Responses to Questions on
Unificationism on the Internet - Volume 53

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 01:36:40 -0400 From: Damian J. Anderson <> Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification, alt.religion.christian, Subject: Craig Maxim's anti-Moon crusade There is one man, Craig Maxim, who spends an inordinate amount of time on the newsgroup alt.religion.unification attacking Rev. Sun Myung Moon. It is a useful exercise to discuss his motives and his statements. Let's have a sample. Craig Maxim wrote: > Members have certainly been mugged and grievously injured in > various ways being driven to make cash for the false family's > sick habits and lifestyles. I was also a volunteer raising funds for the Unification Church at one point, and I was mugged too, twice in the same day in fact, in Boston, Massachusetts. It was May 1, 1981, I believe. The fact is that America's streets are dangerous, and anyone who spends much time on those streets is likely to experience some violence. It goes with the territory. However, Craig characterizes the people doing that fund raising as "being driven to make cash for the false family's sick habits and lifestyles." Now Craig claims to be an honest man, yet he knows that people who donate money to the Unification Church do so primarily to fund the many projects of the Unification Church. If there were any doubt about what the Unification Church uses its money for, you can be sure that the IRS would have rescinded its tax-except status long ago. Heaven knows, they investigated us enough! When it suits the critics, they call these projects "front groups". At other time, they choose to forget the existence of those projects and say that the church does nothing for the public good. I know of no other church which spends so much of its own resources in terms of percentage on outreach, humanitarian and philanthropic projects and so little for itself. For Craig to suggest otherwise is not doing justice to the truth. It is a lie, plain and simple. > >The fact that that is all you can dig up is testimony to the > > spiritual protection and physical concern for safety of the > leadership. > > > > That this one died is a tragedy but hardly an indictment of all > > Unificationists. > > No. We're not "indicting" all unificationists. It is a lifestyle and > the attitudes that are part of that lifestyle that need indicting. > Publicly the PR liars would say "we want our fundraisers safe, and > they should just hand over the cash to a would be criminal..." but > privately, it is more like: "Don't EVER let satan take back true > parent's money! You should be willing to sacrifice even your life. > With that kind of determination, God will protect you." Again, Craig is talking about PR liars. The facts are that very few Unificationists sell anything on the streets today. The bulk of the money which comes into the Unification Church coffers comes from tithing. Where I live in the Washington DC metropolitan area, I can assure you that this is the case. Elsewhere, I believe this is also the case. Secondly, Craig suggests that the church has a policy of being willing to sacrifice one's life if robbed rather than to hand over the money to the robber. This is another untruth. Who is the liar, Craig? Where does Rev. Moon say this? > > Oh, really, Craig, you are so melodramatic. You just make blanket > > statements. > > > > Is there something inherently wrong with placing a bet? > > Well, your false father said gambling was a sin...but of course he > also said that about adultery, and look what he did! I have heard Rev. Moon speak of gambling on very few occasions, and he did not speak of it in the sense of being a sin. He said that when people gamble, they feel they have a lot at stake, and we need to be that much at stake in our lives. Now Craig speaks a great deal about Rev. Moon's teachings. Unfortunately, he mischaracterizes them, or deliberately misrepresents them. I welcome his efforts to refute my points, but I insist that he use Rev. Moon's own published statements, such as those on my web site, which I regard as authoritative, and not what some ex-member reports that he said. Now that there is a search facility on my web site, he is without an excuse. > > Can you document anytime that True Mother has ever had a hand in > designing > > a bathroom? You are confusing her with Tammy Faye, aren't you? > > You might be right! :~) I do have to admit that Mrs. Moon is much > better with her make up! But....every since NanSook's book, Mrs. Moon > seems VERY pissed off all the time. Have you been seeing her pictures > in UC news the last three months? She is SEETHING with anger behind > her fake smile. Some of those fake smiles are disgusting. It is SO > very obvious she is forcing a smile and not doing very well! She is > SCARY! She looks like she is making all sorts of plans of the possible > vengeance she might pull after she gets 100 percent control of the > cash. I have to admit, I really did think she was better than she is. I > always thought of her more as a victim than a victimizer. After > NanSook's very detailed accounts though....never again. This is a very good example of projection Craig. Now I know you a little, from your days at Upshur House in Washington DC, and I have spoken to others who know you very well. And now I have come to know your public statements in opposition to the Unification Church. My strong impression