Members of the Unification Church protest in Seoul on Aug 18 against media coverage the group has received in Japan following the assassination in early July of former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe. The church was founded by Sun Myung Moon in Korea in 1954 and its followers are colloquially known as Moonies. (Photo: AFP)
Support for Prime Minister Fumio Kishida's government in Japan has dropped to its lowest level since his election amid a quest to investigate lawmakers suspected of entertaining “connections” to the Unification Church.
Kishida's support has fallen to 36 percent from 52 percent a month ago, according to a survey. As much as 87 percent of the survey participants said the Unification Church was either an “extreme problem" or "somewhat a problem" for the ruling Liberal Democratic Party.
It’s easy to figure out why. The Unification Church’s name has been essentially rendered synonymous with a religious scam following an unrelenting media campaign.
Thousands of Unification Church followers rallied in the South Korean capital Seoul last week protesting the negative Japanese media coverage of their religion. The protesters, mostly Japanese believers who moved to South Korea, say the Japanese media, in its improbable attempt to rationalize Shinzo Abe’s assassination, has unduly targeted their church.
Church members fear that the social persecution, on top of family pressure, will force them to recant their faith.
However, the social pressure could have nothing to do with the actual belief as the church in question is a sort of esoteric cult whose main surreptitious undertaking is to convince their faithful into donating all their savings to the organization.
"The mere suspicion of being in the wrong is already a sentence in East Asian countries"
What is important, particularly in East Asian culture, is the shame family members feel on being seen as relatives of someone who is part of a group whose public image is forever tarnished. That is what matters.
The mere suspicion of being in the wrong is already a sentence in East Asian countries. The substance of the claim doesn't matter when evaluating reputation.
There have been cases in the recent past where Unification Church followers were literally kidnapped by family members in an attempt to “detoxify” them from their beliefs. No wonder why the protesters in Korea recited slogans condemning the toxic atmosphere that the media has crafted, labeling it tantamount to religious repression.
And if we still believe in the freedom to profess any creed, can we blame the demonstrators for shouting “stop the assault on human rights”?
Now Kishida, in a move to distance himself from the critics, has instructed the justice minister to take measures to tackle complaints coming from former Unification Church members and relatives regarding “suspicious” marketing schemes, and what now the media is describing as “spiritual sales.”
We know already that this road taken is a slippery slope.
"It is better if the Kishida government stopped now in this blind quest to define what can be construed as a spiritual donation and what is not"
It would be interesting to know if the justice minister will also consider probable complaints about the sale of amulets and ema (small plaques on which Shinto and Buddhist worshippers write prayers or wishes), which are sold all over the archipelago.
In Shinto belief, as in the native cult, these are believed to act as a bridge between the material world to the transcendent one.
How will the justice minister define a spiritual sale if confronted, let’s say, with Buddhist prayer beads or a statue of the Virgin Mary?
And if indeed some of the Unification Church's dubious marketing strategies are deemed “scams,” how will the government prevent complaints coming from family members of other religious faiths, who have donated (as often happens) their whole estate, house, and land, to a religious institution?
What if believers of other faiths come forward with complaints of being “brainwashed” and say frauds, masquerading as spiritual masters, promised them a spiritual benefit for their material offerings?
It is better if the Kishida government stopped the blind quest to define what can be construed as a spiritual donation and what is not, lest the consequences could explode beyond expectations.
"The state under this constitution has no power to suppress even what common sense would suggest is a rational decision"
If a government arrogates to itself the right to define what is of religious or spiritual worth to an individual (and what is not), then we no longer live in a polity where religion and state are two separate entities. Instead, we end up with a state that interferes with a religious pursuit by dictating its own standards. And, we know it is prohibited by the Japanese Constitution with its Articles 19 and 20, which speak about freedom of thought and conscience.
The state, under the provision of the constitution, is obliged to take a neutral attitude toward all religions and denominations. Is the Kishida government’s current move a neutral stance?
Some may argue that the state has the right to safeguard its citizens when the circumstances point to possible illegitimate activity. But we should not forget that the Aum Shinrikyo cult, responsible for the Tokyo subway sarin attack that killed 13 people in 1995, continues to exist to this day. It hasn’t been extinguished by the state as one may think, even though 13 of the senior Aum leadership, including cult leader Shoko Asahara, were convicted and executed.
The state under this constitution has no power to suppress even what common sense would suggest is a rational decision, such as extinguishing the Aum Shinrikyo cult. In fact, Shoko Asahara followers have simply changed their name, and still, practice what they believe in because we think they should have the right to do so.
Those who don’t agree with freedom of belief should gather their energy and effort and direct it not towards the Unification Churches, but to amend the fundamental principles on which the modern Japanese state is founded.
* The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official editorial position of UCA News.
Share your comments