Dr. Warren Throckmorton is alleging that the ties between Richard Cohen’s organization, International Healing Foundation (IHF), and the Unification Church may be alive and well, despite Cohen’s statements to the contrary.
A brief review [of the IHF website] finds professionals operating from within Latter Day Saint, Jewish, Christian and Unification Church traditions. The latter group, followers of Sun Myung Moon, is surprising since Cohen said he left that church behind in 1995. Curious, I asked Cohen recently by email if there were any UC connections to his organization, and he told me, to his knowledge, there were none. To the contrary, it appears that there has been for quite some time.
As Ex-Gay Watch recently reported, there is also some question about why a previously respected Christian publisher, InterVarsity Press, would publish Cohen’s latest edition of Gay Children, Straight Parents. Cohen’s unorthodox approach and bizarre public displays aside, Christians looking to IVP for reading material would not normally expect to find something written by an author allegedly close to the Unification Church — considered a cult by many Evangelicals and mainline Christians alike.
And for those who do not appreciate the issues of faith involved here, what does it say about Cohen if he is indeed misleading those who come to him for help in this way?
Update 10/4: Dr. Throckmorton has added to his original post, relaying that someone from IHF has disputed his allegations. We encourage readers to review all of his post on this and come to your own conclusions based on the evidence.
Source: wthrockmorton.com
When I was at Berkeley as an undergrad, a Korean jetliner was shot down by the North Koreans. A very strange group called CARP or KARP was protesting all over the place. I had seen the group on campus before and just ignored them. I had no idea who they were. As a result of the protests, they were outed as the campus Moonie group. All of a sudden, everyone on campus knew who they were. They gradually just disappeared (or maybe changed their name and took a lower profile for a while).
They never identified themselves on campus as being members of the Unification Church. So, the idea that they would quietly be the backbone of Cohen’s organization doesn’t really surprise me. It would be consistent with my previous experience with this group that they would try to disguise themselves from the public.
There are two problems here, and the Unification Church is not one of them
The problems are:
1. Cohen is a duplicitous nut
2. Christians are bigots
The Unification Church or whatever it calls itself is NOT the problem. Gays and lesbians of all people should have more sense than to persecute a minority.
You admonish others not to “persecute” the UC, and then proceed to smear an entire category of people in one colossal generalization. Isn’t that also duplicitous?
If you want to read exactly what Moon thinks of us, go here:
THE FAMILY FEDERATION FOR COSMIC PEACE AND UNIFICATION AND THE COSMIC ERA OF BLESSED FAMILY
Scroll down and find the section called “Homosexuals and fornicators are like dirty dung eating dogs”
The Unification Church is no more. Moon disbanded it and changed the name so people, even Moon himself, could claim they are no longer members. He’s putting all his eggs in his grand theocratic political machine, The Universal Peace Federation.
If you think the Moon organization is not part of, if not, the problem here you are wrong. Cohen may no longer be a member but he appears to be spewing the ideology which is what Moon’s is, an ideology. Moon has spent billions in overseas cash manipulating our political system and promoting his ideology – which includes homophobia, theocracy pushers, and authoritarianism.
If you look – and few have – you will see he has more to do with the political cliff this nation has been falling off since the 1980s than anyone. He outspent Scaife many fold promoting the hard right and nurturing an environment for the theocrats to gain influence within the Republican Party.
Moon funded Fallwell and LaHaye. Lahaye visited Moon in jail and apologized to him on behalf of the US government.
Moon’s own daughter in law called him a con man.
see the end of this video
https://video.aol.com/video-detail/nan-sook-hong/1354477572
Quoting James Whelan, the first editor of Moon’s Washington Times. Whelan quit the paper saying he had “blood on his hands” for helping Moon gain credibility.
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9008719207533458404&hl=en
I am amazed at how little the gay community knows about Moon – given that he has promoted all the people who oppose them. You should have seen the photo of him laughing as they showed him pictures of his followers protesting in Mass. when they were looking at marriage rights for all.
Moon’s is a political organization and being critical of it is no different than being critical of the John Birchers or the Larouchies.
from the congressional investigation of Moon:
https://tinyurl.com/yqbkw7
Ex-gay “guru” … really? I wouldn’t have ever thought to characterize him that way.
