ELI5: wouldn't a large proportion of USA's lawmaker's have ties with a Christian church?
Sorry for being uninformed, but why is this an issue?
Sorry for being uninformed, but why is this an issue?
2. they have close ties to North Korea. When they met with North Korean leader Kim, it is estimated that as much as $4.5 billion was given to North Korea as donations. This means that the Unification Church is also part of the source of funds for North Korea's nuclear missiles.
3. The Unification Church's doctrine is very anti-Japanese and Korean nationalismistic. For example, according to their dogma, Japan, as an Eva country, must devote all of its wealth to Korea, and the language of all nations must be unified in Korean, etc. Please note that these anti-Japanese doctrine has actually caused damage like high donations.
After all, from the Japanese perspective, the Unification Church's problem is not just a religious issue, but also a security threat.
2. There are many evangelical churches in the US that send money to dictatorships, for example, [1], [2] , I can collect you a longer list.
3. This point is clearly very specific to Japan, I can't find a bijection within a few minutes.
But, we aren't that different , really.
1. https://nnoc.org/pastors-for-peace-continue-support-to-cuba/
2. https://juicyecumenism.com/2019/11/13/churches-supporting-ve...
Edit: Spacing
> But, we aren't that different , really.
I am not sure if I understand your point. Both U.S. and Japan have relatively loose regulation against cult groups, but as a Japanese citizen, I think this situation should be changed.
>[2] more of the same just church's sending aid to a country that's in economic turmoil the article title is blatant fear mongering
On the other hand we have something similar in the USA so who am I to judge? :)
One party in our two party system appears to have lots of Russian connections now for some reason, and this does not bother most of their supporters which has approximately 45-50 percent of the population behind it. In past years this would have led to claims about treason or something similar from the same party, the path from Nixon to now it appears the only change has been how public the cooperation between the GOP leadership and countries openly antagonistic to the USA, i.e. Nixon/Kissinger with North Vietnam, Reagan/Bush with Iran and Trump with Russia.
Long story short, Japanese politicians should have known better.
We often think of nationalism purely as the dark side of in-group/out-group dynamics scaled up to the size of an entire country. They are, but there's a dark, darker, yet darker side to this. The driving force behind those dynamics is a desire to purge the in-group of perceived weakness. There are plenty of reasons for a Korean person to hate Japanese people, or vice versa, but the reason that nationalists will consistently pick is that the out-group is "inferior". War crimes, national insults, and so on are all just window-dressing to that core claim.
This same dynamic also applies to things you would not consider to be even in the same postal code as right-wing nationalism. Think about how much self-policing and internal policing happens in niche subcultures online to purge them of perceived weakness, and how many of the perpetrators of those purges are not much different from their targets. Nationalists care more about punishing their own citizens than fighting the enemy.
> "Many newly published Spanish history textbooks agree that the Opus Dei had a strong influence in the Franco regime. Moreover, Opus Dei developed itself in its early days during the Franco regime. According to these books, Opus Dei was not only linked but also tightly interwoven with the power structures of the Francoist authoritarian government soon after the Spanish Civil War, although its stronger involvement in the government came only in the late 1950s. It had at least 8 ministers during Franco's rule. This was in keeping with the organization's aim of influencing the development of society indirectly..."
https://www.primidi.com/opus_dei_and_politics/francisco_fran...
1. Complete shunning of non-cult members, and even harsher shunning of ex-members. This one may be a gray area, as certainly many religions identify all members of other religions as "going to hell", and I know Mormons who have been excommunicated for being gay. Still, the level of ostracism in mainstream religions is nothing compared to, for example, what happens if you try to leave Scientology. Scientologists declare you a "subversive person", stalk you, and essentially try to ruin you. I know many folks who have left the Catholic church, but in all honestly the Catholic church still tries to welcome them back with open arms.
2. Be secretive about the details of the cult before you are "bought in". Say what you will about organized religion, but it's pretty trivial to get the full text of the Bible, Koran, and other religious writings. Meanwhile, Scientology requires you to pay thousands and thousands of dollars to slowly get access to their screeds, and they have gone after ex-members who have attempted to publish this information.
Worldwide, a majority of muslims support the idea of a death penalty for apostasy (renouncing the religion).
Defining a cult is a lot harder than it sounds at first glance. My personal definition, which is not very useful since it's so subjective, is "A cult is a new religion formed on purpose by a charismatic person who is knowingly lying in order to gain temporal power."
Also Mormonism is not particularly old. Mainstream evangelical/charismatic Protestantism was formed completely from storefront Pentecostalism in the early part of the 20c, making it barely older than Scientology or even the Nation of Islam. Scientology isn't bad because it's not "established," it's bad because it hurts people.
Shunning of members, cutting ties to non-cult people, taking over the finances of their members (and forcing them to donate).
There are some gray areas and some mainstream congregations can cross into cult-like behavior, but in general, there is a demarcation.
There are truly damaging religious groups, but this doesn't seem to be what is referenced by the word cult. It seems to be used more often to describe religions that are unconnected (or less connected) to religions considered "normal" like Christianity, Islam, etc.
Usually the difference between a cult and a sect is how hard it is to leave it. church more usually define practice of the "established religions" or as long as it stay close enough to it.
