Well?

Johno Johno

Buckethead, yesterday you said about the Bush/Hitler moveon.org flap:

Imagine that the situation was reversed. Some conservative group sponsors an ad contest. Someone enters something equally offensive, something with racist or religious overtones that sends the left over the edge. That group, and anyone associated with it would be crucified. It wouldn't be a minor story on the news, largely talked about in the blog world. People would be forced to resign in disgrace. It wouldn't matter if the offensive ad didn't win.

Now we have a similar situation to serve as a test of that assertion. The Rev. Sun Myong Moon, owner of Conservative newspaper The Washington Times posted the following to his website this week (courtesy blogcritics): "There will be a purge on God's orders, and evil will be eliminated like shadows. Gays will be eliminated, the 3 Israels will unite. If not then they will be burned. We do not know what kind of world God will bring but this is what happens. It will be greater than the communist purge but at God's orders." To review, Moon just called for the murder of at least 40 million gay people, on God's orders. 

Blogger John Gorenfeld has some past gems from Moon, such as "Homosexuals and fornicators are like dirty dung eating dogs."

The New York Press also has an editorial on the matter, which includes this moderate and thoughtful statement: "So much crazy-talk and hate (over a period of years, even) yet no outcry."

Posted by Johno Johno on   |   § 7

§ 7 Comments

1

I don't often think of the Rev. Sun Myong Moon. And when I do, I don't think of him as a leader in the conservative movement. Well, no one in the media - liberal or conservative - has ever really gone after Moon. I think it's because everyone thinks he's completely bugfuck. Which he is. No one imagines that the Moonies are part of anyone's idea of the mainstream.

That statement is surely over the top, though. Moon should be condemned, heartily and thoroughly. I really think the reason he hasn't been before is just the crazy thing. Everyone knows crazy leaders of wacky cults say crazy shit. Slightly different from my scenario for that reason. I was thinking more along the lines of what happened to Sen. Lott.

Speaking of crazy, the blogcritics writer had a nice one: "But, of course, for all we know George H.W. Bush--as well as W.--secretly agree with Moon's plans for homosexuals. We're all sinners, after all. Some of us just get punished differently than others."

Buckethead Buckethead

2

Yeah, that was a cheap shot at Bush. However, if Moon is such a loony (and he is!), why is his paper still a going concern in the Conservative press, and why does it still get ad money from Conservative groups and politicians?

Johno Johno

3

His paper is still a going concern because he lets the editor control the content. It's still right-wing but not as crazy as it would be if Moon controlled the content. (I'd say Pruden is more a Buchananite -- crazy by my standards but acceptable to the right-wing Republicans.)

Kathy K Kathy K

4

I read the Washington Times for a while before I switched to entirely intravenous newsfeeds. It's a decent paper. Conservative, but a nice counterweight to broadcast news and CNN (this was before Fox News was really big.) There was no sense that the paper was owned by a wingnut - and for a while I was completely unaware of that fact. Solid coverage, good editorials, no calls for milliosn of gays to be slaughtered.

I imagine that's the reason.

btw, if we were going to kill more gays than died in the purges, you're about 2 1/2 times too low in your estimate.

Buckethead Buckethead

5

I agree that having Rev. Moon as the publisher of a newspaper is a bit of a head-scratcher. Everytime I see it quoted, I shudder just a tiny bit. Everytime I cite it, I search the other papers to see if I can find a better source.

Make no mistake, Rev. Moon is pretty close to nuts.

BTD Greg BTD Greg

6

Kathy and B: that's true enough-- Moon allows sane people to run his paper. But, that doesn't really affect my original question to Buckethead. I mean, look at it this way. ANSWER sponsors an antiwar rally and thousands come. ANSWER are Stalinist a-holes. Hence, any rally they sponsor is less valid, and the people there may be considered morally sloppy for allowing Stalinists to set the agenda. The conservative press eats them alive.

moveon.org manages a contest poorly and allows one of 15000 entries to slip through comparing Bush with Hitler. By vetting the entries for format but not for content, moveon.org opens themselves up to criticism that they are being morally sloppy for not tossing the offensive piece of trash immediately. The one entry out of 15K becomes the focal point of media coverage. The conservative press eats them alive.

The Washington Times is owned by an insaniac who interferes little in the day-to-day operations of the paper, yet uses money raised from his "church," from the very people who support his nutty spewings about gays and apocalypse, to fund the paper. And it's not a big deal.

Which of these is not like the other?

Johno Johno

[ You're too late, comments are closed ]