Well Randy, how many times have you been invited to appear on The Daily Show and Howard Stern 😉 The man has an exceptionally strong ex-gay following, and he writes to them like they were his children. Ex-gay guru seems to fit.
Actually David… is it possible to be invited to those things and say no?
I have said no to quite a bit. Sometimes people end up on shows for their theatrics and not their “following.” Sometimes people end up on shows because the producers don’t have any other options.
I am not saying these two possibilities are definitely the case with Cohen… but I am not saying they aren’t either. I’m just sayin’.
I think someone at the level of “guru” would know better than to appear on Howard Stern and The Daily Show with regard to our position on this issue.
The wink meant I was being facetious on that first line. But guru is a term that seems to me to fit Cohen well, at least a few of the definitions do. He has quite a following, and those who do follow him seem to be ardent supporters, almost unshakable in their faith in him. And he is ex-gay among ex-gays, claiming 100% reorientation far more than most. And if he didn’t coin the psuedo condition “SSAD” (Same Sex Attraction Disorder), he has certainly used it more than anyone else.
Add to that his creepy mentoring and coaching mystique, and ex-gay guru seems downright appropriate. That is not to say he is the most knowledgeable or accurate, or even skilled, but he has put a face on the movement like no one else.
On the bright side, I seriously doubt you would want to compete with him to be, well whatever it is he may be.
I think what Rev. Moon refers to in the above mentioned article when he speaks of “gay and lesbians eating dung” is that for humans to commit a homosexual sexual act they have to do it through the anus which is where “dirty” dung passes through. And he believes that it was NOT intended to be that way, or that God didn’t want human beings to use sex in such a way, that’s why he created Eve for Adam and not some other guy instead. What I think Rev. Moon is trying to convey in that speech is that in the grand picture, it is not appealing to God to be gay and it’d be better if we were all heterosexual. Of course heterosexual couples have problems, but the starting point for relationships is man and woman. In God’s eyes it is not pleasing to see man and man. Listen, for some people this makes a lot of sense and this was translated from Korean to English… he was speaking to an audience and I think that some things were taken out of context (not that it’s surprising you would do that). And what if they are homophobic? (Pure speculation, but..) Maybe homophobia is an evolutionary thing to preserve the species, who knows? Maybe some people are just born homophobic.
One more thing, what is the problem with what Cohen believes? Anyone can follow any religion they want to. Can’t they? Are you saying we have to all be Christians? or Buddhists? or Atheists? You can find fault in anyone’s religiosity or irreligiosity. To persecute him for that is the biggest bigotry in that whole article.
Thanks David. I am definitely not in a competition with Richard … for anything.
How about this:
What I think Rev. Moon is trying to convey in that speech is that in the grand picture, it is not appealing to God to be black and it’d be better if we were all caucasian. Of course same-race couples have problems, but the starting point for relationships is a white man and a white woman. In God’s eyes it is not pleasing to see a black man and white woman. Listen, for some people this makes a lot of sense and this was translated from Korean to English… he was speaking to an audience and I think that some things were taken out of context (not that it’s surprising you would do that). And what if they are racist? (Pure speculation, but..) Maybe racism is an evolutionary thing to preserve the species, who knows? Maybe some people are just born racist.
Ugly, isn’t it?
First, you are mixing the post and a comment left by someone else. The post says nothing about what Moon thinks of homosexuals.
Second, no one is persecuting Cohen, the post quite reasonably refers to issues discussed by another blog. The point being made is that Cohen bills himself as Christian to those seeking help. If his beliefs are with the UC, then this would be a deception – those seeking his help who wish to deal with a Christian deserve to know one way or another.
If anything, I would suggest people consider his unorthodox and, quite frankly, creepy techniques as reason enough to avoid him. Whether or not he believes in the true parents or the easter bunny doesn’t matter.
Oh, ok thanks for the response David. And I have no idea what gordo is trying to state.
