Faith-based fall-out: Rev. Moon passes plate to American taxpayers.The Rev. Sun Myung Moon Noun 1. Sun Myung Moon - United States religious leader (born in Korea) who founded the Unification Church in 1954; was found guilty of conspiracy to evade taxes (born in 1920) Moon was an early supporter of President George W. Bush's "faith-based" initiative. The founder of the controversial Unification Church Unification Church, religious sect founded (1954) in Korea by Sun Myung Moon. Moon moved to the United States in 1971. He and his wife, Hak J. Han, are seen by followers as "True Parents. gave the initiative an important boost in April of 2001, when the proposal was floundering in Congress. A Moon front group promoted a "faith-based summit" sponsored by congressional Republicans, beaming it via satellite from Washington, D.C., to 45 cities. It now appears that Moon is being handsomely rewarded for his efforts. The San Francisco Chronicle The San Francisco Chronicle was founded in 1865 as The Daily Dramatic Chronicle by teenage brothers Charles de Young and Michael H. de Young.[2] The paper grew along with San Francisco to become the largest circulation newspaper on the West Coast of the reported last month that Moon's followers have received federal faith-based funding to run marriage seminars and promote abstinence among teenagers. Oddly enough, TV preacher Pat Robertson Marion Gordon "Pat" Robertson (born March 22 1930)[1] is a televangelist from the United States.[2] He is the founder of numerous organizations and corporations, including the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), was one of the first critics to warn that this might happen. On Feb. 20, 2001, he told viewers of his "700 Club" that faith-based funding could become "a real Pandora's box Pandora’s box contained all evils; opened up, evils escape to afflict world. [Rom. Myth.: Brewer Dictionary, 799] See : Evil " and that controversial groups might get funded. Robertson even mentioned "the Moonies" by name. But then a funny thing happened: The Bush administration arranged for a Robertson charity, Operation Blessing, to receive a half-million-dollar grant. Robertson hasn't uttered a critical word about the initiative since. Nor is he likely to, even though one of Robertson's fears has come to pass. A religious group with highly unorthodox beliefs, whose leader claims to be the messiah, is getting tax aid--and Robertson can't say a thing about it. He surrendered his right to complain the day he signed that government check. Federal funding for Moon is outrageous--but in many ways it was inevitable. A core principle of our Constitution is that government may not play favorites among religions. Benefits and subsidies given to one must be available to all. It's no surprise that the Unification Church wants its slice of the pie. The faith-based initiative is flawed for many reasons, but this incident cuts to the core of one problem that is often glossed over by initiative boosters: What happens when public aid goes to groups whose views are troubling to many? Moon's views on marriage and human sexuality This article is about human sexual perceptions. For information about sexual activities and practices, see Human sexual behavior. Generally speaking, human sexuality is how people experience and express themselves as sexual beings. are controversial, to be charitable. Does it serve the public interest to allow an organization whose founder simultaneously marries thousands of couples (many of them near strangers) to host healthy marriage seminars? What does society gain when groups tied to the vociferously anti-gay Moon get federal support to teach impressionable im·pres·sion·a·ble adj. 1. Readily or easily influenced; suggestible: impressionable young people. 2. teens about sex? Moon and Robertson are multi-millionaires. They built their religious empires without taxpayer subsidies, and they should maintain them that way. Like all religious leaders, Moon and Robertson have the right to believe controversial things. Let them use theft own money to pay for spreading those views. Passing the collection plate to the taxpayer is unconscionable Unusually harsh and shocking to the conscience; that which is so grossly unfair that a court will proscribe it. When a court uses the word unconscionable to describe conduct, it means that the conduct does not conform to the dictates of conscience. . |
|
||||||||||||||||||

Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion