Cheryl Wetzstein wrote against my wife and I saying:
I think the Quinns have forgotten how the Principle of Give and Take works, and what the Triple Objective Purpose is.
"My trusty Divine Principle black book (page 68) says: "An emotional force going from the subject to the object is called Love; another emotional force returned by the object to the subject is called Beauty."
Further down, the Principle says: "When the subject and object become united, there comes into being a love which is latent even in beauty and a beauty latent even in love. This is because when the subject and object unite in circular movement, the subject is able to stand in the position of the object and the object in that of the subject."
I believe that means that the subject will become the object and the object will become the subject until such time that they switch places again.
In the Divine Principle Study Guide 1, the Triple Objective Standard is explained thus: "Each of the four beings-the origin, subject, object and union-wants to take the subject position to the other three, and unite with them. Each also wants to serve the other three from the objective position." These relationships, the Study Guide notes, exist only within God and men.
Presumably, the authors of the Study Guide meant God, men and women.
In any case, it is clear that Mr. Wells is correct. Objects may be subordinate to subjects, but no one person is always an object and no one person is always a subject. We change positions moment by moment, and happily so. Who on earth would enjoy being a subject every second of every day, giving, giving, giving. Even God likes to receive love! But the only way He can receive love is if He becomes the object of you and me, His children. Which would make us the subject of God (for at least a fleeting second).
Is this grandiose thinking? I don't think so. In my household, when my children seek to ask me a question, they are the subject and I am the object. Are they out of line by dominating that interaction? No. Have I left my position as parent when I give them my undivided attention? No. But I have become the object to their subjectivity. Is this wrong? Hardly. According to the Principle, it is the true way to have give and take.
Patriarchy is a New Testament Age practice that thankfully shall be retired forever. In its place, a true liberation of men and women shall emerge: in the Completed Testament Age, men and women will become one couple, as united and harmonious as two legs, two eyes or two lungs, revolving around each other as naturally and peacefully as people who are in love do.
Couples, not just men, will run governments, according to Dr. Lee. Parents, which means fathers and mothers, will be leaders in society.
There's a famous Christian song that says: "In Christ, there is no East or West." Likewise, in true-love marriages and families, there are no static positions; instead, husbands and wives and children and grandparents and other relatives and friends all revolve in constantly changing, energetic, back-and-forth relationships of love. Everyone moves from subject to object and back again like lightning. And the result is called Joy.
I do not agree with her view. To me the Triple Objective Purpose should be understood that families should have a hierarchy of three generations: grandparents, parents and children. I do not believe that that there are no "static" positions. People are not to "switch" positions any more than homosexuality and cross dressing switches things around. Cheryl is illogical in saying she does not leave her position as parent but somehow is also object to her children. How can you be at two places at one time? She never leaves her position as parent. Period. Interchanging is satanic. She is just trying to justify feminism with the Principle. Dr. Lee is wrong sometimes and so is Cheryl.
Father said in "Our Portion Of Responsibility And The Subject World" (January 5, 1992), 'Should women follow men or should men follow women? What is the pattern of today's modern society? Men follow women. Who is the queen of the American family? The mother is the boss. Is this correct? Of those who don't know the Divine Principle, will they say Reverend Moon is wrong and that women are the center? Or will they say, in a small voice, man is the center? They won't say it in a small voice but a loud voice!
"Why should women follow men? Women have big breasts. Their breasts are bigger than men's. Also, their hips are bigger. They are not built to run. Also, every month they need help. When that time comes they want to lie down, they want to lean on someone. Do more accidents occur to women or men? In America, women say men. In the original viewpoint, who is more prone to accidents, men or women? Father says English is right in one point. The letter M for man and W for woman fit together nicely with M on top. You laugh but this is a serious point.
"Which is more beautiful to behold, a man holding onto a woman and dancing around and around her? Or for the woman to go round and round the man? That is the expression of "I love you, darling," ; kissing and going around. Don't all women want that kind of excitement?
"Which is more beautiful to behold, a man holding onto a woman and dancing around and around her? Or for the woman to go round and round the man? That is the expression of "I love you, darling,"; kissing and going around. Don't all women want that kind of excitement?"
Unificationists paint a picture of patriarchy as stuffy, starched, inflexible, and haughty. The truth is that true patriarchs are warm and playful and funny when they need to be. Mention patriarchy and everyone sees Stalin or the authoritarian head of the house in the movie The Sound of Music. Just because men always lead in dancing does not mean that dancing is "rigid" and "harsh." On the contrary, it is the only way for true joy in dancing to take place. How can Unificationists cling to the idea of interchanging when men and women never interchange in dancing? They do so because they are confused with the way the Principle is written by leaders and by the conflicting words of Father. They are digested by our culture that hates old-fashioned values because they are seen as too narrow. Under the banner of equality, fluidity and freedom, feminists have brainwashed everyone into making men and women the same. Both can now be U.S. Senators and lead our military. Almost everyone is possessed by feminist thought. If a woman feels pure motivation to be a cop, politician or CEO, then she should have the freedom and blessing from all to do as her inner voice has called. The problem is that the inner voice is the voice of evil spirit world getting women to leave the home so they can destroy the family.
