Asymmetrical Information

And this is why I dislike the faith-based initiative program. Because either you give every wacko-fanatic religion who has a leader and can fill out paperwork some money, or you discriminate against people who are in wacko-fanatic religions.

I personally feel most religions are wacko-fanatic and don't want any of them to get a penny of my hard earned tax dollars.

But this isn't even about a faith-based program: the organizations aren't funded by teh church. The piece is arguing that we shouldn't fund a program because some of its higher-ups belong to the unification church.

Kate, I agree entirely. It seems like a great idea on the face of it to funnel some aid dollars through World Vision. But if you do that, you have to fund organizations based on every other self-declared religion out there. So then what you get is nasty commentary like this, from people who understandably don't want their tax dollars funneled into Moon's organizations, making fun of the "Holy Handkerchief." You can make fun of Communion just as effectively ("they believe they can say some mumbo-jumbo and this little piece of bread actually turns into the flesh of their god! and then they eat it! must have been a pretty big god, to have any flesh left after all these years!"), but it's not exactly informed religious discourse, and I tend to distrust writers who base their articles on that kind of juvenile snorting.

Anyway, I say it's better to avoid the whole thing entirely by letting FBOs fund themselves.

I can relate to Kate. I don't want any of my tax dollars to go to wacko-fanatics either.

LIke those fevered wackos at places like PETA and the Sierra Club. Or the wackos with the same crazy ideas who work at various govt agencies.

I want MY (extorted) tax dollars to be allocated in the same fashion combined charity campaigns are run. Each agency, bureau, department, etc should get a paragraph in the 1040 -- describing what they do, what their goals are, and what percent of the money they got last year was diverted from that mission to administration. Then I get to identify which ones I support and which to neglect. Lesseee, I already donate to the local PBS affiliate so maybe the corporation for public broadcasting doesn't need more. I think the Coast Guard needs more ships and inspectors to catch smugglers. The bureau of land management can just starve for all I care.

Why not? Or rather, why does my phone bill STILL include a couple of bucks federal tax every month for "wiring up classrooms to the internet"? How many classrooms ARE there, for crying out loud? And why aren't they using WiFi? Or did they finish all the wiring with last year's tax and start all over for (half-way to obsolete) 802.11b this year and want MORE next year for the next generation of access? I mean, when is a project COMPLETE?

"This Salon article seems to be arguing that the Bush administration should be denying funding to organizations based on the religious beliefs of their officials."

Can you find a sentence or paragraph implying this? Nice inversion on the giving/denying thing, too.

Looks like "here's a creepy religion the Bush administration has close ties to" to me.

Bush never proposed to "fund" FBO's; what he proposed was to fund programs run by FBO's and not deny program funding just because an FBO ran it.

If you don't think that can be done, then you haven't spent much, if any, time on the board of a charitable non-profit organization. NPO's have to account for how grant money is spent, program by program, to various governmental agencies. NPO's also have to be ready to account to private foundation grant-givers to satisfy them that money with strings attached is really being used with those strings attached.

As far as I know, Bush is merely proposing not to deny program funding for a program simply because it is run by an FBO. What exactly is wrong with that?

Again, the article doesn't have a thing to do with faith-based organizations. It's just moonie ties.

"And this is why I dislike the faith-based initiative program. Because either you give every wacko-fanatic religion who has a leader and can fill out paperwork some money, or you discriminate against people who are in wacko-fanatic religions.

I personally feel most religions are wacko-fanatic and don't want any of them to get a penny of my hard earned tax dollars."

I am a theological Liberal (something of an Unitarian) and still I strongly support the main thrust of President Bush's program. We should be cautious of church-state entaglement---but not hostile to religious belief per se. A lot of purely secular groups like the Communists have also done a lot of harm! We are a pragmatic nation and not an ideological one.

Like those fevered wackos at places like PETA and the Sierra Club. Or the wackos with the same crazy ideas who work at various govt agencies.

I agree, the “separation of church and state” line is simply a shibboleth as the SCOTUS ruled pretty clearly in Helms vs. Mitchell that it was perfectly constitutional to send taxpayer dollars to religious organizations to carry out secular purposes. The only real constitutional problem with FBO’s is that the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to fund social welfare programs they constitutionally are the province of the people (private charity) and the States. In which case, Bush’s FBO’s are just as (un)constitutional as the social welfare programs run by the government.

