Talk:Unification Church antisemitism controversy

Early comments

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)

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)

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

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)

Deicide

I feel this article is giving too much weight to a less-accepted position --- that assigning blame for Jesus's death to the Jews *may not be* antisemitic. Regardless of the intent of the Unification Church on this point, charges of deicide are widely held to be a cornerstone of antisemitism, and have historically used to justify all sorts of horrendous actions. See here. Also see the section on Repudiation; this has been enough of a problem that the Lutheran Church, and to a lesser extent, the Catholic Church, have taken a position. SheRay7 (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Good points. Another issue that could be brought up is the UC's ties to Islam, including the Nation of Islam, despite the pro-Isreal stance of the church owned Washington Times which doesn't always represent Moon's point of view. Borock (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Pros and cons on the issue

• Moon (speaking in 1977):

  Recently a major Jewish magazine proclaimed that after long research and investigation they had come to the conclusion that I was not ever anti-Semitic. A Roman Catholic magazine recently published the opinion that the Unification Church is part of the Christian heritage and is not heretical. [1]

Can someone help me identify that major Jewish magazine?

Also, we know the conclusions drawn from some rabbi's reading of the Divine Principle (DP), but can we get his analysis? I'd like to see a few dozen passages that he regarded as anti-semitic, and (for at least a few representative passages) his precise chain of reasoning regarding them. For example, does DP say that that Jewish people were more ungodly than the average person of the Old Testament age? Or does it say that the Jewish people were more religious and closer to God than average, while also taking them to task for some specific failings?

In particular, does "anti-semitism" entail any broad criticism of Jews or Jewish life? Or is it okay to point out Jewish moral/ethical failings provided that one places these into the context of humanity's general lapses? For example, the New Testament says, "None is righteous, no not one." Does this make Christan scriptures anti-human? Or does it just uphold a terribly high standard?

Here's another way to approach it. I'm going to call this the "feet of clay" effect. Reverend Moon called Martin Luther King Jr. the 20th century American he admired most. On the other hand, the Unification Church calls adultery "the greatest sin", and it is fairly well known that King committed adultery. Putting 2 and 2 together, what does this mean about the UC position on Dr. King? Are we exalting him or condemning him? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I think the article is heading towards saying that the DP has some passages that have been criticized as antisemitic but that church members are not hostile towards Jewish people. I think this is the information people are looking for if they have questions about this issue. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The value of censure

Are criticism, rebukes and censure always or automatically antisemitic? According to the Jewish Encyclopedia Amos "disturbed the national self-complacency by citing and denouncing the sins of the people and of their civil and religious rulers, declaring that precisely because God had chosen them to be His own would He punish them for their iniquity. He rebuked their oppression of the poor, their greed, their dishonesty, as sins against Yhwh Himself; assured them that their excessive religiousness would not save them in the day of their deserved punishment; that, as far as judgment was concerned, they stood no better with Him than did the Ethiopians, or the Arameans, or the Philistines." [2]

Or is it only antisemitic when an outsider makes such a sweeping critical statement? In other words, does our classification of a remark as "antisemitic" depend on who makes the statement?

Yes: Amos can criticize the ancient Israelites, and no one considers him anti-semitic but actually a good prophet conveying a valuable divine message. But since Rev. Moon is not Jewish, he may make similar criticisms.

No: Anyone can be a prophet and convey divine warnings, even to people of other times and places.

Which is it? Or, specifically, which standard of antisemitism do Rev. Moon's opponents such as Rabbi Rudin use? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not go by the standards set by Conservapedia? By their implicit definitions, Moon is certainly anti-semitic. 76.105.223.232 (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed. If all the controversy was taken out of the article there would be no article. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to keep roaming around the wiki on this one, but it seems to be a cross-cutting issue, and also possibly an elephant in the room.

Allen Z. Hertz, formerly a senior advisor in the Privy Council Office serving Canada's Prime Minister and the federal cabinet, wrote:

• "criticizing Israel is not necessarily Anti-Semitic ..."
• "Modern Anti-Semitism includes persistently targeting Jews and/or Israel and persistently applying to Jews and/or Israel a more exigent standard than applied to other Peoples and countries."

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby wrote:

• "CRITICIZING Israel doesn't make you anti-Semitic: If it's been said once, it's been said a thousand times."
• "... the line that separates legitimate disapproval of Israel from anti-Semitism may not always be obvious."
• "those who demonize and delegitimize Israel, who say the world would be better off without it, who hold it to standards of perfection no other country is held to, who extol or commiserate with its mortal enemies, who liken it to Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa, who make it the scapegoat not only for crimes it hasn't committed, but for those of which it is a victim - yes, such people are anti-Semitic, whether they acknowledge it or not."

