#dan fefferman

▲ Pictured: A picture of Dan Fefferman in the 70s as a young Moonie

Isn’t it interesting how there were members of the International Forum for Religious Freedom supporting a resolution proposed to the Ohio state legislature, and other state legislatures, to have Moon and the Unification Church investigated in 1977/1978, prior to the Jonestown massacre later in 1978?

Especially when considering that just a few years later, in 1984, an organization named International Coalition for Religious Freedom popped up, headed by Dan Fefferman, funded by the UC. This organization lobbied and organized for the legitimization of the Moonies, Scientologists, and other so-called “new religious movements” (a term popularized by cult apologists). 

Fefferman felt recognized at a 2000 anti-cult conference when his organization was recognized for legitimizing cults to academics and governments:

Not to brag, but several speakers made reference to ICRF. They mentioned our four conferences and the cities in which they were held—Washington, Tokyo, Berlin, and Sao Paulo. They grudgingly praised our web site (www.religiousfreedom.com), and the "impressive array" of speakers whose papers we have posted there. A featured luncheon speaker, Prof. Stephen Kent of the University of Calgary, used the ICRF as a primary example of the way in which American new religious movements (NRM’s) are able to influence the American government and academic community. He admitted that ICRF has become an influential participant in the international human rights debate. Another speaker bemoaned the fact that ICRF had been able to get current and former congressmen, government officials, leading academics, and prestigious human rights leaders to join with us.

Related 

Dan Fefferman attends an anti-cult conference (2000) Introvigne’s silence on the most important “religious freedom” case in Italy The Real Issue in the Case of Rev. Moon (1984)

Stranger in an Even Stranger Land: Report on an Anti-Cult Conference

Dan Fefferman April, 2000 Washington, DC

In my capacity as director of the International Coalition for Religious Freedom, I decided to attend the annual conference of the Leo J. Ryan Foundation in Stamford Connecticut. Headquartered in Bridgeport, the LJRF makes no bones about its ties to the now-defunct Cult Awareness Network, which was put out of business by a lawsuit that tied it to an illegal deprogramming conspiracy. LJRF even bills itself as the renewed "Cult Awareness Community." Its current president is Priscilla Cole, who formerly ran the Cult Awareness Network, and several other CAN stalwarts can be found on its rolls.

Of course, it’s no coincidence that the group—named for the Congressman who was gunned down in the Jonestown massacre in 1978—has its headquarters in the town where the Unification Church is well known for its role in bailing out the financially troubled University of Bridgeport. LJRF’s executive director is Julia Bronder, an embittered former UB employee and UC critic.

Human Rights, but for Whom?

The title of the LJRF conference was "Human Rights and the New Millennium." This too may be no coincidence. Our own International Coalition for Religious Freedom (ICRF) sponsored a series of international conferences in 1988 entitled, "Religious Freedom and the New Millennium." Indeed a common thread running through the LJRF presentations was that "freedom of thought" is an even more fundamental human right than freedom of speech or religion. And since cultists can’t—by definition—have freedom of thought… Well, more on that later.

I have to admit that the conference was well run and well conceived to support its organizers’ purposes. I did feel a little out of place at times, especially with people who assumed I was an anti-cultist like themselves. One former UC member was so happy to see me, until I informed her that I was "still in." Another guy angrily accused me of being a private investigator hired by Scientology to harass participants and spy on them. Talk about bad vibes! But the majority of the organizers and participants I met were courteous, if cool, once they learned who I was. Below are some highlights. While many other groups other than the UC were dealt with, I’ve concentrated on what relates specifically to our work.

