How Should We View the Dissolution Order Against the Former Unification Church?
On March 25, the Tokyo District Court issued a dissolution order against the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (formerly the Unification Church). How should we interpret this issue? We asked two experts for their views.
— A Perspective on the Cost of Democracy —
By Yoshinobu Miyake, Chairman, International Shinto Studies Association（ISSA）
A Lack of Understanding of the Religious Corporations Act
With regard to the Tokyo District Court’s recent ruling, I would like to raise two main concerns: one regarding “the exercise of state power”, and another concerning “the role of the media.”
The first issue is how state power is exercised. Generally, the dissolution of a religious corporation assumes a voluntary decision by the organization itself, such as a self-imposed closure or a merger with another entity. A forced dissolution via revocation of certification by the competent authorities or through a court order is an extraordinary measure. Such actions must, of course, be deliberated and decided with the utmost caution under the framework of the Religious Corporations Act.
However, the “Act on Preventing Unjust Solicitation of Donations by a Corporation,” enacted in December 2022 by referencing “the Consumer Contract Act,” effectively targeted the former Unification Church. This law lacks objective standards by which the conduct of religious corporations can be judged. Moreover, the case at hand is not based on criminal proceedings. It gives the impression that the process was outcome-driven from the start.
Furthermore, the argument that “even if a religious corporation is dissolved, the group can continue religious activities as a voluntary organization, so freedom of religion is not being violated” frequently appears. But this represents a severe misunderstanding of the principles underpinning the Religious Corporations Act.
What must not be forgotten is that one of humanity’s universal and fundamental human rights is “freedom of religion”—which includes not only the right to choose a religion of one’s own will, but also the right to practice and propagate that faith. Evangelism is part of this freedom. A dissolution order, in effect, curtails the ability to propagate the faith. From an international standpoint, such a decision is unacceptable.
Interference with Religious Activities
Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the Religious Corporations Act states:
“This Act aims to grant religious organizations legal capacity so they may own, maintain, and operate places of worship and other assets, and carry out the necessary operations and projects to achieve their purposes.”
This legal status is essential for a wide range of activities, such as paying salaries—including tax withholding—for employees, managing social insurance, opening bank accounts, and renting facilities for gatherings. Without corporate status, none of this is possible. Hence, the assertion by the Tokyo District Court and the media that “freedom of religion is not being infringed” despite the dissolution is deeply flawed. It constitutes a de facto violation of religious freedom, as it obstructs the organization’s ability to sustain religious activities.
To claim that “freedom of belief and religion is guaranteed, and the Constitution is not being violated” is a statement reminiscent of totalitarian regimes. The Chinese Communist Party also claims to recognize religious freedom, but in reality, Tibetan Buddhists and Uyghur Muslims face severe persecution.
A Deviation from Modern Constitutional Rule of Law
It should also be emphasized that the granting of religious corporate status is not based on doctrinal beliefs. I do not believe in the teachings of the former Unification Church. I personally adhere to the teachings of Konkōkyō. However, that does not mean I believe their religion—or any religion—should be eradicated. Their doctrines must be respected. Even if the group is problematic, unless there are egregious legal violations, it should not be dissolved.
This is akin to how political parties with fringe ideologies—represented by so-called “minor parties” that often spout questionable claims—still receive substantial government subsidies from the national treasury. These are the necessary “costs” of sustaining democracy in Japan.
Moreover, the court’s judgment in this case is retroactive, based on incidents that occurred long ago. Of course, any legal violations should be punished. However, the former Unification Church issued a “Compliance Declaration” in 2009, and the number of lawsuits has since decreased. Punishing the group now for incidents that occurred decades ago runs contrary to the principle of nullum crimen sine lege (no penalty without law). Any illegal actions after the enactment of the aforementioned law can be judged under it—but to punish actions prior to its enforcement violates the basic rule of law. This represents a deviation from modern constitutional governance.
A Precedent for Persecuting Other Religions
The second issue involves media bias. On a daytime TV program discussing the Tokyo District Court’s decision, a celebrity commented, “Thanks to the suspect who shot former Prime Minister Abe, the public was reminded of the problems with the former Unification Church.” I was shocked. The incident was a terrorist attack on a former Prime Minister during an election speech—a murder, pure and simple. Nothing more, nothing less.
To broadcast such outrageous remarks on public airwaves constitutes a clear violation of the Broadcasting Act. The broadcasting license of the network in question should arguably be revoked.
In 2019, then-New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, responding to a mass shooting at a mosque, stated, “We will give nothing to the terrorist, not even his name.” Terrorists seek public attention through their crimes. Therefore, their messages must not be reported. Japan’s response to terrorism stands in stark contrast to the global norm.
Furthermore, most television commentators express only critical views of the former Unification Church, and opposing opinions are rarely aired. This is problematic in terms of media fairness. Given this, any religion could be made into a scapegoat at any time. Once labeled as “bad,” the group is thoroughly attacked, and no opportunity for rebuttal is offered. This is the prevailing climate within Japan’s media.
A Litmus Test for Japan’s Democracy
In most countries around the world—whether developed or developing, with the exception of socialist states—religion is respected far more than in Japan. If things continue as they are, I believe Japanese society will eventually reach an impasse. This issue serves as a litmus test for the health of democracy in Japan.
Yoshinobu Miyake
Born in Osaka in 1958. Chairman of the International Shinto Studies Association. Director General of the United Nations Association of Japan in Kansai. Head of the Konkōkyō Kasugaoka Church. Holds a Master of Theology in Systematic Theology from Doshisha University Graduate School of Theology. Former research fellow at Harvard University’s Center for the Study of World Religions. Chair of the G20 Interfaith Forum 2019 (Kyoto). Board member of the Japanese Committee of the WCRP (World Conference of Religions for Peace), and of the Osaka UNESCO Association.
Author of “Weathercocks: How Humanity Has Faced Epidemics” and “The Islamic State and the Nation of Japan: What is a Nation?”, among others.