of you is that you are a very angry and bitter person. One person told me that you assaulted your own mother and she fell down the stairs and broke her leg. Is this true? It would appear that you are the person who is seething with anger. Those who knew you said that you were someone with a violent temper whom they feared, so they stayed well clear of you. > Jesus served. He really served. Not in speeches alone, like Moon. You > cannot compare Jesus Christ to Moon. Jesus washed his disciples feet. > This was considered so base that you wouldn't even force your servant > to do this. In fact, I think it was only legal for a jew to have the > lowest of his servants to do this job. Jesus also said that he did not > come to be served, but to serve. Jesus own disciples argued to his > face, they freely expressed their opinions and questions to Jesus. > Jesus had a real and open relationship of love with his disciples. > Moon's servants are all about loyalty and nothing else. Moon couldn't > care less about you. Rev. Moon has been working to teach people about God and carry out many philanthropic works ever since he began his ministry in 1945. Your characterizations are mean spirited and again, simply untrue. > > Drug infested? One member of the True Children has a documented drug > > problem. Do you think it fair to indict the whole family? > > It seems they like to hit the sauce. I doubt that Hyo Jin is the only > hard drug user. That makes it better for you doesn't it? That there > might only be "one" drug user in the false family? The family that is > there to show an example that we've waited 2000 years for? If there is > just "one" drug user, then that's ok. Maybe if there is only one > murderer in the false family that would be ok too? We already know that > there are numerous adulterers in the true family, but that doesn't > matter because it is the original sin, and actually it just proves that > they are the true family because satan tests them sexually so much. > They aren't here to overcome those things and be examples though, > right? And if they are, they can do it five generations from now and > still get to be the false family, huh? Now let me ask you something Craig. Do you remember where Jesus told the pharisees that they should take the beam out of their own eye before attempting to take the splinter out of their brother's eye? Do you remember when he said that the one without sin could cast the first stone? It is true that Hyo Jin Moon has been a troubled young man. However, are you any better? Hyo Jin has a difficult role, as does any son of a great man. Perhaps you would not know about that. I understand that your father was murdered. I am sorry that that happened, but you seem to be projecting your anger over your father's death on the man who would be a Father to humanity. I think that Rev. Moon is doing a great job and has done so for many years in the face of unrelenting hostility on the part of the society and on the part of people such as yourself. One day, I believe that you will regret bitterly your harsh words of critique of this great man. I pray for that day to come soon. > >Surely then you > > would have to agree that Billy Graham's family is drug-infested? > > Actually, it could be that Graham had more children try drugs than > Moon's family, who knows? But then, of one in Graham's > family said they were the sinless true family that God waited for > thousands of years to establish as the example that all mankind must > follow. What a great thing that God in His mercy has sent someone to show the way to all humanity. We should all be truly thankful. > Graham also doesn't degrade women in his sermons or tell them > that they are his "spiritual" whores. Now there you are really going overboard. Even Jesus described the church as the Bride of Christ. How can all the people be his brides? Are they his mistresses? You have to realize that this is not meant in a sexual sense. All women must be restored to the state of being able to receive God's blessing. To do this, they must be able to love the Messiah more than their own lives, more than their own husbands. Jesus said: "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." Matt 10:37-39 If we do not love the Messiah more than our own lives, we cannot be reborn, we cannot come to God. Then, from the position of Eve who has been restored, women can impart salvation to their spouses who are in the position of the archangel, the false husband, and they must become true husbands, like true Adam. The reason that Rev. Moon speaks strongly to women and about their need to have a high standard is because he expects them to lead men to God. > Graham doesn't call God a liar like SMM does or say that deception is > godly sometimes. Again, where does Rev. Moon say that God is a liar? If I were you, I would want to be scrupulously honest and never speak an untruth. If you claim that Rev. Moon is a liar, then you had better be very sure that what you say is true and not a misrepresentation of the truth. However, much of what you say is either a distortion, or else a bold lie. Craig, I do not hate you, but I believe that you are a man of hatred. Why would you as a self avowed Christian be so fanatical in your opposition to another man of God? You would fit right in with the Inquisition which executed so many people whose faith did not fit the narrow minded criteria of the inquisitors. You really need to look at yourself and ask yourself that, because your eternal life is in jeopardy. If you speak with such venom and hatred, you will be the one who loses. The first epistle of John says: Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him. ... Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him. 1 John 2:9-11, 3:15 If you hate, you have nothing to do with God and still belong to the evil one. Whatever you think of Rev. Moon, you need to let go of your anger and hatred. If Rev. Moon is doing anything wrong, let God be the judge. At this point, you need to be doing some careful self-examination to make sure you have not fallen into a pit. It appears to me that you want to drag many more into your own pit, and make them twice as fit for hell as you yourself are. What are you afraid of? Heaven forbid that someone should hear the teachings of Rev. Moon and become a better person as a result! Is that not a good thing? No matter what, your demagoguery may sway a few people, but people tend to want to make up their own minds. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. At some point, people are going to see through your distortions, your mischaracterizations and your bitter venomous ranting. Remember what Jesus said: Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. Matt 23:13-15 You are in danger of becoming such a blind guide, a hypocrite, leading others into your own hell. Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand! In the names of True Parents, -- Damian Anderson
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 21:20:21 -0400 From: Damian J. Anderson <> To: "Anton Hein" <>, Unification Church Internet Evangelism mailing list <UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification Subject: Re: Moonies Abuse Ex-Cult Members This is an interesting double standard you have Anton. Critics of the Unification Church can attack us at will on alt.religion.unification yet if we speak in our own defense, or heaven forbid, post to the newsgroups that our critics frequent, then you call us abusers. In any case, it was I who wrote on, not a whole crowd of people, just one. It reminds me of the days when I was in college, and the campus newspaper screamed "Moonie Invasion!!!" when there were just two students on campus who were UC members. Either you think we have a whole lot more power than we do, or else we are more powerful than we realize and you are afraid of it. That is rather interesting to ponder. :-) Your title says a lot: "Moonies Abuse Ex-Cult Members" (1) Does speaking in my own defense constitute abuse? (2) You use the term of derision "Moonies" yet you are a self-proclaimed Christian apologist. (3) Perhaps the most healing thing for former members of the Unification Church is to be able to talk in a civil way to current members, and to be able to digest whatever difficult experiences they may have had in their lives in reference to the Unification Church or any other religious group. (4) You speak as an apologist for your cause, I speak as an apologist for mine? Is there any difference? Do I go before your congregation and bad mouth you? Sincerely, Damian Anderson Anton Hein wrote: > Anton Hein's ( reply to "Damian J. Anderson" > <>, who - on Thu, 05 Aug 1999 02:31:08 GMT - wrote: > > > > > The newsgroup is meant for the support of ex-cult > members. > > Using this group to promote cults like the Moonies, and cult apologist > organizations like CESNUR, amounts to harassment and abuse. > > About the Unification Church > > > About CESNUR > > > About Cult Apologists > > > Anton > -- > Apologetics Index: > Apologetics and Countercult Information about Cults, Sects, > and Alternative Religious Movements - for Research and Ministry. -- Damian Anderson
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 21:48:19 -0400 From: Damian J. Anderson <> To: Unification Church Internet Evangelism mailing list <UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification Subject: Re: Rosa to Damian Craig Maxim wrote: > My wife said she wanted to respond to this herself: Hello Rosa. > --------------From Rosa to Damian----------------- > > On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 05:33:06 GMT, "Damian J. Anderson" > <> wrote: > > >One person told > >me that you assaulted your own mother and she fell down the stairs and > >broke her leg. Is this true? > > Hi, > This is Craig's wife Rosa. Craig showed me your post Damian. > I am really shocked how you twist everything. I know > Craig for 8 years. I see him as a very lovely and kind > husband who always take care of me. And what you may not > like Damian, is that he likes the truth. And he always > stand up by that. Rosa, that may be your experience of him, but the fact is that he spends a great deal of time on the newsgroup alt.religion.unification denigrating my faith and that of my co-religionists, and then darts behind your apron springs when things get too hot for him. I am not twisting anything, just presenting things the way I see them. > The situation what you say that other > people "say". That's a joke and a lie. I was there. > Nobody fall out of the stairs. It was just a little > situation between me and Craig's mom, and he tried to > defend me being in the situation. The floor is wet, and > she fell down. Out of anger she may said something bad > about me or Craig. I don't know. I stand by what I said. Your husband has a reputation for having a hot and violent temper, and the