Accolades from the Adversary

Not to brag, but several speakers made reference to ICRF. They mentioned our four conferences and the cities in which they were held—Washington, Tokyo, Berlin, and Sao Paulo. They grudgingly praised our web site (www.religiousfreedom.com), and the "impressive array" of speakers whose papers we have posted there. A featured luncheon speaker, Prof. Stephen Kent of the University of Calgary, used the ICRF as a primary example of the way in which American new religious movements (NRM’s) are able to influence the American government and academic community. He admitted that ICRF has become an influential participant in the international human rights debate. Another speaker bemoaned the fact that ICRF had been able to get current and former congressmen, government officials, leading academics, and prestigious human rights leaders to join with us.

A special breakout session was devoted to the Maryland Task Force on Cult Activities which we’ve reported on previously in Unification News. The panelists—anti-cultists Ron Loomis, Denny Gulick, and Franz Wilson—declared the Task Force’s Final Report as a victory for their side. These men and other anti-cult activists on the Task Force were later given a special award for their efforts to create and influence the Task Force. The speakers acknowledged ICRF’s opposition to the Task Force, but naturally downplayed our effectiveness in blocking the anti-cultists’ aims. For example, they did not mention the fact that the state’s official task force on "Cult Activities" decided not even to use the word "cult" in its final report. Nor did they mention that one of its members, panelist Franz Wilson, interrupted UC member Alex Colvin’s testimony during a formal task force meeting and threatened him with violence.

Panelist Ron Loomis of the American Family Foundation avowed that the panel’s "agenda" was that "you should go back and attempt a similar effort in your state." But he warned about getting too much press in the beginning. "The best way to do it is locally," said Loomis, because national campaigns attract too much attention from NRMs and civil liberties groups. "Politicians are chicken," he complained. (In Maryland the legislation creating the Task Force was pushed through with almost no opposition voices raised, because our side did not find out about it until it had already passed the lower house and was on a fast track to pass the Maryland Senate. Four previous efforts by anti-cultists to pass similar legislation had failed when both sides were heard.)

Washington Times Targeted

The Washington Times and the WT Foundation were also major targets of LJRF speakers. One session was devoted exclusively to "Following the Money Trail in the Moon Movement." Led by Rev. Fred Miller, the session complained about the continued success of the Washington Times and its influence in conservative political circles. Miller seemed particularly upset by the success of the WTF’s American Century Awards. He named several high level political leaders who honored True Father Moon on that occasion. Miller was visibly disappointed by Jerry Falwell’s presence.

Another focus was George W. Bush. Several speakers mentioned him, believing that Rev. Moon must be a major financial supporter of Gov. Bush, if not directly then through his father. They are hoping to find evidence that UC money is ending up in Bush’s campaign treasury. They also bemoaned the fact that New Yorker seems to be a highly successful financial enterprise and that it has become a Ramada franchisee. Miller even reported on a meeting between himself and Ramada officials in which he sought unsuccessfully to influence them to end the relationship.

The anti-cult movement had been seriously discredited in the 1980s because of its association with deprogramming. It lost several major court cases, and also lost credibility among its mainstream funding sources. Now, however, it appears to have found a new "Sugar Daddy." Bob Minton is a reputed multimillionaire whose primary hobby in life is fighting against "cults." His main passion is attacking Scientology. However, he is also rumored to be a major funding source for the LJRF. Minton was a keynote speaker at this year’s conference, although he seems to have few credentials other than the green kind. He publicly announced that he had purchased 2,000 copies of former deprogrammer (now exit counselor) Steve Hassan’s new book, "Breaking the Bonds," which retails for 24.95. If you do the math, that’s a nice little contribution, and it doesn’t count any other donations to Steve’s new "Freedom of Mind Foundation" non-profit group.

