Angustine comments

@Sioux: Deserved criticism is one thing. What about deserved recognition? If deflection from 'deserved' criticism is propaganda, then surely criticism without deserved recognition is persecution.

I think if Unificationists want people to have a balanced view, there is plenty of justification for trying to get that information out there. To label such efforts as propaganda presupposes that these people do not deserve even a fair hearing. Is that what you think? I'm curious. And if criticism deflects from or neglects "deserved" recognition, can it really be claimed to be "deserved"?

Criticism and recognition need to go hand in hand. Unfortunately, far too much criticism of the Unification Church starts with, and is driven by, people who have judged a priori, who have an agenda, and who have no interest in recognizing the church for what it does well, for its contributions, or for its genuine spiritual and religious aspirations. That's a real problem, right there.

Does the UC have issues? Sure. Has that community made mistakes? Which community hasn't? Have they been recognized for the level of investment (time, finances, social) and work performed to contribute and live up to it's ideals? No.

Until you (or any of us) are willing to give recognition to the actual value and work of the UC, you're not in a position to offer so-called 'deserved criticism'. It's not deserved if it's a witch hunt or a crusade driven by bigotry, or ignorance, or worse.

@Virtuoso: I think you are right about corruption in S. Korea (like a lot of other places), but iI also think that the journalist in question is more interested in pursuing his agenda against the Unification group than about digging for corruption in SK.

Lol@virtuoso. Did you consider that the location was chosen because it is the best location in South Korea to hold the event? The nuances of the article clearly display the thoughts of the authors: No evidence is presented in any way of wrongdoing or corruption in the choice of the venue. Rather, judgment by implication is being offered as a valid and reasonable approach to news.

By raising the past corruption related to the IOC, the implication is that there must be corruption in this case too. Because the venue is connected to a number of UC groups, and because the UC is known to be bad and destructive a priori (aka no need for evidence), there is something wrong with the venue being chosen. No evidence. Just implication, or as we called it in the old days, innuendo. What kind of people listen to and ground their thinking in innuendo?

Let's ask: Is it wrong for a religious community (a global one at that) to own assets, to develop their prosperity, providing services to others along the way?

Is it somehow bad or wrong that the Unification Church in Korea owns the best winter sports venue in the country? Ever consider that it is the best winter sports venue in the country because the UC group acquired it and raised it to that level? How many families, citizens enjoy sports at that facility? 100of Ks, if not more.

If this venue wasn't available, would S. Korea have as much chance, if any, to win the Winter Olympics?

The premise of any opposing arguments presented here appears to be: the UC group is bad and evil, so we can cut it down to size based on one's own prejudice and narrowness.

About the weaponry: Tongil owns and has developed heavy industry in S. Korea for more than 40 years. It has made its not insubstantial contribution to the industrial and economic development of the nation. Part of that involved, in the past, being required by S. Korean law to provide certain services and assistance with national defense. Isn't it slightly different in S. Korea to a place like the USA. In S. Korea, many of my friends live within 1.5 hours of the North Korean army, and army controlled by a totalitarian dictatorship, unaccountable to anyone.

Whether that work is still required by law, I do not know. But suggesting that any religious body pull out of every single element that is in some connected to defense seems to me to be petty, myopic, and very ungenerous. Acknowledge all the good the UC does, and I'll gladly acknowledge the shortcomings, of which I actually have quite a good knowledge.