Responses to Questions on
Unificationism on the Internet - Volume 64

From Fri May 4 14:01:52 2001 Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 13:42:07 -0400 From: Damian J. Anderson To: Damian J. Anderson Subject: Critical reasoning "Ken" <> wrote in message news:9cu7rq$4j4k$ > "How could any intelligent person who was still in control of > their critical faculties continue to follow Moon after reading > what I have read?" > > (from "With all due respect" by "Tailspin") > > Good point. No one that has remained in the Moon movement > for any length of time is in control of their critical reasoning > facilities. > > Take Damian Anderson, for example. He is no more capable > of an original thought than the man in the moon. There was a > desperate plea by Damian's family a few months ago, from whom > he has estranged himself because they are so wicked as to not > have accepted Moon as their savior, people who obviously love > him very much. They were repudiated by other Moonies that > this was not the appropropriate forum for such appeal. (I beg > to differ.) This exchange, rather, lack of it, demonstrated Damian > Anderson to be a heartless person who is in a downward spiral of > his own destruction. > > Kenney Ken, You really do not know what you are talking about here. I do not choose to make my relationship with my parents and siblings a public issue. Last summer I was in England to visit them for 17 days, visiting with my family. For your information, I do not make their lack of agreement in my faith an issue, but the converse is true. They have a big problem with my chosen path of faith, so there is tension between us. They come to ARU to bash the UC and Rev. Moon. I choose not to interact with them on that level. Damian Anderson
From: "Damian J. Anderson" <> Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 1:35 PM Subject: Re: XIANS RETAIN RIGHT TO BULLY GAYS Ken, It hardly seems necessary to pass yet another law to stop bullying in schools. In my kids' schools, bullying is already sufficient grounds for suspension or expulsion. There are already laws against assault, battery, malicious wounding and so on. There is a strange mentality among the American left that thinks that the more laws the better, even while there are perfectly good laws dealing with violence. The same issue comes up with gun control. It is important to enforce the existing laws, rather than to add superfluous redundant laws to the books. The move towards adding new laws to address problems in society is often just feel-goodism, which has no real positive impact on society. Then those who oppose those redundant laws are accused by the left of being unfeeling! What nonsense! Damian "Ken" <> wrote in message news:9cu687$5jvk$ > WASHINGTON: BULLYING MEASURE OPPOSED > A bill intended to stop bullying in public schools has stalled > in the state legislature, in part because of opposition from > the Christian Coalition, which called it a gay-rights > measure in disguise. Under the bill, school districts would > have to write antibullying policies and train teachers, > students and others to help stop such harassment. The > Christian group said the measure could be used to prevent > students from speaking against homosexuality. > > Sam Howe Verhovek (NYT) > > This is not a first amendment issue for Christians. No one > is telling anyone they cannot express an opinion, for example: > that Christianity has been responsible for horrific atrocities > over the past millennium because of Christians' incorrect > belief that the blood of the lamb is going to purge all their > wrong-doings, so they can do whatever the hell they want at > anyone's (particularly heathens') expense. Christians' > opposition to the above bill, that would prevent defenseless > children from being subjected to bullies, is a class-a example > of how this group believes it is being discriminated against > when constitutional law and common sense is used to prevent > them from discriminating. By all means, let them continue to > erase whatever self-respect a gay child may have for himself, > in the hopes that child will commit suicide as a teenager. > > Christian hypocrites! They are all going down!!!! Kenney
From Fri May 4 19:57:57 2001 Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 19:29:25 -0400 From: Damian J. Anderson <> To: Damian J. Anderson <>, Unification Evangelism List <> Subject: Re: The Spiritual and Religious Dimensions of the Environmental Crisis Chibum, Korea needs economic development, the North desperately so. I was in Korea three times and found the place to be very polluted. The air in winter in Seoul is thick with smoke coming from the burning of charcoal in small burners, and also from car exhaust. So Korea has a long way to go to clean up its environment. I would say you have to strike a balance between environmental preservation, and the needs of the human population for economic development. I don't believe in preserving the environment at the expense of people who may starve or be close to starvation for lack of economic opportunities, as is happening in North Korea, and the Amazon, and the Pantanal. Mind you, the problem in NK is the totalitarian dictatorship of Kim Jong Il. He uses starvation as a weapon of control. It would make more sense to build car plants in places which are not sacred wilderness areas, and instead, develop the sacred wildernesses for tourism, inasmuch as that can be done without damaging it. The key is sustainable development. I think trade with totalitarian regimes has to open them up to democratic ideas, so though we may find their politics loathsome, the trade interaction is beneficial to move them towards freedom and democracy. The same applies to China. As for the wetlands of South America, I attended a conference on the preservation and sustainable development of the Pantanal wetland area, and I can assure you that Rev. Moon is being advised by scientists on the ways in which that area and its natural beauty can be preserved, and at the same time sustainable economic activities can be pursued. One such activity is eco-tourism. He has bought large tracts of land in South America in the region of the Pantanal as you probably know. I was asked to assist them in land use analysis by providing them with satellite imagery of the area. I put them in touch with the US Geological Survey in South Dakota which gathers Landsat 7 data at the EROS (Earth Resources Observation System) Data Center in Sioux Falls, SD. I provided Eros Data Center with technical support on the NASA Landsat 7 project. The problem in many impoverished areas is that the