Both men seem to be saying that it's not the fact of criticizing, but the standard by which one criticizes that defines "anti-Semitism".

(As an aside, I seem to have seen quite a lot of double standard criticism used in political and ideological discussions. When you want to "get" someone, you say he violated a standard and therefore deserves condemnation. It's obviously hypocritical to issue this sort of condemnation selectively, giving yourself or your group or anyone in some category the special favor of not judging them as harshly. It's hypocritical when you don't apply the standard equally to all parties.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination, bias and double standards

The essence of anti-semitism is holding Jews or Israel to a higher standard than other religious or national groups. Anyone who treats them like this is guilty of antisemitism. So, if indeed Rev. Moon were to hold Jews or Israel to higher standard of "faithfulness" or some such, then he would by definition be engaging in antisemitism.

The question is, as Robert McAfee Brown asks, "Can Christians criticize the state of Israel without being perceived as anti-Semitic?" Specifically, is it anti-Semitic for one person to make a criticism but not anti-Semitic for another person to make the same criticism? And if so, who say so?

Is there a clear statement from any verifiable and notable source that it's not what is said but who says it, that determines whether a given criticism is anti-Semitic? Or are opponents of Rev. Moon simply engaging in the same sort of double standard criticism which they condemn as anti-Semitic when they are the targets? (And if so, who has put 2 and 2 together in this way to get the obvious answer, if we contributors aren't allowed to say that 2+2=4?) --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ed, per WP:NOR, instead of constructing your own arguments, please stick to arguments about or statements on the subject made reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that we're allowed to think aloud on article talk pages. In the old days, we would frequently discuss what we supposed the objective truth was before going off-site to do the research, figuring it helps to know what you're looking for.

I'll be sure not to let my personal reasoning affect my writing. You'll let me know if my pro-Moon bias worms its way into the article, won't you? (I'll gladly return the favor to anyone with anti-moon bias.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed. It's difficult to define what "objective truth" is in most areas, including this. WP:NOTAFORUM is also relevant for Talk: pages. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Washington Times = pro-Israel?

I think it would be fair to include the information that the church owned Washington Times has been called pro-Israel (by reliable sources) in this article, even if some of the other material is left out. I am a church member, BTW, and I certainly don't hate Jewish people. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't, Steve. In accord with WP:NOR, do any of the sources in the material you want to add discuss the Unification Church and antisemitism? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

They say the Washington Times (owned by the church) is pro-Israel. So that is the other side of the controversy.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that's related to the topic, Unification Church antisemitism controversy. The info you added might be relevant to either Unification Church or Washington Times, but not this article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What "other side of the controversy", Steve? Do the sources discuss the controversy at all? From what I can tell, they don't. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The title of the article says there is a controversy. That generally means there are two sides. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, two sides at least. But what does that Washington Times material have to do with this article? I remind you that this article is about The Unification Church and antisemitism, not the Washington Times or Israel. Please explain how they are related, using sources that indicate a relationship between the two. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The Unfication Church supports the Washington Times, the Washington Times supports the Israeli people, the Israeli people are mostly Jewish; therefore the Unifcation Church is in favor of Jewish people. Antisemitism means being against the Jewish people; therefore this is evidence of non-antisemitism by the Unification Church. The sources cited were the largest English language newspaper in the Arab world and a Jewish newspaper in Washington D.C. Both said the editorial policy of the Washington Times was generally pro-Israel. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument you've made there, Steve. Are there any reliable sources that make that same argument? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Jay was questioning the degree to which the Washington Times is influenced by its patron. It's common knowledge that Rev. Moon founded the paper, and fairly well known that he's propped it up with church funds. What might be at issue in some minds is whether "he who pays the piper calls the tune" - i.e., whether church financial backing entails editorial control. If so, then we can say that the "Moonie paper" is pro-Israel, so obviously the church isn't anti-semitic. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Ed, I'm questioning whether any reliable sources actually make the argument that Steve is making. If not, then it's just original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment—I second Jayjg's fully reasonable request for reliable sources. The argument made above by Steve Dufour indeed does not appear logical. A supports B that supports C that supports D, therefore A supports D? Says who? See WP:NOR. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The editorial in Al-Ahram seems to be making that point. "The Washington Times is a mouthpiece for the ultra conservative Republican right, unquestioning supporters of Israel's Likud government. The newspaper is owned by Sun Myung Moon, originally a native of North Korea and head of the Unification Church, whose ultra-right leanings make him a ready ally for Netanyahu. Whether or not Netanyahu is personally acquainted with Moon is unclear, though there is no doubt that he has established close friendships with several staff members on The Washington Times, whose editorial policy is rabidly anti-Arab, anti-Muslim and pro-Israel."