No Hassle with Hassan

Speaking of Steve Hassan, I had several conversations with Steve during the conference. I’ve also been corresponding with him through e-mail. Notice the distinction I made in the above paragraph between "deprogramming" and "exit counseling?" Steve is adamant about making this distinction because deprogramming involves force and exit counseling does not. I think he has a point. I asked if he would be willing to put his opposition to forced deprogramming in writing to the Japanese Christian churches who—sometimes using his earlier books on "mind control" as their justification—are reportedly involved in forced kidnapping of hundreds our UC members. He agreed to do so. The letter says, in part:

"[An anti-cultist minister in Japan] told me this morning that sometimes, albeit infrequently, a family might hold their adult child against his/her will, and then a minister might be invited to speak with them. In my opinion, no minister should get involved in something like this as a matter of policy--even if the cult member requests a meeting in writing…

"I want this letter to stand as a public record that I think that any approach to help cult members should be one of love, compassion, and positive communication, not force. Otherwise, kidnapping or involuntary detention will invariably be traumatic… In fact, there was always another way that would have been less traumatic."

In return for his writing the above-mentioned letter, Steve asked me to clarify to the world community of Unificationists that he is not involved in holding people against their will. I think Steve is sincere in this, although he is certainly wrong in many of the things he says about the UC, Rev. Moon, "mind control," and NRM’s in general. Steve is a former deprogrammer, not a current one. What he does now is called "exit counseling," or in his current parlance "strategic interaction" to "break the bonds of mind control."

Now some of you will ask, "But isn’t what Steve does still really faith-breaking based on religious intolerance?" And I’d have to say yes. He gets paid by people who disapprove of other people’s religion (usually family members) to talk them out of it. And he also writes books and speaks out wherever he can trying to convince people of the need for the service he provides. But technically speaking it shouldn’t be called deprogramming unless force is involved. I’m hoping that since Steve wants UC members to avoid speaking in the present tense about things he did in the past (namely deprogramming), he’ll do the same and stop speaking about things we did in the past as if they were going on today. Watch this space.

Perhaps the most disturbing presentation of the LJRF conference was made by Jim Seigelman and Flo Conway, authors of the book "Snapping," which was instrumental in forming the anti-cult movement’s ideological basis in the late 1970s. Their presentation was entitled "Church vs. State," and it called for a new interpretation of the First Amendment that recognizes "freedom of thought" as the most basic human right, even more basic than freedom of speech or freedom of religion. (Another featured speaker, Stephen Kent of the University of Calgary eerily entitled his presentation "Human Rights vs. Religious Freedom.") Keep in mind that Conway and Seigleman and their cohorts, including exit counselor Steve Hassan, clearly argue that members of the minority religions they call "cults" do NOT have freedom of thought, because the cults have robbed them of it.

Seigelman actually called religion "the Achilles heel of American democracy." And Conway stated that "freedom of thought must be added to the first amendment." The both supported what they call a "judicial initiative" that will establish a "right to freedom of thought" in the same way that a "right to privacy" or a "right to have an abortion" has been established.

But if you unpack the Owellian newspeak, this type of "freedom of thought" simply stands the First Amendment on its head. Instead of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or abridging the free exercise thereof," Conway and Seigleman appear to say that "The Courts shall interpret the law so that anyone who joins an unpopular religion shall be declared incapable of exercising freedom of thought." The legal and political implications of such a doctrine are staggering.

Mr. and Mrs. Fefferman and FLF President Neil Salonen, together with representatives of the Japanese and European couples who participated in the wedding, Unification Church President Young Whi Kim and German Unification Church President Paul Werner met with Korean Prime Minister Kim Jong-pil on February 5 in Seoul. Rev. Kim presented the Prime Minister with a contribution of more than U.S. $100,000 for the Korean New Village Movement, from contributions

Conservative pundit Bret Stephen's father Charles Stephens organized over 100 Moonies in the 70s, including Gary Jarmin, Dan Fefferman, Edwin Ang, etc., under the organization "Youth Committee for Peace with Freedom". They lobbied and protested on behalf of continuing the Vietnam War. 

This was apparently reported by a number Japanese leaders.

Dan Fefferman is helpful on this topic.

6 or 7 Marys Dan Fefferman  
January 2, 2001 Question: Where did the concept of the 3 day ceremony come from? Was it from pikareum? Two nights the woman on top and the last night the man on top, who came up with this idea I wonder?