Hi Gordo, are you trying to compare black people to being gay and white people to being not-gay? I think you’re trying to show me how insensitive I am in my writing or how politically incorrect my response was. In my mind race and sex are very different things. Just for the sake or responding to you… the Unification Church or whatever you wish to call it, is based on the idea of everyone having a good family and on interracial marriage. In God’s eyes there is no racial distinction. I don’t know of any religion with a higher interracial marriage rate. To understand why the UC believes in what it believes you’d have to study its doctrine first. Just wanted to let you know. You can find tons of negative things about UC if you wish to… Why would racism be evolutionary?
Tom,
I have read the whole section that Gordo referred to. The problem is not in the translation. I think Moon is being quite clear about his hatred for gay people. It would not be possible for you to convince many people on this forum (gay or ex-gay) that Moon could spew more vile hatred toward gay people. Whatever. The world if full of haters.
I don’t understand your need to somehow convince us that Moon doesn’t mean what he clearly means. Moon can speak for himself (and he has).
As for Cohen, he has some obvious serious flaws that anyone who has been following this blog is well aware of. You will probably have even less success trying to change people’s minds about Cohen, than trying to convince them that Moon doesn’t hate gay people.
Gordo is trying to say that any form of bigotry, no matter HOW eloquently justified, is still bigotry – and ultimately it produces ugliness.
Thanks for the responses, John and Emily. Although I will never convince anybody here… I feel like responding to John. John, Moon doesn’t hate gay “people” but the act or idea of homosexuality itself. He thinks it is not what God would want. I know, I know you will not agree with it. He believes that the greatest joy for humankind is in having a good family. If God intended us to be gay, or if everyone were gay (which I’m aware is not the case and is unrealistic of me to say) there would be no mankind after 1 or 2 generations (new scientific developments might disprove this). As simplistic as that may be, I just wanted to say that. As for Cohen, I don’t know what else to say.
Which millions of gay people do. And many more, perhaps, if they were allowed to legally marry.
And what on earth are you going on about when you keep spouting the word “evolutionary”?
Tom,
Did you even read that portion of the article? The full title was “Homosexuals and fornicators are like dirty dung eating dogs.” As much complaint as I even have with that, it wasn’t exclusive to homosexuality, he was condemning it as an aspect of “free sex.”
Which makes your characterization and subsequent commentary especially interesting.
This is what I get from your defense and extrapolation of Moon’s characterization of homosexual persons:
1) Homosexual persons should be defined as anal sex.
2) Anal sex is exclusive to homosexual persons.
3) ALL homosexual persons engage in anal sex, be they male OR female.
4) You think 1, 2, and 3 are legitimate “religious” beliefs, and therefore respectable.
It would be no surprise then to find that you are unsure about the homophobic status of such beliefs, and your related defense of homophobia itself:
You’re saying that homophobia might evolutionary, but can’t understand such a suggestion as being compared with racism as evolutionary?
Homophobia and racism are both bigotry, it seems to me that you’re just defending one over the other. By suggesting that homophobia might be evolutionary, you’re suggesting that hateful bigotry might be evolutionary. It may be. But even if bigotry is found to have a biological basis, or a “bigot gene” is ever found, does that make the practice of hate ethical or desirable?
People who hate homosex for themselves are usually called heterosexuals. People who characterize homosexual persons and their relationships as the practice of “dung eating,” are called bigots. At least by me.
If you’re ok with that, then say so. But don’t hide behind Moon in an attempt to portray your own bigotry as some innocuous religious belief that should be respected.
Wow. Quite a night. I don’t know where to begin. But to answer to Emproph, I was only addressing the homosexual side. But, yeah, adultery or fornication are also without excuse. It all comes down to where you draw the line. Or is it just personal preference? If you will accept “free sex” then why not accept pedophilia? Why not accept all other kinds of sexual (mis)behavior? I’ll stop hiding behind Moon and tell you what I believe. I believe that freedom comes with responsibility. Just a stupid example: When you drive down the road, the limitations given to you (road signs, stop lights, etc.) are what actually make your freedom. Society put those limits to keep people safe and let society function more harmoniously. You have freedom within the limits. You might think you are free within the limits or you might say ‘why do I have to follow these signs!’… If you take the latter option and do whatever you want (exercising your “freedom”), it’s very likely you’ll end up in a car collision. I know my analogies are way off, but it’s just an example. In that same way that there are certain rules we have to follow on the road, I believe there are rules we should follow in our conduct as a whole. This could be either Confucian or Buddhist, I don’t know what my influences are. And in my little belief system, it makes sense for men and women to be together. Any country with declining birth rates can’t have a very bright future.
