This came up several months ago, after this
excellent piece in Salon, but after Atrios's
post today on the latest utterly ridiculous Rachel Marsden UPI-sponsored anti-Dean rant I think it needs to be said again.
Why is anything associated with the Rev. Moon given any brook in any quarter in this country? Why aren't conservative politicians with close ties to this man called to task in the same manner that Jesse Jackson was for his association with Farrakhan?
(While the ADL devotes space on its webpage to well-known anti-Semites such as Farrakhan, David Duke, and Pat Buchanan, they seem utterly unconcerned with the very influential and very wealthy Rev. Moon, and they did not respond to my several email inquiries about this fact.)
Here's a brief sampling from the Salon piece:
His gospel: Jesus failed because he never attained worldly power. Moon will succeed, he says, by purifying our sex-corrupted culture, and that includes cleaning up gays ("dung-eating dogs," as he calls them) and American women ("a line of prostitutes"). Jews had better repent, too. (Moon claims that the Holocaust was payback for the crucifixion of Christ: "Through the principle of indemnity, Hitler killed 6 million Jews.") His solution is a world theocracy that will enforce proper sexual habits in order to bring about heaven on earth.
One of the most difficult tasks facing those of us who hope to reorient politics in this country is how thoroughly the far Right has been able to define what belongs within the framework of acceptable discourse. It is preposterous that Ann Coulter, who should be far beyond the pale, is ever on Faux News, let alone CNN, and yet there she is, and regularly. Yet the same shows would never dream of inviting on Michael Moore as a commentator, although his bestselling books on American politics, agree or disagree with what he writes, would seem to qualify him to be sitting right there next to her. (At least he doesn't make up footnotes out of thin air.)
The question should be posed to any politician who has ever associated with Rev. Moon: do you share these views? are you willing to publicly renounce all ties to this man? If not, why not? How can this man be getting funded by the US government? (As I noted in my initial reaction to the Salon piece, as of last fall, groups associated with Moon were receiving money via the faith-based initiatives program.)
And all press organs owned by this man (most notably the UPI and Wash. Times) should be once and for all considered beyond the pale. An added bonus if reporters from the Moonie Times who appear as pundocrats (e.g. Fat Tony Blankley) get asked the same questions: do you share your boss's views on Jews and sexual purification? Does it bother you to work for this man?