Steve Dufour (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite certain I see nothing about antisemitism in that quote, much less a claim that the Unification Church is not antisemitic. Could you please provide a quote that actually discusses the Unification Church and antisemitism? That is, after all, the topic of this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would not expect an Arab newspaper to use the word "antisemitism." I also think it would be hard to be both "rabidly pro-Israel" and antisemitic. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And I would not expect Wikipedia to use information that doesn't appear in reliable third-party sources. As for the other argument, I'm not sure you are aware of the background for why Evangelists in the US support Israel. Without going into too much detail, you might want to note this editorial in the generally anti-Israel WRMEA that asserts that it is possible to be pro-Israel and antisemitic. If you need further explanation of the background, feel free to contact me personally. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

These same "Evangelists" are also bitter foes of the Unification Church, and I could add some have been found to disregard the Ninth Commandment at times. Anyway I think the issue of current anti-Jewish terrorism is a much bigger issue in 2009 than theological theories about the Jews' status as God's chosen people and the causes of their suffering.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Steve, are you assuming that since the WT is pro-Israel, this disproves the notion that its sponsor is antisemitic? If so, then I'd have to agree (editorially) with Jay: it's not for us to draw conclusions like this, no matter how obvious and sensible they are. Accusations of antisemitism or racism are often made hypocritically or on no basis whatever, and Wikipedia has declined the role of evaluating such accusations.

As suggested above, please poke around and see if you can find someone who has put 2 and 2 together the same way as you. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. And Steve, until you find such sources, would you mind removing the material? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. That's fair enough. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The stance that a newspaper takes toward a major country is of general interest. Does the article on the Washington Times have a "stance on Israel" section?

Some newspapers, I suppose, try at all times to be entire objective. But I reckon that most American newspapers actually have editorial policies which favor various political, social and other causes - in accordance with the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of the press - as opposed to some mandated requirement to be "neutral" or to support whatever governing party is currently in power. For example, the New York Times magnified the "human rights abuses" which followed the 1973 Chile coup (3,000 civilians disappeared) while downplaying those of Cambodia around the same time (over 1,000,000 civilians executed). --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The founder's views on the Holocaust

Here is a quotation which may be familiar to writers studying this matter:

• The Unification Movement categorically condemns anti- Semitism, the most hideous, abject and cruel form of hatred. We regard the murder of six million Jews in Europe the result of political short-sightedness and lack of moral responsibility on the part of Germany's political and religious leaders, and statesmen from among other nations, in the period between the Two World Wars.
• Ignoring the basic teachings of the Scriptures, they acted too late to block Hitler's ascent to power, they postponed the action for his downfall, and they did nothing to rescue the victims who were the captives of his satanic plans and designs. (Statement On Jews And Israel December 1976 )

Would I be right in concluding (or wrong in violating WP:OR) that Rev. Moon is hereby calling the Holocaust satanic - as opposed to saying that it was God's will? Look at it this way: "We regard the murder of six million Jews in Europe [as being due to Hitler's] satanic plans and designs." (5 words added for clarification)

Am I in fact clarifying, or am I imputing meaning that is not there? You decide.

