-01. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

Political teachings

The

Political teachings section
is pretty important, as it illustrates the theological and philosophical justification for their positions.

But it is also the most outdated of sections and seemingly the one with the most neutrality issues

A large portion of the section was written around 2006 and as such it both doesn't cover more recent statements by the church, and it also was from a time when wikipedia had different standards for articles.

Many of the contributors have openly stated church membership, and in general it seems like a more confrontational section than other ones, both in criticism and support. Less reporting on the facts. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the oldest pages

This page is super old and I think it’s history makes it very interesting. One of if not the oldest page that has been turned back into an article. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 14:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving time

Currently the archiving time is set to 400 days. I think we should reduce it once the old comments get cleared out and it’s clear the necroed convos won’t get any replies. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 08:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute, Automatic Theocracy

Hi, first time doing this, sorry if I get something wrong. Most of the Automatic Theocracy section is marked as "original research," completely uncited, goes off topic, uses language with what I might consider an unbiased tone, and basically attempts to refute the actual cited, better worded parts of the article. Think it's probably best just to wipe it off. 69.43.65.127 (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Unification_Church_and_politics&oldid=1219500306"