What we ought to do is eliminate all funding for federal social welfare/income transfer programs and cut the taxes used to fund them and let people voluntarily decide which are or are not deserving of their voluntary contributions. Forcing a citizen to pay for a secular governmental social welfare program is as much a violation of individual rights as taking their money and giving it as a grant to NPO (nonprofit organization) whether said NPO is religious or secular.

Looks like Jason has called you out Megan. The article seems to say the Bush administration has benefited from donations given by the Moonies, and that a Moonie affiliated organization received government funding. So are you gonna repeat the propaganda, pile it on a little deeper, or just fess up?

Jason is right. The article never EXPLICITLY
states that we need to discriminate by religious belief via denying money to every organization
whose leadership belongs to Moon's church.

The article merely lists the facts and leaves you
to draw your own conclusion.

You might -- especially if you tend to think the
media has a liberal bias -- draw the conclusion
that the author means to promote goverment discrimination against the Unification Church.
Alternatively, you might read the article as a cautionary note about goverment funding of charities in general -- a point Kate made in her post on top.

But Jane, don't claim the article says what it
does not. At no point does it "...[argue]
that we shouldn't fund a program because some of
its higher-ups belong to the unification church."

C'mon, guys . . . the article pretty clearly implies that there's something wrong with funding these guys because they're moonies. This is nitpicking, and I'm not the one it makes look silly.

>C'mon, guys . . . . the article pretty clearly implies that there's > something wrong with funding these guys because they're moonies.

Sure, it does....but its a leap from that to
saying the article champions "discrimination
against religious weirdos." Perhaps
the article really about the unfairness of your money going to causes which you do not support;
perhaps the intended message is to highlight the danger of goverment funding of private charities in general.

"C'mon, guys . . . the article pretty clearly implies that there's something wrong with funding these guys because they're moonies. This is nitpicking, and I'm not the one it makes look silly."

The Wash. Times made you an offer, Megan?

Yeah, what Pierre said.

> the Bush administration has benefited from donations given by the Moonies, and that a Moonie affiliated organization received government funding.

Unless you're going to argue that the above is a non sequitor, the author is clearly suggesting that something is wrong and probably that something should be done about said wrong.

I note that that sort of arrangment isn't all that rare; AARP has a similar deal. Why were the Moonies (or Bush) singled out?

Andy, I'd guess the Moonies were singled out because a religion whose avowed goal is to install its leader as world dictator, and whose members have unusual sexual practices, is more interesting to read and write about than a retiree's lobbying organization.

The article still addresses legitimate concerns about possible conflict of interest in the Bush administration, though.

Go for the book reviewer job at the WT, Megan.

I need a good laugh now and then.

jane g: "the article pretty clearly implies that there's something wrong with funding these guys because they're moonies."

And you have a problem with that?

Thanks for the link to my story, my fellow J.G. I know where you're coming from. Of course, the important difference here is between funding social workers who happen to be adherents of a religion, and funding a church's missionary project.

In researching this story, I wrestled hard with the possibility of the former, before the evidence became overwhelming that it was the latter. First, let's look at Richard Panzer's analogy: If people who happen to be Catholics receive federal funding, is it a big deal? Common sense says nah.

But let's say that a board comprised of archbishops and other high church officials founded a federally-funded project, X, while concealing its religious connections. Let's further pretend that the Pope described this X as a holy project, making speeches like this one about the politicians he'd courted:

"True Father has brought so many dignitaries to conferences, paying for their travel. They did not pay. Now is the time they have to pay Father back. Instead of paying me back, take care of my missionaries."

Illegal? Dunno. Worth hearing about? Well, yeah.

But finally the Pope analogy falls apart when you look at the one-of-a-kind Unification Church. In the '70s, Bob Dole and other Congressmen probed the group's "non-religious activities," finding that it had aggressive political aims that it concealed in a maze of front groups that pretended not to be affiliated with the UC.

For instance, the group once held a gigantic fundraising campaign to help sick kids -- but the Congressional probe found that most of the money was secretly going to a PR firm to make the church look better.

There's a lot more that didn't make it in, including the whole "reputation for breaking up families" issue, as well as the claim by ex-Moonie authority Steve Hassan that no one in the UC is allowed to start a group without close monitoring by "Cain and Abel figures." But I'm probably running out of room on your blog too, and don't want to take advantage of your Haloscan courtesy!

Oh, and it's not just the higher-ups of this group that were in the UC. It's pretty much everyone, from the Board of Directors down to the Area Coordinators and the secretary herself.

