Talk:Unification Movement International

Content moved prior to redirect from "Unification Movement"

existing entry

The Unification Movement is a religious movement headed by the Unification Church (renamed the Family Federation for World Peace) comprising organizations and individuals that are dedicated to creating world peace through ideal families centered on God in accordance with the doctrines of Sun Myung Moon.

For legal and tax purposes in several countries, various projects inspired or directed by Sun Myung Moon or members of his church are required to maintain existence as separate entities. Under United States federal tax law, 501(c)(3) charitable institutions, like churches, may not engage in certain types of political speech without losing their tax exemption status. As such, Rev Moon, the Unification Church, and members of the church have created organisations such as CARP which operate under the less stringent requirements of a 501(c)(4) "non-profit, educational foundation".

See also

• Unification Church
• Sun Myung Moon

External links

• http://www.geocities.com/unificationism/ An introduction to Unificationism (Sun Myung Moon's Unification Movement)] including both support and criticism from current and former Unificationists.
• http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/unification Unofficial Unification Movement discussion group and mail list]
• http://www.trueloveking.net Rev. Sun Myung Moon]
• http://www.foreignlands.org/moon Sun Myung Moon and/or the Unification Movement]
• http://www.cesnur.org/testi/moon_01.htm Bayou La Batre residents embrace church they once called a cult], by Ben Raines ("Alabama Live," July 30, 2000)
• http://www.unificationthought.com Unificationism 'a critique and counter proposal']

Category:Unification Church]]

Uncited material

I removed this paragraph. It is now uncited not cited by an online source so people can check it out and besides is just one person's opinion and also says something negative about an individual (although unnamed so not so bad):

Leo Sandon Jr. wrote in Theology Today in 1978 supporting the AJC's charge of antisemitism in Unification Church teachings, but noted that the church argued that this resulted from "Korean ignorance of Jewish sensitivities". He stated that he was more troubled by the "unmistakable anti-semitism" of "a highly placed and veteran Korean Moonist".(ref)"More troubling is the unmistakable anti-semitism I heard expressed by a highly placed and veteran Korean Moonist who interpreted the failure of the New York Board of Regents to grant the Barrytown seminary a charter as being the result of the international communist and Jewish conspiracy. The communists and Jews characteristically are linked, he explained. I have heard Robert Shelton, veteran American Klansman, allude to the same conspiracy." Korean Moon: Waxing or Waning?, Leo Sandon Jr, Theology Today, July 1978.(/ref)

Lopsidedly one-sided ad copy; needs balance that at least acknowledges controversy, tax evasion, political agenda, etc.

Lopsidedly one-sided ad copy; needs balance via a "controversy" section that at least acknowledges controversy, tax evasion, avowed and vigorously pursued political agenda to replace democracy with rule by self-anointed theocrats, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.61.61 (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:CSECTION. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Also see WP:RS & WP:QUOTEFARM. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

At one time the article did have a controversy section but it was merged with the rest of the article, as is WP policy. There are lots of controversial points mentioned in the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WP policy does not require controversy sections to be merged with the article; you may have this confused with Wikimedia Commons articles written by Wikipedia authors which are not actual policy. Since the Unification Church is a small religion noteworthy in Western media for their unusual financial backings and recruitment practices, a controversy section is likely something many people coming to this article would be looking for. The current controversial bits have been distributed between different places and each one is followed by a refutation, which gives the article an apologetic feel. TricksterWolf (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

After a more thorough examination, I must agree in part with 66.167.61.61. Some of this article feels like an ad campaign for the Unification Church, with a rather NPOV flavor. Most controversial elements are not well-described and are immediately refuted where they occur, as though this is an apologetic reference. I think this is more of an organizational problem than anything else, but there are a number of omissions as a result and sections not where one would expect them (since "accusations of antisemitism" is not a "belief" of the UC, it doesn't belong in that section).