poverty of the people drives them to economic activities which are environmentally harmful. In Brazil, they clear cut trees in order to provide pasture for cattle. You can see that deforestation activity from remote sensing imagery: In some countries, water has been siphoned off rivers for agricultural use, having large scale impacts on river and wetland hydrology and ecology. The Columbia River in the USA has largely been diverted for human use, and is only a trickle compared to what it was when Louis and Clark descended the river in the 1805. Lake Chad in Africa is now one twentieth the size in was in the 1960s, due to agricultural demands for water: The Colorado River is another example of human impact on river hydrology: If those countries are to develop their natural resources in an environmentally friendly way, then they need to learn from the mistakes of other countries, such as the US, which has destroyed large areas of wetland in the Florida Everglades to make room for suburban development. The US certainly cannot expect to preach to other countries as it has made its fair share of mistakes in its history, though now it is a country which values the natural environment. I have a problem with environmentalism when it becomes nature worship without regard for the needs of humanity. The Unification theology approach to nature is one of wise stewardship of the resources given to us by God to be used for the benefit of the whole of humanity and nature. As Saint Paul says: Romans 8:19-23 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. So, the natural world waits in eager longing for the coming of the true children of God, who will be wise stewards, who will love and nurture them and preserve them. I don't mean that we will not use animal products. Those animals that are domesticated and live in symbiosis with humanity thrive, but only if each benefits from the interaction. So, we use cattle for meat, and leather, and milk, and so the species thrives. Wolves on the other hand do not live well with humans and so they are endangered in the wild. God made nature in such a way that one species consumes another in a food chain. The predator dies out if his prey dies out, do they live in balance. I think it is possible to strike a balance between the needs of humanity while preserving the environment, but we must not fall prey to demagoguing politicians using junk science for their own political ends. And we also must not let businesses exploit the environment to the detriment of the planet by fouling the water, air and soil. We need to use hard facts to influence wise policy. I am fortunate to be able to make money out of thin air without consuming a lot of natural resources. I write software! ;-) Damian Anderson "Chibum" <> wrote in message news:NxCI6.1429$ > Damian, > > I guess you are inspired by enviromental issues. How does your conscience > (original mind) feel about building car plants in sacred wilderness areas of > Korea or perhaps the industrialization of certain wet lands in South America? > > In article <>, > Damian J. Anderson says... > > > > > > > > > > The Ecologist > > > >THE SPIRITUAL AND RELIGIOUS DIMENSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS > > > >The present environmental crisis is also a spiritual crisis. By adopting > >a world-view that separates humanity from nature, we have come to see > >the Earth not as a sacred. > > > >By Seyyed Hossein Nasr [snip] Damian J. Anderson <>
From Fri May 4 19:55:53 2001 Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 19:50:04 -0400 From: Damian J. Anderson <> To: Unification Evangelism List <>, Damian J. Anderson <> Subject: Constitutional monarchies "Dan Fefferman" <> wrote in message > > >I have a hard time following your logic. First you thank God that America's > >democratic then you look forward to a "heavenly" constitutional monarchy then > >you again refer to America's checks and balances as heavenly perfection. > > Chibum > > I'm sure Eric is capable of speaking for himself, but I'll jump in anyhow. Many > monarchies today (most actually) are also constitutional democracies with > checks and balances. The best know to us colonials is the british, where the > monarchs have no real political power, but are required by the constitution to > endorse whatever the parliament enacts. > > Checks and balances refers to have a separation between the executive, > legislative and judicial systems so that the power of making law, executing > poicy, and interpreting law are independent from one another. > > I do not favor monarchy though, as Eric seems to. > > Dan F Dan, Chibum, Yes, the British monarchy is maintained mainly for its ability to attract tourism, sad to say. The monarch in theory has veto power over legislation, but in fact the position is almost entirely ceremonial and symbolic. The last monarch who challenged the power of the parliament , Charles I, ended up headless. A civil war followed in which Oliver Cromwell came to power and was more of a dictator than the king had been. My recollection of British history and the restoration of the monarchy is pretty foggy however. I guess I did not pay enough attention in O-level British history. It seems like Tony Blair has defanged the House of Lords too, making the House of Commons even more powerful with respect to the upper house. It seems that there is no limit to what the Prime Minister can do with a mandate from the people, including changing the constitutional structure of the country. The US requires all kinds of hoopla to change the constitution, including ratification by the House and Senate with supermajorities, and then also in two thirds of the States, I believe. I favor the US checks and balances over the carte blanche power given to the British PM, who is head of the executive and legislative branches and what appears to be a constitutional convention to boot. And certainly, in any future supranational government of whatever form its polity may take, I would favor the same democratic checks and balances. I would favor the structure of a federal republic based on a written constitution similar to the US Constitution. Whether it would have a president, or a figurehead monarch, I would have to consider the pros and cons. Some countries have a president and a separate head of state I believe. Perhaps Dan would know better on that, being a political scientist. I am sure Hamm will have a word or two on this subject, although I can't for the life of me see why he thinks the British monarchy is a threat to anything other than itself and the graceful slide of the UK into the third world. Damian J. Anderson <>