people who knew him were afraid of his anger. That is a fact. Your experience may well be a fact too, but then people can change. I am only reporting what people who know him well have reported to me, and asked Craig for a confirmation or a denial. I want to hear a denial of my report from Craig himself. I did not say that these things were true. > Maybe she was afraid that I was a Christian who was taking her son out of > the moonies. > Even she went and sing that same night at the Korean performance, > so as for broken leg and falling down stairs. It didn't happen. > Ask someone if she didn't sing that same night. Damian, this is all > buried past. I hear conversation between Craig and his mom > almost every night, and it's always sweet and I love you > and I love you too. And whenever they see each other they > always hug and holding hands. If I wasn't so close to his > mother too, maybe I could be jealous. I know Craig's mother. She is a good lady and a great singer. For that matter, Craig has a great voice too. I am glad that he now has a good relationship with his mother. > Damian, you call before > my husband a thief, now you say he assault his mother, what is > going to be next? A traitor to America? Rapist? But sorry to > discourage you, but he is very lovely husband and he loves his > mother very much. I always thanks to Jesus that he gave me > a good husband. Excuse me, I did not call Craig a thief. Please point out where I said that. > If you want to make sure that it is me who is > writing than you can call me. I would be happy to call you if you would give me your phone number. You may e-mail it to me privately if you wish. > This is my message to you. > One more thing. I don't know what to think about you Damian, but God > can judge that. What you tried to do is very low. Craig told me too > many > bad and personal things about leaders and moonies, for me he should > tell every one of those names and dirty stuff, but I know he never > tries to use their names like that. If there are leaders in the Unification Church who have done wrong, then I think it only appropriate that they be disciplined. You can feel free to give me names and details, and I will pass it on to the proper authorities, or I can give you phone numbers and you can do so yourself if you prefer. > He believe the truth is enough and > I know you can't stand that. I believe that the truth will win out in the end, and I am not afraid in the least of the truth. > To lie about people's personal life, like > you done, doesn't make your bigger Moon lies true. Just I let you know > that it was my husband that asked me to pray together with him every > day for you. He still doing that with me. There is a Jesus that love you > much much more than Moon does. > > --Rosa Well that is very nice, Rosa, that Craig attacks me daily and then prays for me. Perhaps he could modify his behavior somewhat and cut out the venom and talk like a decent human being, rather than a man on a vendetta against all that I and my friends in the Unification Church hold dear. -- Damian Anderson
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 22:40:24 -0400 From: Damian J. Anderson <> To: Craig Maxim <>, Unification Church Internet Evangelism mailing list <UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification Subject: Re: More moonie lies under oath !!! Craig Maxim wrote: > "Harassment"??? > > Using the word "moonie" is harassment??!!! If only I had been > called to this meeting, I could have brought my "moonie cup" > that the moonies produced and said: "I'm a moonie and I (love)-sign of > a heart- it!" > > I could then have asked Mr. Colvin if the moonies typically "harassed" > themselves by emblazoning their own coffee cups with Pejorative words > to themselves! Once more Craig, you proclaim your ignorance and stubborn intolerance. If someone says that they don't like something, and particular, they don't like to be called by a certain name because they consider it a pejorative, simple decency suggests that you abide by their request. You could test this theory of yours. You could call a member of the Unification Church a Moonie, or a black, an hispanic or a Jew the usual favorite derogatory terms for them and see what reaction you get. You can only claim ignorance so long before you end up with a bloody nose. Not that I would give one to you, I am far too nice a guy, but I am sure someone would oblige you. > Now, besides my cup, I can also bring a Today's World magazine that has > an article where Tyler Hendricks called the members moonies!!! I also > have a statement from the Unification Church PR Dept. that was intended > for distribution to the public, that calls members moonies in it!!!! That may well be true. Homosexuals call each other queers and faggots, but just you try calling one of them that to their face, and see if they don't react negatively. You have belabored this point a great deal, when the simple fact of the matter is that you lack common courtesy and decency. -- Damian Anderson