"[H]is mother had given the church about 100 million yen (US$720,000), a parcel of land she had inherited from her father, and the house where she lived with her three children; she subsequently declared bankruptcy in 2002. She had continued donating to the church following the bankruptcy. A male relative later recalled being contacted by Yamagami and his siblings to complain that they had no food at home, prompting the relative to deliver meals and money for living expenses. [..] Yamagami's older brother, who had a longtime struggle with cancer, was not able to afford medical treatment; he died by suicide in 2015."
To me, that sounds quite a bit worse than your average Christian church.
There are certainly some predatory Christian hucksters out there; people like Kenneth "I need my private jet to spread the gospel" Copeland spring to mind, but there are many more (as well as many more abusive ones). Religion is often a comparatively "easy" target for abuse.
However, the religion of Christianity as a whole isn't centred around the concept of "send me your money". I think that's the main difference: is the religion as a whole primarily centred around abuse, or is it just various groups within the religion that operate like that?
There are plenty of cults within Christianity, but Christianity as a whole?
I'm sure there are more formal and academic descriptions, and things can become a bit tricky around the edges for sure, but I find "is it primarily centred around abuse of its members?" to be a reasonably workable every-day distinction.
There is a set of cult-like behavior that distinguishes modern cults from mainstream established religions. Those practices are an important distinction.
Also, the mindset required to join a fringe or secretive cult today that shuns the rest of society, and is shunned by society in turn, seems relevant to me.
> Mr. Davis says he held the wife's crown and was ''a bit surprised'' by Mr. Moon's Messiah remarks, which were delivered in Korean but accompanied by a written translation. In them, he said emperors, kings and presidents had ''declared to all heaven and earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent.''
> By Wednesday, after news of the event had been reported in the online magazine Salon and various newspapers, Capitol Hill was in full-blown backpedaling mode, as lawmakers who attended but missed the coronation -- or saw it and did not think much of it -- struggled to explain themselves.
The Washington Times, a conservative D.C. newspaper that has many prominent conservatives on its staff (Tony Blankly, Larry Kudlow, Tony Snow) was also founded by Sun Myung Moon and owned by the Unification Church[2].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/24/us/a-crowning-at-the-capi... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/sun-myung-...
ususual: a tenth of the world's population, but probably a third of the US population.
socially deviant: a matter of opinion.
novel: I've got books that are older.
> With traditions of Pentecostalism already developed in the 18th century out of Protestant evangelicalism, the beginning of the charismatic movement in historic Christian Churches came in 1960 at St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Van Nuys, California. Dennis Bennett, the church's Rector, felt the Holy Spirit within him and announced the event to his Anglican church.
> The charismatic movement reached Lutherans and Presbyterians in 1962. Among Roman Catholics, it spread around 1967. Methodists became involved in the charismatic movement in the 1970s.
> Some nondenominational evangelical churches decided to follow this movement and take distance from their Pentecostal conventions. Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, California is one of the first evangelical neo-charismatic churches started in 1965. In the United Kingdom, Jesus Army, founded in 1969, is an example of the impact outside of the United States. The spread of the charismatic movement outside of the US was also encouraged by Bennett, who traveled to Vancouver to minister there. Many other congregations were established in the rest of the world. Modern churches internationally have embraced the charismatic movement or adapted their own practices to incorporate it. In the United Kingdom, the house church movement has grown to include charismatic practices. Hillsong Church in Australia is another example of a Pentecostal church that incorporates the charismatic movement. The neo-charismatic movement, also known as the third-wave, has also spread widely since 1970; these churches often reject the charismatic or Pentecostal label but accept the general practice of accepting gifts of the Spirit.
> Some scholars attribute the quick and successful spread of charismatic Christianity to its successful use of mass media platforms, but also to the physical experience of religion that it provides, which creates a personal connection to spiritual mediation for believers.
That was a pretty underhanded attempt it twisting the facts to fit a narrative.
For example, H. Clinton's relationship with The Family http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_(Christian_political... or Amy Coney Barrett's People of Praise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_Praise.
American lawmakers are at least as if not more religiously bizarre than Japanese ones.
Note: I do not in any way support anti-Islam sentiment. Just making up an example of a newer foreign religious community.
Edit to add the same disclaimer the parent has: Note: I do not in any way support anti-Islam sentiment.
America fits the bill as a country with nuclear ambitions, and has done plenty of unfavourable trade shenanigans that said politicians have let slide
The phrase nuclear ambitions refers to a country that does not have nuclear weapons and a way to deliver them but want to obtain them, hence ambition.
If you are against nuclear proliferation, you want countries to stop developing and creating nuclear weapons.
Iran is used in this case as a foil for North Korea as they are both signors to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; Iran(1970), North Korea(1985).
Both countries have continued to work to develop nuclear weapons, with North Korea having conducted successful nuclear tests.
You want the credentials but not the cost, or you end up in a very hard balancing act with a lot of internal politics.
There are Mormon politicians in Utah - but not as many as you would think. It looks like currently three Utah districts have Mormon reps.
Locally you may see a lot more Mormons as the political balancing act is overall easier.
Evangelicals are distinct from cults. You may dislike both, in the same way you can dislike peanut butter and chocolate, but that doesn't mean they are the same or identical.
(There are also Evangelical cults but that is a small percentage of Evangelicals)
If memory serves Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Americans in particular should not even be allowed to look at stones.
This is also partly why Abe was so controversial. Instead of apologizing for Japan's occupation of Korea, he repeatedly signaled a desire to return to those times.