There are several public aspects of Unification Church controversy which are not covered. For just a few: the recruitment of members by selling flowers (this once-common practice appears nowhere in the article), the pattern in the 90's of advertising sponsorship from questionable groups (both Holocaust denialists and White supremacists) due in part to staffing of the UC-owned paper by White supremacists (though notably, in 2008 the hiring of Solomon has presumably been an excellent step toward putting a stop to this, which also bears mentioning), the fact that the UC has fronted over 1 billion dollars (according to tracking by the SPLC) to maintain the paper despite low readership, the size of the tax deductions granted to the Church and its legal struggles with tax status, and controversial statements made by Moon himself on issues of race, race-mixing, homosexuality, and other religions.

In addition to omission of details, the tone of the article is overly apologetic in places. In most places it gives a fair description, but it seems to blunt the church's official stance on some topics of controversy. I first posted on the talk page because I was concerned that matched was not a clear description for what apparently implies "arranged marriage". There are several places that the language is too euphemistic to clearly communicate with people not familiar with UC practices. (I do not assume this is an intentional obfuscation; it's more likely that UC members who edit this article use terminology familiar to them, without realizing it is not at all clear to outsiders.)

For one example, the rather extreme stance on homosexuality of the UC is reduced to two lines of text and softened in by merely suggesting "it is opposed by gay rights groups"; but the link to the only support article for this statement leads to the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, which is not a gay rights group and doesn't mention the opposition of gay rights groups in its description of the UC position (taken directly from quotes of Moon and other leaders). Nowhere is it mentioned that gays and lesbians are forbidden from joining the Church, though this may be inferred in context; the infamous statement by Moon that, "Gays will be eliminated, the 3 Israels will unite. If not then they will be burned," is omitted, despite numerous sources. Given that the Unification Church believes that Moon is a prophet on par with (or is) Jesus and is the ultimate authority of the Church, controversial statements should be notable.

This article needs some major revision, mostly in organization. Despite my critique above, I have no strong opinion pro or con. I really don't want this article to become a Moonie-bashing haven for fundamentalists of other religions. However, it shouldn't be an ad for the Church either. It should be a straightforward objective description of the beliefs of the UC, its leadership, and historical context. I don't think that's what it is right now. It rambles and glows, intermittently. TricksterWolf (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• The first step is to identify reliable sources covering these issues. I have not objection whatsoever to these issues being covered (assuming they are reliably sourced). I would however object to recreation of a separate 'Controversy' section -- as such segregation does not improve the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW the problems at the Washington Times are already reported in its own article, and most of the people involved were not church members. Also the arranged marriages in the UC involved only a fairly small number of people who were adults and dedicated church members, on the level of dedication of monks and nuns in other groups. The type of arranged marriages that are controversial nowdays involve young girls being forced to marry against their wills, so nothing especially related to the UC. Did I mention that I'm a member? Steve Dufour (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that WP:RS is the first step, though most of the issue I have is with how information on the page is organized. I don't agree that a "Controversy" section is a bad idea, however, because the article serves as a reference both for 1) a religion and 2) a church. Scientology would be a good parallel, since nearly all Scientologists are affiliated with the Church of Scientology. The descriptions of the religion should be free of bias and controversy and stick to the beliefs of its membership; information about the church and its leaders may contain controversy and this can be addressed in a single place. Right now it's not well-organized and a "Controversy" section would help put information where people want it.

I mean--as much as I do not count myself among them, many people will come here simply to look for controversial issues (as with Scientology). For this reason it's appropriate to collect them rather than spread them around. Hopefully, there is a way to do this without bashing the religion in the process (though if there are negative facts about the church or its leadership, these should be listed regardless, and the church stance on these issues can also be given).