Answer by Dan Fefferman: It certainly seems like it could be the remnant of a more traditional form of pikareum. Especially considering the significance: namely the woman represents the bride of the messiah for the first two nights, and the man represents the restored Adam on the third night.

As to the question of Zin-Moon Kim's reported take on this, let me say this: 1. I've heard so many versions of the "real story" from different sources, that I certainly don't accept Zin-Moon Kim's version as authoritative or complete. 2. I have no way of knowing whether the version of Zin-Moon Kim's take on this is accurately reported here. Like I say, I'm sure that with so much smoke on this issue, there must be some fire somewhere. But the exact nature of the fire still is not clear to me. So no, I do not accept Zin-Moon Kim's reported version of the story as factual. Here are some pertinent facts as I see them. 1. Father was married, and left his wife to go to North Korea shortly after being involved with Baek-Moon Kim's group which MAY have practiced pikareum. [It was taught that Baek-Moon Kim DID practice pikareum the top Japanese UC lecturers in the early 1990s.] 2. There were charges in North Korea that Father's group practiced sexual orgies. These are denied by the UC. 3. After returning to South Korea, Father's first wife believed him to be involved with other women and divorced him in part because of this. ... 6. Some UC husbands believe their wives had sex with Father but no wife that we know of has ever admitted this. 7. Some members, reportedly including Zin-Moon Kim (though this is unconfirmed), believe Father had sex with various women representing various ages. 8. Others believe that one sister per blessing was chosen to have sex with him or that he had sex with various women during his first world tour. [Sun Myung Moon did have sex outside of his marriage to Hak Ja Han: Sammy Pak was conceived in 1965 and born in January 1966.] 9. Sammy Pak looks sort of like Father and many people believe he is Father's son. 10. Father says he never misused his sexual organ, which is not the same thing as saying that he has been entirely monogamous since marrying mother.

https://www.tparents.org/library/unification/Talks/Feffermn/Fefferman-Pekerun.htm

______________________________________

Moon’s theology for his pikareum sex rituals with all the 36 wives

https://www.tparents.org/UTS/DoH1/DoH1-11.pdf

___________________________________________

When you can’t even count on religion to ignore politics, then it is time to pay attention to the political beliefs of the religious.

___________________________________________

The Washington Monthly        February 1974

From Korea with Love  by John D. Marks

John Marks is co-author, with Victor Marchetti, of an upcoming book on the CIA.

The two most widely seen faces in American cities today may well belong to the 15-year-old Indian guru named Maharaj Ji and a 53-year-old Korean prophet named Sun Myung Moon. Followers of these two men energetically force leaflets on innocent pedestrians and hang their leader’s picture in fierce competition for poster space (and converts). Their success in littering the urban landscape may herald a new form of religious pollution.

The Indian, who calls himself the “Perfect Master,” seems to have reached a plateau of sorts in November, when he failed to fill even half of the Houston Astrodome for a declaration of “a thousand years of peace.” In any case, the faith he preaches—despite its appeal to former radical activists like Rennie Davis—is essentially spiritual, not political, in nature. His movement may be diverting energy from progressive causes, as Ramparts magazine has charged, but even the most bitter critics do not contend that the guru is interested in influencing American foreign policy or supporting the President on Watergate.

Directly in contrast, Sun Myung Moon interweaves politics and religion in the best tradition of the medieval popes. His Unification Church operates a vast network of affiliate organizations in over 40 countries, under the distinctly temporal banner of the International Federation for Victory over Communism. With the formidable task of selling a new messiah to the world, the Moonies (or “the Family” as they call themselves) are extremely media-conscious. Perhaps for this reason the American branch of the Victory over Communism effort has taken on the less strident title of the Freedom Leadership Foundation (FLF).