In the very next sentence, it is made clear that the implementation of the Final Solution was "a Cain-inspired action". If you know anything about UC theology regarding Cain and Abel, you can recognize that Father Moon was labeling the Nazi extermination program as bad. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to attempt to draw conclusions from the sayings of religious leaders beyond what they have actually said. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Unification Church antisemitism controversy → Divine Principle antisemitism controversy —Due to recent changes, the article is now only about passages in the Divine Principle that have been called antisemitic. There is nothing about pro or anti-Jewish feelings by church members. I suggest that the article be retitled "Divine Principle antisemitism controversy." Steve Dufour (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. To begin with, the term "Divine Principle" can mean many things; if anything, in order to disambiguiate you should be recommending a move to "Unification Church's Divine Principle antisemitism controversy". In addition, Sandon doesn't talk solely about the Unification Church's Divine Principle, and Fehrer doesn't refer to it at all. This move would be an unwarranted narrowing of the scope of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the article should be merged into the main article. It's absurd that major allegations have only a small paragraph and no article, and this one with exactly two allegations of misstatements has a whole article. Totally WP:UNDUE [since its creation for any number of reasons which I won't bother to speculate upon]. (COI Note: no, I'm not a supporter of any of the bevy of patriarchal religions.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jayjg. We need to expand the article, not narrow its focus. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support merge rather than move, per Carolmooredc. There's insufficient here to merit a separate article at this stage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Material has been added to the article so that its scope is larger. If both sides of the "controversy" are presented then I don't have a problem with the present title anymore. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Rebuttal: the only "material has been added" has been a bunch of quotes of primary-source accusations and (often self-published) denials. This does not make for an encyclopaedic article. WP:SECONDARY sources are needed if an encyclopaedic article is to be formed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Now that the excessive quoting has been trimmed out, what remains could quite easily be accommodated as a section in the Unification Church article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: neither current nor proposed title is accurate, as there is no evidence of a singular cohesive "controversy" -- only of a major accusation in the late 70s (with a few supports/rebuttals in the following couple of years) and some completely unrelated accusations (one of antisemitism, one of being pro-Israel) a couple of decades later. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unencyclopaedic quotefarm

No Steve, it is not necessary to "present both sides by quotes" from WP:PRIMARY sources ad nauseam. The correct way to present a "controversy" is by WP:SECONDARY sources. I am restoring the template.

And the Moon quote fails WP:SELFPUB #1 "unduly self-serving". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Good edits, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Individual's self-published explanations of their words/acts are allowed per WP:NPOV and are not self-serving unless WP:UNDUE. One little sentence (just added by someone else) mentioning Rev. Moon's relevant comments during the time period in question would not be undue. And it gives people enough information to judge for themselves, which is our main job. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(i) This is NOT an 'explanation of their words/acts' -- it was made in Jan 1976, approx 10 months before the Rudin report was released. (ii) Whether a statement is "self-serving" is unrelated to whether it is given WP:UNDUE weight -- the former is a quality of the self-published source itself -- the latter of its treatment by WP editors. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(iii) The piece was WP:SELFPUB by Mose not Moon, so #2 "it does not involve claims about third parties" is violated -- Mose is making claims about Moon. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(iv) I would further note that the Mose piece makes no mention of Rudin or the American Jewish Committee. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(v) Contrary to this edit summary, there is no evidence that the quotation Mose makes of Moon is the "recent statements by Rev. Moon in which he said that he 'categorically condemns anti Semitism and anti-Christian attitudes'" mentioned in the NYT piece. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Al-Ahram sentence

I can't understand what the Al-Ahram sentence has to do with this article. The attached link doesn't discuss antisemitism at all. Can someone explain what it is doing in this article, as opposed to Unification Church political activities (if someone really feels this opinion is worth noting)? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Most people think "antisemitic" means advocating harm to the Jewish people. A quote which says the opposite should be part of the "controversy." Steve Dufour (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

p.s. No informed person in their right mind thinks that the Rev. Moon or church members hate or intend harm to Jewish people. And no honest person has said so.Steve Dufour (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We've been through this before, Steve, up here. Are there any reliable sources that tie this statement to the topic of this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I will go ahead and remove the paragraph. I'm sure I can find a better source that comments on the UC's generally pro-Jewish attitude. WP:SYN forbids me from pointing out the number of Jewish scholars taking part in church activities and expressing support of the church, the Unification Theological Seminary hiring rabbis to teach the Bible (something an antisemitic group would probably not do), the number of well-known Jewish journalists who have written for the Washington Times, etc. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a case of Steve (here - and me elsewhere) forgetting editorial standards in our haste to point out the "obvious mistake" in charges of UC antisemitism. Perhaps in other arenas of scholarship arrant nonsense is simply omitted; or maybe we just wish it would be.

The problem here is that rabbis and groups have analyzed Divine Principle, found passages which appear to them antisemitic, and have condemned the church on account of them. This is bewildering, because unlike our stance on communism - which is clearly anti-communist and has therefore attracted almost exclusively objections from pro-communists who know that we are anti-communist - here we are in the ironic position of feeling that we are not "anti-semitic" at all, yet we attract opposition from people who think we are.