Steve Dufour: I know you're a member, yes.  :) I have a former friend who was a member as well, but we had a falling out over some inappropriate behavior on his part (unrelated to his beliefs or associations), so I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the Church but I'm far from being an expert. I was concerned about my initial post because I did not wish to appear aggressive, but I do believe the article could use some reorganization. I'm probably not the best candidate for it but I may try to help out eventually. The problem I have with not listing the paper's controversies is that the Washington Times is so closely tied to the Church, particularly in that it seems to be the recipient of the lion's share of Church fundraising, that it is not appropriate to discuss the Church without describing how it spends its money. Criticism and controversy resulting from the actions of the Church or its leadership could be placed in a section in this article or into a separate article. Perhaps Unification Church views of sexuality should be merged with a controversy article; it hardly seems to merit an article of its own, as that information should be in the dogma on the religion article. TricksterWolf (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, I would add that arranged marriage is in Western Culture controversial regardless as to whether or not the partners are able to consent by law, as it implies social pressure from an outside authority (the Church, seen my many as the ultimate authority) to marry a stranger. This is a striking disconnect with the Western values of individualism and personal choice, and it disagrees with just about all literature on the subject of marriage and the family which appears in mainstream psychology. (It can also disagree with the Western view of human equality, if the arrangement is only for the female; though I understand that is not the case here it is in some denominations who use "traditional courtship".) TricksterWolf (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Moonie

The word "Moonie" now has its own article. However I would think that most people searching for that are really interested in reading about the Unification Church itself, not about the history of a word. Also, I'm guessing, the most common search term should be in the opening sentence. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In this case the word seems to have a notable enough history to have its own article. WP:Not a dictionary does say that articles "should be about things not words." In that case "Moonie" should redirect here and the other article be renamed something like "Moonie (word)". That would be my interpretation anyway. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that there is much interesting info abouth the word beyond the fact taht some like it and some not. Therefore the current state of affairs (redirect) is fine. Last Lost (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent additions

While it's good that more material is added, I agree that more work needs to be done to make the article more readable. I have started working on this, mainly just correcting the wording. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

'Cult' allegations and other criticism are moved to prorer paragraph

Criticism

For example, the following:

The Unification Church has been criticized for alleged elements of anti-Semitism and homophobia, for poor business decisions, and for low membership retention. Many outside the the UC, including most Christian denominations, conclude that it is a cult.

Please help to move the other existing critism to this paragraph. Borovv (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:Criticism says: "The best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections. Creating a "Criticism" section exacerbates point-of-view problems, and is not encyclopedic." Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Unification Church of the United States has a section titled "Criticism, opposition, and controversy." I think it works there because the section is about reporting the facts of the criticism, opposition, and controversy which the church encountered, not just listing possible criticisms. Obviously for there to be criticism there must be critics. And they all have their own reasons for criticizing. Of course there are legitimate points to criticize as well. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This was an incorrect move from the intro to an extra section. According to wikipedia rules about the intro, the intro must contain the summary of the article contents. The article does contain elements of criticism, and therefore it was summarized in a single sentence of the intro: "The Unification Church has been criticized for alleged elements of anti-Semitism and homophobia, and for low membership retention. The leadership of the Church disagrees with these allegations." Please restore and don't edit introduction heavily without discussion. Last Lost (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, for the same reason that the intro is the summary of the article (see WP:LEAD), it should not be heavily littered with references. (And it looks UGLY otherwise). All statements that require references (besides the basic facts which are discussed only in the intro) must be made somewhere in the article body. If some statement cannot find its proper place in the article bosy, then it is probably unfit for the intro as well. Last Lost (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

As a church member I disagree that "the leadership of the Church disagrees with these allegations." The church has also been criticized for anti-communism, being too friendly with Islam, promoting inter-racial marriage, and many other things. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you didn't quite understand what I wrote. I don't care what the church was criticized for. I care about the correspondence of the intro to our article content. It is also irrelevant whether you personally disagree with "the leadership of the Church disagrees with these allegations." You, as a wikipedia etitor may only disagree that this sentence from the intro correctly represents the article content. Assuming that you meant this second interpretation, I may accept this, although it seemed to me that the article says something about rejecting the accusations. Now, do you agree or disagree that the article does indeed contain the descriptions of accusations in anti-Seminism, homophobia and low memberhip retention? Last Lost (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Also if you or anyone else wants to write a sensible intro you have my support. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)