Political activities in this country are not nearly as developed as those in South Korea, where Moon operates a training school to which the government annually sends hundreds of thousands of civil servants, local officials, and military men for a course in militant anti-communism. Even as other Korean religious leaders have turned increasingly against President Park Chung Hee’s authoritarian rule, Moon has stayed an enthusiastic backer of the regime. Moon’s avowed interest is in fighting communism, not preserving democratic niceties, and, as FLF Secretary General Gary Jarmin asserts, “Even if Park got more dictatorial, we would support him.”

Jarmin is a 24-year-old ideologue who has the earnest, well-scrubbed, closely cropped look that I learned to expect in meeting Moonies. He would like to recreate in the United States—a la General Edwin Walker—the kind of indoctrination system that Moon runs in Korea. “I disagree with our military,” says Jarmin. “They teach our GIs how to kill but don’t give them enough ideological training in the nature of communism.”

Before Secretary General Jarmin is brushed off as a youthful extremist, it should be noted that by Moonie standards he is nearly middle-aged. The movement’s American president, Neil Salonen, is only 28, and virtually all of the sect’s 2,000 “core” members are in their early to mid-twenties.

Potential converts come to the sect largely from the ranks of disaffected young people, and there is no shortage of those. They exist all over the country—chafing under an unhappy lifestyle and looking for meaningful purpose in life. Whether they feel let down by their parents’ generation, by organized religion, by conventional or radical politics, by the counterculture, or whatever, a messianic religion like Sun Myung Moon’s offers something to believe in—at a time when credible institutions are in short supply. Older persons may share the same doubts, but they tend to be less willing to open themselves up to a radical new set of beliefs.

So far, at least, only the young have been willing to make the full-time commitment that the sect demands and move into the communal living centers where the Family lives in all 50 states. Being a Moonie is not easy: forbidden in practice, if not by formal rule, are smoking, alcohol, and drugs. Absolutely taboo is premarital sex, which Moon rails against as “fornication.” Even marriage between believers is a difficult proposition, since new converts are generally expected to have been in the sect for three years and to have achieved a high state of spiritual “perfection” before they wed.

For what does the Family make these sacrifices? Nothing short of “the kingdom of heaven on earth,” as promised to it by its leader, who claims to have found the way through a series of revelations he received from Jesus Christ between his sixteenth and twenty-sixth birthdays. 

The Fear of Cultists!

Wealthy Korean “cult” president of Family Federation and World Peace and Unification (FFWPU), Hak Ja Han Moon, arrived in the country on Monday ahead of the Peace and Family Festival, and there are some fishy reports claiming that a certain section of the Christian fraternity is organising an emergency morcha.

Reports are that the pastors are seeking an immediate clearance letter from the Zimbabw…

from Dan Fefferman’s November 2000 review of ‘40 Years in America’

“As most long-time members recognize, the American Unification movement experienced substantial and rapid growth in the early 1970s, virtually doubling in membership every year from 1970-1974. Michael Mickler offers an intriguing thought as to the nature of the brick wall we hit after that. He sees the experimental Barrytown training project in 1975 as symptomatic of a departure from the American tradition that had previously brought such success. He cites four factors:

1) the sharpening of in-out distinctions between the movement and world

2) an extreme emphasis on fallen nature and obedience to central figures

3) a counterproductive shift away from center life and toward individual pioneering by young members and

4) the creation of an unattractive sense of desperation that failed to bring about the hoped for Pentecost.

But Barrytown was only one symptom of a larger problem. “To a large extent,” says Mickler, “Barrytown was a Japanese import... The Japanese outlook and modes of operation became even more pervasive in the church’s mobile fundraising teams.”

The result was a new church culture. College-aged Americans took on a soldier-like demeanor that had little appeal to their peers. They wore ties while witnessing, spoke urgently of the dangers of Communism, testified less frequently to the joys of their international community, stopped singing popular songs in favor or oriental Holy Songs, and sometimes even spoke in stilted English with a Japanese accent. The American movement may only now be fully recovering from that cultural shift.”