Perhaps some mental gymnastics will be required to write about all this properly. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and primary sources

If the article is about a "controversy" then both sides need to be presented, including pro-Jewish quotes from UC sources. And everything in the article is from people taking sides in the "controversy", there is no secondary coverage.Steve Dufour (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, Steve, the arguments that need to be presented are those that reliable secondary sources make, not arguments invented by Wikipedia editors. The "primary sources" are the statements by Unification Church on Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Then both statements saying that the church is antisemitic and statements saying that it is pro-Jewish should be admitted to the article.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If "there is no secondary coverage", then there shouldn't be an article. Also, although a pro-Israel/antisemetic position is inconsistent, it is hardly unknown in conservative Protestant circles. Prejudices are generally not the product of logic, so are quite frequently inconsistent or even incoherent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No one has said that UC members, or Rev. Moon, are prejudiced against Jewish people, just that our understanding of religious history is incorrect according to modern sensitivities.Steve Dufour (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"More troubling is the unmistakable anti-semitism I heard expressed by a highly placed and veteran Korean Moonist…" = "UC member … prejudiced against Jewish people" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I did say "members." Most UC members are very pro-Jewish, as is Rev. Moon. This is understood by informed Jewish people. Why don't you write to your Senator or congressperson and ask him or her what he or she thinks about the alleged "antisemitism" of the UC?Steve Dufour (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Given how tight-knit and authoritarian the UC is, I'd be surprised if this "highly placed and veteran Korean Moonist"'s prejudices aren't held by others. I would suspect that many "informed Jewish people" would have problems with Moon's Holocaust=indemnity explanation. Why on earth would you think that I would have a "Senator or congressperson"? Most people in the world don't. And why would you think that the UC is even on my political representative's radar? Outside the US, Korea and Japan, the UC has a negligible presence. Get over yourself and your ethnocentricism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Most people in the United States, and certainly in Washington, are well aware of the UC's pro-Jewish attitude.Steve Dufour (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, it is far from unknown for a politically-"pro-Jewish" (generally approximately equivalent to a pro-Israel) position to be simultaneously held with personal/cultural antisemitic prejudices. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If I was to decide based only on self-interest I think I would choose to be thought anti-Jewish, 'cause I am fairly confident that the Jews ain't going to kill me.Steve Dufour (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The debate above has departed from its proper topic, i.e., (A) questions about how to write the article. It looks more like (B) a debate amongst contributors about whether the church, its founder and/or its members are antisemitic. I suggest we return to the question of how to describe the church's official position (particularly as expressed by the founder and the main theology book), along with the perennially interesting dispute between church boosters and opponents other than we 3 or 4 contributors over which aspects of church teachings, church policy or member attitudes qualify as antisemetic. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the title of the article should be changed to "American Jewish Committee news conference on the Divine Principle" since that seems to be the main topic now. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Supersessionism and Zionism

I removed these from the "see also" list. The UC does not strictly teach supersessionism since we believe that Christianity itself misunderstands Jesus' teachings and that faithful Christians are co-sufferers along with Jews, and with God Himself (a point that some Chistians as well as Muslims also find offensive BTW.) As for Zionism, WP's article defines it as support for the creation of a Jewish state. Since the UC was founded, and the DP written, after the creation of Israel this has nothing to do with us.Steve Dufour (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article

Here's an interesting article, not sure if it would count as a reliable source however. [3]Steve Dufour (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Here are the sources given for the UC's "antisemitism" being "widely reported":

Jewish currents, Volume 30, 1976, p5

Parliamentary debates: Official report, Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons, 1976, p1593

Religious education, Volume 73, 1978, p356

Cults in America: programmed for paradise‎, Willa Appel, 1983, p171

Heartbreak and Rage: Ten Years Under Sun Myung Moon, Gordon Neufeld, 2002, p173

False dawn, Lee Penn, 2004, p121

Three from the 1970s right after the AJC press conference. None from before. Although the church was known since the early 1960s I guess no one noticed that it was an "antisemitic" organization. An "anticult" book from the 1980s. A book by an ex-UC member from 2002. An a book from 2004 by a Christian conspiracy theorist who thinks the New Age movement is run by the Antichrist. I don't think this amounts to any "wide reporting." Steve Dufour (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would consider 6 reports, over a 28 year period, including mention in the parliamentary record of a major nation to be "widely reported".

What would "narrowly reported" be then? Steve Dufour (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Instead of using "widely reported", try saying that "various parties have accused the church". --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not an accusation, it is a statement of fact. Moon said Holocaust = indemnity. And 10 sources including the UK parliament goes well beyond "various". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the UK parliament, but all kinds of stupid things have been said in the United States Congress. I don't think being said in parliament gives something much weight. No one denies what the DP says about historical Jewish suffering anyway. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I seem to be hearing the suggestion that Wikipedia endorse the accusations by calling them "fact". In particular, there was this argument:

1. Moon said Holocaust = indemnity
2. To say this is clearly antisemitic
3. Therefore It is a fact that Rev. Moon is antisemitic.