Unificationists love to talk military talk. Everything is about front lines, sacrifice, emergency times, rosie the riveters who have to now go on the hunt while the men stay home and iron clothes. Patriarchy is seen as making women second class citizens who are kept from contributing their heart to the unemotional public world of men who love war. They argue that it is unrealistic to think only men should be in the workplace. It would also be an imbalanced world if women weren't out there competing with men. Even though they see themselves as conservatives supporting the Washington Times they quickly lapse into the arguments of liberals if you challenge them. Tell a Unificationist that there are absolute roles for men and women and you quickly get the response the liberals give conservatives when they say heterosexual sex is an absolute value.
PAT SCHROEDER -- FEMINIST CRUSADER BATTLING THE CONSERVATIVES
In Pat Schroeder's book Champion of the Great American Family, she calls herself a champion of the family. Phyllis Schlafly in her book The Positive Woman also presents herself as a champion of the family. Schroeder is a liberal Democrat and Schlafly is a conservative Republican. Both are famous public crusaders for their views.
The highest leaders are usually either a Democrat or a Republican. The most famous person in America is the President and every president in the 20th century has been either a Democrat or a Republican. The DP teaches that human history is often a battle between two sides who represent Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel. The first family on earth could not find unity and families and nations today cannot find unity.
God wants those who are on the Adam and Abel side to win. Satan wants those on the Eve and Cain side to win. Eve and Cain initiate division and Adam and Abel are often crippled or crushed when they are attacked. Satan usually wins. Eventually God's side will win. In the 20th century we had the greatest division in the family and between nations ever seen in human history. The battle of the sexes, the battle of the family, and the battles between nations has been the most vicious and horrible in all of mankind's 6000 years of recorded history. Why is this? It is because the 20th century had the Messiah living in it for 80 years. The Messiah turned 80 in the year 2000. World War Two, the Korean War and the Cold War happened because Sun Myung Moon was the Abel that the Cains of the world wanted to kill. The fierce battle of the sexes and the breakdown of the family is because evil spirit world is fighting Sun Myung Moon's crusade to bring world peace through harmonious families.
God is for the Messiah who is anti-Communist and Satan is for communism. The reason for the intensity and passion between these Cain and Abel's is because of ideology. It is a fight between God's ultimate idea or philosophy which is traditionalism and capitalism. Satan's ultimate ideology is feminism and socialism. There are some debates between members of the Right and within the Left on a few issues. The Right is wrong in such things as its belief that abortion is murder, but in general, there is deep division in America. James Davison Hunter writes of this in his book Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. He even mentions the UC's ideology of the Divine Principle as being part of the Right. All of the leaders in Washington D.C. know that Sun Myung Moon owns the Washington Times that is the conservative Abel to the Washington Post that is the liberal Cain.
One would think that Rev. Moon and the UC are traditionalist/capitalists. The purist expression of the traditional family are the Andelins and for free enterprise it is the Friedman's. American Unificationists would call these two couples -- "harsh" and "extreme." I believe Rev. Moon in his heart of hearts is for those so-called extreme views because of his words and deeds. He is a difficult person to understand because of his unique way of speaking and writing. He is overwhelmingly conservative in his words and deeds. Unificationists cling to the few times he talks and acts like a feminist. Future generations will dismiss those passages and those actions and live by absolute values. The UC has no trouble in being looked at as "extreme" and "harsh" in their crusade for abstinence and against homosexuality. They could care less what anyone thinks when they confidently say that every person will speak Korean in a future ideal world that will have a world government and every person will love Rev. and Mrs. Moon as the True Parents of mankind who restored Adam and Eve.
But when I tell my fellow Unificationists that eventually every family will live by the roles for men and women taught in the Bible and books like the Andelins, they go as ballistic as liberal Hollywood movie stars do when you mention the name Phyllis Schlafly. If you tell them that Milton Friedman is right in saying we should end government social security and legalize drugs, they shake their heads and give a sigh as if you were an embarrassing black sheep that they wish would just wander off and never come back.
I have experienced Unificationists doing everything from going ballistic to giving me a patronizing sigh, but mostly I get indifference. It is sad to see them digested by our culture that is mainly feminist/socialist.
The opponents of Aubrey and Helen Andelin and Milton and Rose Friedman are Betty Friedan and Pat Schroeder. Unificationists say they are on the Right but the tragic truth is that they went into Canaan and now worship the idols of Friedan and Schroeder when they should see that Sun Myung Moon really teaches a philosophy that is even more politically incorrect than the Andelins and Friedman's who do not have a vision of an ideal world in which every single person will have the same values.
Unificationists are tricky because they are uneducated and have not thought things through. They say they like the words "traditional family" and "free enterprise" but they mostly write how they want "variety" in marriages and big government programs like Social Security and drug regulations. Many Republicans say the same thing. Most Republicans look at the Democrat party's platform and say, "Me too, but less." Republicans are mixed up and weak. They do not have the gut or brains or both to accept the logic of the Andelins and Friedman's. Like the Republicans, Unificationists say that books like Fascinating Womanhood and Free to Choose are fine for a few people but these books are unrealistic because they are too "rigid."