Personally, I can't wait to see the wingnuts sputtering fury when the Black Muslims decide they want to open up a baking school for wayward youth with *your* tax dollars...

It is really interesting watching people rationalize giving money to the Moon's organization and it is money to the Moon organization not a church. Moon, his goals and beliefs are one. We are not talking about discriminating against a 'religion' we are talking about protecting the country from a group who wishes to subvert all we hold dear. A group which is using a loophole in the constitution against our form of government.

click for that.

I agree with this from the 70's investigation of this evil.

Some observers, however, see goals in the Moon Organization's activities which are clearly political, including those carried on by the Unification Church. Allen Tate Wood, testified that in his view the UC was not a church at all:

"It is my contention that it is certainly not a church. It is certainly a political organization which clearly has partisan objectives."

Another ex-member said that her experience in the church led her to believe that Moon intended to make UC members into "a little political army."

The opinion rendered by the New York Tax Commission in denying tax-exemption for certain UC properties stated: "although the applicant association does in certain aspects bespeak of a religious association, it is in our opinion so threaded with political motives and activities that it requires us to deny its application."

Moon is playing the country for a bunch of chumps. He is winning.

Fascinating article, John. Hope to hear more from you about this troubling church.

here are the first four findings from the congressional investigation of Moon's organization.

A downloadable portion of the investigation in pdf format can be found here. I suggest you learn how he operates before you start trying to defend him and conservatives for selling their souls and our country to him.

(1) The UC and numerous other religious and secular organizations headed by Sun Myung Moon constitute essentially one international organization. This organization depends heavily upon the interchangeability of its components and upon its ability to move personnel and financial assets freely across international boundaries and between businesses and nonprofit organizations.

(2) The Moon Organization attempts to achieve goals outlined by Sun Myung Moon, who has substantial control over the economic, political, and spiritual activities undertaken by the organization in pursuit of those goals.

(3) Among the goals of the Moon Organization is the establishment of a worldwide government in which the separation of church and state would be abolished and which would be governed by Moon and his followers.

(4) In pursuit of this and other goals, the Moon Organization has attempted, with varying degrees of success, to gain control over or establish business and other secular institutions in the United States and elsewhere, and has engaged in political activities in the United States. Some of these activities were undertaken to benefit the ROK Government or otherwise to influence U.S. foreign policy.

(5) While pursuing its own goals, the Moon Organization promoted the interests of the ROK Government, and at times did so in cooperation with, or at the direction of, ROK agencies and officials. The Moon Organization maintained mutually beneficial ties with a number of Korean officials.

This group should have always been looked at as a foriegn agent. Instead you have Bush 41 traveling around the world helping him with his 'credibility' gap. Bush called Moon 'the man with the vision' and we are to think he and his spawn have the 'character' to run the country but 'liberals' do not. Conservatives are MASSIVE hypocrites.

I used to be a Moonie. I think this particular issue is rather a tough one. In general, I wouldn't want the government to give any money to anything affiliated with Moon because he's a nutcase.

On the other hand, I remember when Richard Panzer first started Free Teens, which is sort of his pet project. I think that he would probably do his best to make sure that any funds received were spent in accordance with Free Teens' objectives. I don't think he would allow funds to be redirected for other purposes.

I don't personally think that an abstinence-only approach is the best option (although my wife certainly does, and runs a website that supports such a strategy), but if the goverment is going to fund such programs, Richard Panzer should not be excluded just because his messiah is a loony.

I think that Moon's bailout of Jerry Falwell, which was mentioned briefly in the Salon article, is actually a much more significant story.

There is NOTHING that Moon touches which is not designed to further his goal of gaining control of the world, NOTHING and that includes his propaganda rag, the Washington Times. If you think he isn't making his way to his goal you are WRONG.

Look at him, without his guidance, money and political balls there is NO WAY the 2000 election is close enough to steal. Without Moon you have NO BUSH. He has more to do with the world's current political situation than ANY person on earth. Period. He has spent BILLIONS propping up rightwing theocratic groups and thought. He has financed the molding of the right's politics whether they know it or not. In short he is effing with the whole country and laughing his ass off at us.

Check his predictions. He is winning. Through the Philippines, he is proposing a theocratic body to be part of the UN. This is an idea which has been thought of since the start of the UN but if it happens it will take Moon to push it through. (do you see it?) He said the UN body will be much easier manipulate than a country. He says it will take three years for the body to "bear fruit." Do you understand his goals? This is what he wants, theocracy in which the world's religions come under him. That doesn't mean we will all go down and become moonies, WE WILL NOT HAVE A SAY. While people sit around talking about how THEY would never fall for his crap, haha THEY already have -- he is driving the bus NOW. He is taking the world from the top down and he IS winning. You will learn that if you study him.