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 01:33:19 -0400 From: Damian J. Anderson <> Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification, alt.religion.christian, Subject: Re: Craig Maxim's anti-Moon crusade Peter Harding wrote: > On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Damian J. Anderson wrote: > > > There is one man, Craig Maxim, who spends an inordinate amount of time on > > the newsgroup alt.religion.unification attacking Rev. Sun Myung Moon. It > > is a useful exercise to discuss his motives and his statements. Let's > > have a sample. > [snip] > > How about some of your own statements, like the one above? > > Tell us: when and where was Moon ordained so that we should address him > with the title "Reverend" ? Well, really Peter! Is that the best that the prestigious Oxford University can do? Why does he need an ordination? Did Jesus have an ordination, or Moses, Buddha, Confucius or Mohammed? Get real! -- Damian Anderson
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 01:51:27 -0400 From: Damian J. Anderson <> To: Unification Church Internet Evangelism mailing list <UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification Subject: Re: Richard Dawkins on moonies and scientologists Craig Maxim wrote: > Quote by Dawkins: > > > "With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be > replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to > almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, > Scientologists and nuns. Like immune-deficient patients, children are > wide open to mental infections that adults might brush off without > effort." I read the rest of the quote Craig. It was talking of the folly of leaving a "sweet, trusting, gullible six-year-old" girl to be instructed by a Catholic nun. Are you saying that religious instruction in general is bad, or only if it is conducted by certain groups whose right to freedom of religion is somehow less than yours? It reminds me of Animal Farm, by George Orwell whose animal characters had the slogan: All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. Those with a mere modicum of astuteness could see that this was a satirical dig at the communists who began by decrying the tyranny of the capitalistic ruling class, only to become a communist ruling class themselves. So is it legitimate for your religion to instruct its children in the faith but not for mine? Just curious. Actually, I think this was just a mindless dig on your part, because your text search happened to come up with the killer word "Moonies" as if it would somehow strike the fear of God into me. I'll just have to have a little chortle to myself over that one. -- Damian Anderson
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 02:35:56 -0400 From: Damian J. Anderson <> To: Unification Church Internet Evangelism mailing list <UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification Subject: Re: More moonie lies under oath !!! Craig Maxim wrote: > Damian wrote: > > That may well be true. Homosexuals call each other queers and > faggots, but > > just you try calling one of them that to their face, and see if they > don't > > react negatively. > > Homosexuals call themselves......Blacks call themselves...... > You have a broad brush there. Many blacks (those with self respect) > Do not believe that the N-word should be used by anyone, white or > black included. Homosexual as well. Some homosexuals parade around > and call themselves queens or queers or whatever, but many others > do not do this, and show much more self respect. That is the real > issue. Self respect. The idea that one group of people can use a > word and another cannot, is a child's game of exclusion. I am not > interested in childish games, if you are then I understand, but cannot > respect it as an acceptable life choice for adults. No, it is a matter of a group of people being labeled with a name which is more reviled even than the prostitutes and bums on the street. It is a word which when spoken was frequently a prelude to violence on the part of the speaker. Perhaps in your lily white and perfumed existence as a performer at exclusive gatherings, you did not experience that kind of thing as a member of the Unification Church but I did. You were always the pretty boy. I had the experience of working as a volunteer for the church and being asked by a rough looking guy "Are you a Moonie?", and when I said "Yes", he lunged at me with a hunting knife. I had the experience of being mugged by a gang of thugs, knocked to the ground and kicked in the head until I was bloody, simply because I was a "Moonie". Today, such acts are classified as hate crimes. If you use the term "Moonie" as a term of derision, you descend to their level. You become equal to a street thug. And some animals are more equal than others. Perhaps you truly are ignorant of all this, in which case you may be forgiven for your lack of understanding on this point. If you continue, you will not gain one ounce of credibility for doing so. Maybe you really are not worth the effort. You are either culpably ignorant, or you are a God damned liar. > >You have belabored this point a great deal, > > It's effective. It is an excellent and indefensible point with > which to show the deception (even current deception) of the UC > as an entity, from the top down. It is the very reason, I believe > that Tyler Hendricks pulled out of a live debate once he learned > that I would be his opponent. I would have asked him if the > word moonie was truly pejorative, then when he affirmed that it > was, I would have held that moonie-cup up to the cameras and > explained on live television, how the moonies themselves produced > items for sale to the public that claimed they loved being "moonies". > Mr. Hendricks is smart enough not to want to appear as a deer caught in > the headlights (or