I’ll drink the hemlock and admit that for society to be functional, the individual has to sacrifice himself regardless of his preference and do what is right for the whole (Woah, now comes the fascist/communist aspect of me). What is right? you might ask… what’s right for me is wrong for you, and vice versa, you might say. I might be wrong, but are there not millions of religious people out there that don’t see homosexuality as something original, or good, or something that God intended? Be they Muslims, Jews, Christians, Confucians, Buddhists, or whatever they be (there are new movements that try to embrace homosexuality and that’s a new development). I lived in Korea for over 8 years without ever meeting a single homosexual so maybe that’s why it’s shocking for me to address these issues. I am ignorant in the way homosexuals actually have sex, so I apologize if my replies offended anyone. I guess my lesson is to learn to embrace homosexual people… it will take time. It’s just so different. Once again sorry to everyone that was offended. I respect your choices even if I don’t agree with them.
Tom, I like your road signs analogy and agree with it, but you ruin your argument with this bit:
“I believe there are rules we should follow in our conduct as a whole. This could be either Confucian or Buddhist, I don’t know what my influences are.”
So, you follow rules without even knowing where they’re from? You haven’t thought them through yourself, you don’t know what authority or reasoning they’re based on? Doesn’t that seem a little unthinking and irresponsible to you?
“I’ll drink the hemlock and admit that for society to be functional, the individual has to sacrifice himself regardless of his preference and do what is right for the whole”
I think you underestimate the sacrifice you’re asking homosexuals to make. Homosexuality isn’t just a matter of preference but a deeply felt and enduring sense of what’s right when it comes to love and relationships.
What seems to you to be “right for the whole”, that is, for homosexuals to ignore the fact they’re homosexual and get married to someone of the opposite sex like everyone else, is in fact a tried and tested recipe for disaster. If the greatest joy for humankind is to have a good family, then surely building a bad family on a false foundation is one of the worst things you can do?
I would advise you visit Beyond Ex-Gay for some first hand reports of what happens when gay men and women try to deny themselves and their true nature to conform to what society and religion considers ‘normal’.
“I lived in Korea for over 8 years without ever meeting a single homosexual so maybe that’s why it’s shocking for me to address these issues. I am ignorant in the way homosexuals actually have sex, so I apologize if my replies offended anyone. I guess my lesson is to learn to embrace homosexual people… it will take time. It’s just so different. Once again sorry to everyone that was offended.”
The truth is, your words are offensive, but it seems they are not rooted in bigotry, but in ignorance. This issue is new to you, and you’ve never had to think about it, so it’s no surprise you’ve got the wrong idea about some of it. Your opinions are uninformed and, frankly, absurd. No one is arguing that all humanity should be homosexual, only that people who are gay naturally, and who fall in love with members of their own gender because that’s what’s in their own hearts, should be homosexual.
If you’re serious about “learning to embrace homosexual people” and you want to avoid sounding like an ignorant bigot in the future, google can direct you to coming out stories, born gay pro con and many other resources. Good luck.
I wasn’t comparing my alive status with “free sex,” but it seemed you were in your defense of Moon’s depiction of me. As far as pedophilia goes, do you compare your own consensual sex with the rape of children? And if you don’t, then why do you think I would?
A stupid example indeed. In fact, not an example at all, unless you think that common sense in and of itself is an argument. Unfortunately the tactic is all too typical. Take something good, equate it with something bad, and then condemn it. Better known as a strawman, it’s a logical fallacy. And for some reason it always seems to be a glorified example of common sense.
“it makes sense for men and women to be together.”
As it indeed would for heterosexuals, but I covered that already.
“Any country with declining birth rates can’t have a very bright future.”