More likely, what Hrafn is saying is no more that what Steve and I have been saying, i.e., we are each revealing our personal opinions so that we can deal with the problem of conflict of interest. As a Wikipedia old-timer, I assure you it is much easier for contributors to work together when we all lay our cards on the table. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If people feel that is offensive I will not agrue with them. What I do object to strongly is the implication that I hate Jewsih people, which I certainly do not.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Both Steve and Ed are misrepresenting the material in the article:

1. "the sources given" are NOT for "the UC's 'antisemitism' being 'widely reported'" -- but for the wide reporting of the FACT that Moon made his Holocaust = indemnity statement.
2. Thereafter we have two sources, including a prominent sociologist/NRM expert that this statement has been a reason for the UC being "considered anti-Semitic"

I would suggest that both Steve and Ed make a greater effort to keep their discussion more closely relevant to what is actually in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to make that effort, especially when it distinguishes between facts and interpretations. For example, you wrote:

• I would suspect that many "informed Jewish people" would have problems with Moon's Holocaust=indemnity explanation.

There are two questions here:

1. Did Rev. Moon associate the Holocaust with the UC notion of indemnity?
2. How do informed Jewish people feel about that? That is, do some of them regard that link as antisemitic (and why)?

It would help us to work together if we could agree on just what, precisely, Rev. Moon has said about the Holocaust-indemnity linkage. After that, we can more easily describe the interpretations that various parties (esp. church opponents and church defenders) have imputed to Rev. Moon's remarks. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the really interesting story is that the UC is so friendly to Jews, and many Jews to us, despite our "antisemitic" doctrine.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't have information on what statement from Moon the reports were referring to. However we do have this more recent speech (from the article's edit history) in which he states:

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.

It seems likely that earlier comments similar to this were what evoked the reports. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks authentic to me. What do you say, Steve? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think so too. Note that he was speaking to Jewish UC members, telling them they should have a sense of responsibility for the sins of their ancestors. He has said the same kind of things to other groups, including gentile white Americans. This is a part of his core teaching from the beginning of the church 50 years ago. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Also including the quote would help lift the article from the pit of boredom it has fallen into. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously though, the expression in the article: "The Unification Church explanation for the Holocaust...." is not untrue. However the DP only talks about the 2000 years of Jewish suffering since the time of Jesus. It doesn't specifically talk about the Holocaust and probably no other member would speak as frankly as Rev. Moon has about the issue. So it would be somewhat better to say "Rev. Moon's explanation..." Steve Dufour (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm relatively indifferent on this. The commentators tend to view Moon's pronouncements on this as equivalent to the UC's -- as would I suspect any reader who knew anything about the church's structure. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think either expression would be wrong. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

AJC website

I just checked the AJC website and found no mention of the UC or Rev. Moon. Hmmm. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

War in Heaven

I just added info on the Jewish Defense League's "declaration of war" against Rev. Moon. This must have been one of the shortest spritual/ideological wars in history. I took part in an earlier skirmish when I was going door to door in a Jewish neighborhood in LA handing out invitations to a speech by Rev. Moon. A JDL member threatened me and I told him that I wasn't going to stop. I then pointed out that the church was actively protesting Soviet persecution of Jews. He couldn't argue with that and didn't bother me anymore.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Defense League

This material appears to be both irrelevant & WP:UNDUE, as:

1. The topic of the article is "Unification Church antisemitism" not 'Jewish anti-Unificationism'
2. The Jewish Defense League is on the "violent, extremist and terrorist"/"hate group" fringe of Jewish thought, and thus unrepresentative of Jewish thought.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The AJC press conference is also unrepresentative of Jewish thought. However thank you for the additional information you added on the JDL. I certainly didn't intend to imply that they in any way represented all Jews. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

1. This article IS NOT ABOUT "JEWISH THOUGHT! It is about "Unification Church antisemitism controversy". This material is therefore off-topic.
2. To claim that the JDL is "representative of Jewish thought" is idiotic! So the Jewish lunatic fringe once mouthed off against the UC. They probably did so against anybody they thought was encroaching on what they considered to be 'their turf' -- the ADL chronology of their hooliganism is certainly long enough. Lacking any evidence that they actually carried through, it should not be given WP:UNDUE weight even in an article it is on-topic for.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)