Don't think he is winning? Please look at more than just this moment in history. Google "America's newspaper" see what you get. If, in the 1970's, you told 100 people that in 2003 Moon would own and guide a propaganda rag designed to shove the country into HIS form of theocratic voodoo and he could get away with calling it "America's newspaper" with NO outrage, I think about 99 out of the hundred would have jumped out of the window on the spot.

Try looking at part two here and tell me what you think about where the money came from to put the right wing theo-fascists in power in our country. There are many reports which say the money to finance his US operations. (including billions lost on the Washington Times) It isn't pretty but this is who the 'holier than thou' hypocrites in the republican party can rationalize giving a place at the tables of influence to in our country.

Here read part two here tell me about this 'religion'... more like a cross between Amway and Jim Jones on streroids.

Your debate is all wrong. You are helping him. The debate should be why are our political leaders in bed with a group whose stated goal is to subvert all we hold dear and the larger picture of why the public is kept in the dark about it.

Here is a quote from the March 27, 1989 US NEWS. This is how Reagan's 11th Commandment, one of the most deceitful political tools ever devised, helped give Moon cover to manipulate the country through the conservative movemnent.

The Unification Church's newfound influence has occasioned intense debate among conservatives. One group of worried young conservatives meets regularly in private to compare notes about the problem. But little of the debate has surfaced in public forums. "Most people are afraid to address the issue because they don't want to publicize the extent of the church's involvement," says Amy Moritz of the Conservative National Center for Public Policy Research.

Because almost all conservative organizations in Washington have some ties to the church, conservatives also fear repercussions if they expose the church's role. That happened when one organization, the Capital Research Center, published a newsletter last November warning of the church's attempt to create a "centralized world theocracy." One of its board members, who was also on the board of the International Security Council, resigned in protest, and conservatives charging that the paper was creating discord on the right, besieged the center with angry calls. "We got a very, very strong reaction -- almost as if we were the enemy -- because we raised the issue," says CRC Chairman Willa Johnson, a former president of the Heritage Foundation.

Anyone under the delusion that the Washington Times isn't his tool? He has been leading the 'conservatives' around by the nose for twenty years...

From the Washington Post
Sept. 16, 1984

But he(Moon) spoke with pride of The Washington Times, bragging of important officials who had attended its opening ceremonies. Moon said that James Whelan, then publisher of The Washington Times, "listens to what I say and makes the newspaper as I tell him," according to Soejima.
....
"With journalism, we have now reached success by establishing The Washington Times," Moon said, according to Soejima. "We now have a direct influence on Reagan through The Washington Times."

(note Whelan, the first editor/publisher of TWT quit after a year, calling it a 'moonie newspaper' and saying he had 'blood on his hands' for helping to give the paper credibility. He isn't the only editor to quit saying the basically same thing.)
________
Quoting Moon Dec. 23, 1991
"Look at the Washington Times. No one in America helped to create that. Without Father's guidance for the Washington Times, this country couldn't have found a direction."
__

Moon April 7, 1991
Reverend Moon made the conservative administration a possibility in this country. What is the so-called Reagan doctrine? That Reagan doctrine was coached along by the Washington Times.
___

Moon May 23, 2002 at the TWT birthday bash. Here is what we have to look forward to...
During the sermon, he(Moon) set the course for the Times' next 10 years: "The Washington Times is responsible to let the American people know about God." Later, he added: "The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world."

(notice he said "WILL BECOME" does that sound like someone who isn't guiding the paper he owns?)
------

Way Of Unification: Think the Washington Times isn't his tool? hahaha The country is following him, like it or not.

With the establishment of The Washington Times in America we initiated a worldwide movement of ideally educating the free world, an intention that I had for a long time; we are also organizing around the globe to form many newspapers, to educate the world media, to give direction to university professors worldwide, to guide student movements in every nation, to bring about cooperation among various South American countries and to form understanding among the world religions. Already, I have devoted myself to build the foundation to induce North Korean liberation by trying to influence America, Japan, Europe and South America, and, finally, China.

September 13, 2002
I influenced America through the Washington Times and so many different activities. Do you want Father in America. (YES !! The ministers responded).......