Do you find celibacy and birth control of every kind AS offensive as you do consensual homosexual relationships?
The problem here Tom, is that you aren’t concerned with the propagation of the species, even though you say so. Because it’s people like you who are saying that heterosexual children are better off wasting away in perpetual foster care and orphanages, to be thrown out on the street at 18, rather than being nurtured to adulthood (and then have families and children) by a committed homosexual couple.
Based on what I’ve read so far, it seems clear that you’re not pro-children, or pro-species, but that you are anti-gay.
That said,
First of all that’s an appeal to authority, another logical fallacy.
Secondly, in the context of “All major religions,” it’s little more that arguing a popularity contest. If all major religions believed that homosexuality was ok, would it then be ok with you?
Thirdly, you included Buddhists, don’t they believe in reincarnation? If reincarnation is true, then life before birth is true. And if that’s true than gender before birth may be true. And if that’s true, then it’s perfectly possible that some of us could be born with the “wrong” body. And if all that’s true, then any religion based on the Bible or the Koran is officially null and void. Care to go there further? 😉
I very much appreciate your sharing that. It means a lot and it makes a lot of sense. I was going to ask if you knew anyone who was gay that you could just talk to, basically to figure out what’s offensive and what’s not. Stop thinking it’s a choice though, or that being same-gender attracted is anymore about sex than it is for you, or anyone else who is heterosexual. Imagine if someone told you that you could be homosexual if you just chose to be, that’s how insulting that is.
The only real “argument” is that we’re too delusional to understand that we’re actually heterosexuals. If that’s what you truly believe, then stick with it and say so, but know that it will be insulting. But I will respect you at least for being honest.
___________
And as far as Cohen goes, I’m not judging, but if he hasn’t publically renounced Moon’s beliefs as of yet, as a conservative Christian, blasphemies like this would definitely be of concern. And there’s plenty more where this came from. Not to mention his ties with the religious right:
Tom,
As best I can tell, your objections to homosexuality are rooted in two observations: procreation, and cultural/religious norms.
Procreation
We all agree that if all persons were homosexual and there was no procreative sex that the species would disappear. But we also know that there are instances in which a subset of non-procreating persons can be a benefit to the whole.
Take, for example, priests and monks. In the West, it was the monastaries that kept the written word in continuance along with history, philosophy, and culture. And currently in Burma (Myanmar) it is the monks who are leading social protest.
Now we may not all agree that monks or priests are right in all manners, but we don’t just dismiss them because they don’t procreate. And if we were to use procreation as some measure of value, we’d have to eliminate Isaac Newton, Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Nikola Tesla, Emily Dickenson, Mother Teresa, and a whole host of others, gay and straight, who did not have children.
Gay persons are not heterosexuals who decide to have sex with persons of the same sex. And there is very little risk that gay people will be much of a larger percentage of the population than they are or ever have been. They are no more of a risk to the future of the species than are monks – or brilliant scientists.
Cultural/Religious Norm
Tom, you make the mistake of assuming that what you believe has always been a common belief. This is very much not the case.
Religious and Cultural norms historically did not view families even remotely like what you, and Moon, favor. It would have been an offense to God (or the gods, depending on the culture) for women to be treated in any manner other than subjective. They did not have any say in their future – who (or if) they would marry, where they would live, what their daily duties would be – and those men who were so brazen as to defer in any manner to their wives endangered the community by infuriating the gods.
Further, race was very important to historical norms. In fact, homosexuality was easily overlooked in some cultures while race boundaries were rigidly observed. So too was class of great importance to many cultures.
So when you appeal to “millions of religious people out there”, you are only appealing to norms that may or may not be the best. We argue that they are not… as indeed to millions of religious people who agree with us.
You can point at Moon or at the Southern Baptists and I’ll point at the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, and the Universal Unitarians. You can point at one Methodist minister and I’ll point at another. There simply is not a universally accepted position among the devout and the faithful.
And the notion that all those folks out there agree with you… is simply misunderstanding on your part. And an insistence on the correctness of your cultural upbringing. I challenge you to open you eyes to the notion that perhaps your religious/cultural expectations are not those that fit best with your own sense of equality and morality.