caught in a lie), so he pulled out at the last > moment. For all your rhetoric on this point, it really has nothing to do with deception, which is one of your favorite watchwords with reference to the Unification Church. On the whole, Unification Church members do not like to be called Moonies. However, we are accustomed to ignorant and abusive people spitting on us and abusing us in all kinds of ways, so if one more idiot calls us names, what does one more matter? Go ahead and join the crowd. I have a thick enough skin. > >when the > > simple fact of the matter is that you lack common courtesy and > decency. > > No Damian, it's like this: I certainly prefer to give respect where > it is due. Is it due here? Of course not. Why is respect not due? Doesn't every human being deserve a certain amount of respect? If I were working in a prison with hardened criminals, murderers and rapist, you can be sure that I would treat them with respect. Do they deserve it? Not really. I suppose it depends on your purpose. I believe that all human beings are part of God's family, and I desire that all eventually come to know God and live according to His divine will. I will accomplish that more effectively with respect than without it, so to some extent it is a simple matter of pragmatism. You will NEVER EVER gain my respect if you treat me disrespectfully, so you can behave like an arrogant young pup who does not know any manners, or you can show a little respect. I will treat you with respect whether you earn it or not, because I believe in treating people respectfully. I am sorry that you feel otherwise. I don't believe that I have behaved in a way to earn your disrespect, but then again, I am not holding my breath waiting for you to learn how to be a true man. > The moonies have lied > as a PR strategy, you know this as well as I, and if you deny it > then you are simply complicit in the lie as a partaker of it yourself. > This would be not a big deal for you, because no doubt you enjoy > being part of a religion that let's you lie as doctrine, just as much > as COG members enjoy child prostitution as doctrine. You cannot win on > this issue because my evidence is too powerful, and usually strong > evidence when allowed to be presented is more powerful than rhetoric. Now here, for a man who claims to prize the truth, you are way off the mark. The Unification Church emphatically does NOT lie as a doctrine as you put it. Show me the evidence for this outrageous assertion. > But this does not apply to only moonies either. When black people call > themselves negroes and then say "no, it should be Black" and then say > "no, it should be African American" .... I would quickly tire of that > as well, because it is politics and not honesty. I am not going to > switch words for you or anyone else every year because of whims or > political PR tricks. I am willing to allow blacks to be called whatever they want to be called. Heaven knows they have suffered enough under white so-called Christians in America. > Regarding moonies also, Moon has elevated the term to doctrinal status. > It is a doctrinal term, so you shouldn't be surprised at all if someone > used the term. Of course if it were a scholar, and he painted a fair > picture of your religion, then that would be no problem for you. Which > as always leads to the real point. Words are irrelevant to you, you are > trying to FORCE people to respect your belief system. This, I will > never do. I will tolerate your right to believe it, but I will never > respect the evil beliefs your church espouses. This is very interesting Craig. You have a false idea of what I and others of my faith believe, and then you hate the image that comes from your own mind. You consistently misrepresent what I believe and then claim that it is "Moonie doctrine"! Hogwash! If you want to talk about the teachings of the Unification Church, the very least you can do is to be faithful to those teachings, and to say what they really are and not make it up as you go along. > Imagine sitting across a > studio audience from a pedophile and you are repulsed by his actions, > and you want the viewers to truly understand how dangerous this person > is, and call it like you see it. You call him a "child abuser", but he > insists that you not refer to him derogatorily, but instead says that > you should respect his beliefs and call him a child-sex liberator. Will > you then respect his sexual abuse of children, simply because he is > making a ploy for respectability that he could never earn legitimately? There is no justification to put the idealism of the Unification movement on the same level as the depravity of a pedophile. You know it and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You are very well aware that one of the most essential teachings of the Unification church is sexual purity, that is celibacy before marriage, and fidelity within marriage. Ask Rosa now if you are a man who loves the truth after this performance. > You have every right to ask people to tolerate your beliefs, but you > have NO RIGHT, by man or by God to demand respect of them. Real respect > is earned, not coerced. I am not demanding anything, but I am a man who calls a spade a spade. You are NOT a man who loves the truth, and you will not convince me otherwise until you cease and desist your scandalous misrepresentations of Unification Church teachings and idealism and practice. -- Damian Anderson