Moon Nov. 28, 1986
With the Washington Times as the core, we are establishing preeminence in the American print media, a field of more than 1,750 American newspapers. By doing so we can include all fields of intelligence. Today we have in this area surpassed the liberal New York Times and Washington Post, and continually gaining important confidential information not only from America but also from other governments all over the world.

From the congressional investigation:
But when it comes to our age, we must have an automatic theocracy to rule the world. So, we cannot separate the political field from the religious.

Debate what you want, it is who he is, what he wants and who IS helping him is what the debate should be though. Just discussing giving any of his associated orgs tax dollars is crazier than he is. Do you see it? When will all the wingnuts go on TV and bow to their Savior, Moon, the guy who put them in power. They owe him bigtime and they are giving him what he wants. Look at the leadership of the repug party, look at its theocratic base. Moon couldn't have done better hand picking them for his purposes. IMHO

If this is the sort of junk this Rev. Moon preaches, then, absoultely, federal funding ought to be denied to him. Although I don't want to sound naive, I find it hard to believe Moon has anywhere near as much influence as some here claim. At worst, many conservatives may seem him as a harmless, benign figure who may share some of their values. I doubt any of them, at least those with an ounce of common sense, take Moon all that seriously. If Moon got Reagan elected, as has been suggested, then he failed miserably in his goals. Two decades after Reagan, America is a more amoral, secular place than it ever has been, and we keep moving more and more in that direction all the time. If gays are "dung-eating dogs," well, those dung-eating dogs have become quite powerful in the last 20 years. If American women are "a line of prostitutes," then that perception would have only increased with time. Look at how promiscuous young women - and men - are these days. It's disgusting, and it certainly doesn't suggest Moon has had an iota of influence in America. By saying the promiscuity of today is disgusting, I'm not suggesting Moon's ideas of sex are any better. I mean, who would want a picture of that guy hanging on the ceiling during lovemaking? I'm not anti-sex - in fact, I enjoy it - but there's got to be a fine line. Much of America, especially the young, have embraced one extreme, Moon represents another. I seriously doubt conservatives, who - especially lately - have been quite supportive of Israel, are seriously listening to someone who justifies the Holocaust. Associating with someone who is anti-semite is political suicide. Maybe there are a few random conservatives here and there who take Moon seriously, but why worry about someone who 99.9% of the people are going to label a nutcase each time out? As for Bush, well, he's got ties to a lot of shady characters. Is Moon any worse than Bush's Saudi masters?

Sunking,

I can only surmise you didn't read my posts or any of the links.

Have you ever heard of The Washington Times? No it wasn't the ONLY thing that influenced the country, Things like the "Clinton Chronicles" have helped mold our fellow citizens views, too, I know. What I am saying is I have to watch my country go tubes because Moon decided to finance the extremist in the country. Don't tell me about Scaife. I understand he spent 600 million in 40 years. According to the WP around 1996, Moon had spent 1.7 billion on the Washington Times alone in less than twenty years at the time. It NEVER makes a dime. Now why do you think he keeps pumping money into it? Could it be 'influence'...? No way, right? Come on people. READ.

This is just him confirming he did it. Doesn't take a genius to know what direction TWT was dragging the country.
September 13, 2002
I influenced America through the Washington Times and so many different activities. Do you want Father in America. (YES !! The ministers responded).......

Moon Nov. 28, 1986
With the Washington Times as the core, we are establishing preeminence in the American print media, a field of more than 1,750 American newspapers. By doing so we can include all fields of intelligence. Today we have in this area surpassed the liberal New York Times and Washington Post, and continually gaining important confidential information not only from America but also from other governments all over the world.

I once visited Freerepublic and ten out of the first eleven articles were from TWT. Now there are more sources, now that we have this theocratic fascist machine in gear it is almost on auto pilot. I mean Moon doesn't have to call Hannity, he's on auto pilot. Bush is a grad of the new right school, he actually thinks what he is doing is right. They will bancrupt the country and the diddoe heads will think that is good. See where have we gotten? If you think Moon judges his progress by how much pre marital sex there is...I am trying not to laugh...well you need to look closer. One other thing, just because you can point to him 'failing' at something, doesn't mean he doesn't have ten things that have made it through. They had 1200 'religious' attend a recent shindig he put on in SK.

Frankly speaking, I mark the death of the Goldwater, real American, patriotic republican party with Moon's grappling hook emmbedding in the right in the early eighties. That is when they started down the road to being the party of deciet, the party that has ALLOWED the religious freaks and fascist to gain control of the country. Look around you, if you are a 'conservative' you think you just happend to 'decide' this stuff on your own? Remember Newt's list of words they used, not to inform you but to intentionally deceive you? Remember those.

Newt's memo
http://vander.hashish.com/books/propaganda/newt.html

That is what conservatives are. Deceit and secrecy, the guts of the new right. And no it is NOT patriotism it is nationalism.

Why not? Otherwise-qualified judges do not get appointed because of their religious beliefs, why not just extend it to everyone?

Either have the proper think-speak or you languish in the netherworld.

I don't know, looking at your post, I have to ask again, can you read? I am the one who said he has influence. How do you read what is in those posts and still say what you did. Let me spell it out YOU ARE ALREADY following him, the conservatives HAVE BEEN working with his org for twenty years BIGTIME. This country would not be where it is politically without his BILLIONS and his media and his guidance. This is NOT an argument about WILL the conservatives allow his influence THEY already Have. It's ALREADY been done.

Do you think he REALLY gives a dam about what people in this country do, sex wise or not. He likes you talking about that, makes you think he is a baffoon doesn't it? hahaha Guess who has been the "baffoon" for the last couple decades?

This is amazing. People are just in a damb fog and they won't come out until the damb Bush or the TV tells them to. Well you're gonna have to sooner or later. I suggest not waiting another three years.

Here, sunking, read this WHOLE two page article... among other things it says...at one time Moon funded and INFLUENCED one of THE two most powerful conservative groups around for years.

You might have supported throwing billions up a dead hogs ass on Star Wars, but do you think MOON should be the one tipping the balance of that decision for our country? If you know that, will it make any difference? Will it wake you up? Or if you support does it go in the 'no harm no foul' box? sheesh

In fact, those of you who are knew to this, I suggest you spend a few days and read A LOT before you speak.

http://www.mediachannel.org/originals/moontranscript.shtml

One more thing and please listen close.

Moon does NOT care whether or not he gets your damb 475 grand. Yes, when the big bucks are out there, I am sure his org will be there. But until then he does NOT care about the money, he wants IN, you understand? He wants IN.

I am sorry for my tone, but we are NO LONGER playing point at Clinton's zipper and "you had two democrats that did this and we had only had one republican so nah nah nah."

The real world is here, I suggest we all look around and get onboard. And again it isn't that Moon 'supports' Bush, He will spit Bush out when he pleases. Yes many people should have done this and done that, but I believe history will look back to when St. Reagan held up Moon's New York paper and had his picture taken and then Moon was a VIP guest at the Reagan Bush inaugural and from there it was open for the right to ignore who they were working with, because they are MASSIVE hypocrites and that has us where we are today. Please understand I am mad at conservatives because of their stupidity, massive self righteous hypocricy and dishonesty in not throwing this evil bum out. But in the long run, i.e. today, we are all in this boat. He believes Korea should be number one in the world, what does that do to us? huh? You think he 'likes' conservatives? hahahaha You are fool tools.

No, you go on believing Moon put BILLIONS into the right and he didn't get hardly nothing fer'it. sheesh Please, people, please snap out of it.

Here read this, it is from a former member's site. You may not see this but it is here:

Rev Moon is already in position, to complete whatever his final plans are. Rev Moon is a Master at illusion and doubt. The longer people doubt Moon can do what he says, the longer he is free to accomplish it. The question remains, what to do about it, when letting others know about it is a place to start. Speak your mind, don't let apathy shut you up.

Moon has done some cunning things, but he has done some dumb stuff as well.

About 12-13 years ago, he had a religious conference in the Bay Area, where he got up and basically said that he was the Messiah. I recall with some amusement an Anglican minister leaving the conference, saying that he wouldn't be a party to blasphemy and heresy.

A good movie to rent to get into the retail side of Moonie things is "Ticket to Heaven". Has a great performance by the underrated actress Meg Foster, and it's a good watch: A secular horror story, albeit with a happy ending.

ff: Do you have any cites that aren't from the Reagan era?

> The article still addresses legitimate concerns about possible conflict of interest in the Bush administration, though.

And, as I pointed out, the same supporting evidence exists WRT many other organizations, such as the AARP.

Which reminds me - is it okay for the US govt deny funding to universities that employ known Communists? To refuse to buy from with US companies that employ or are owned by known Communists?

Comments are Closed.