Misunderstood separation of state and religion leads to anti-religious forms of secularism and extreme persecution of religious minorities, the Family Federation
Tokyo, 24th December 2024 – Published as the 56th article in a series in the Japanese newspaper Sekai Nippo. Republished with permission. Translated from Japanese. Original article
Misunderstandings About the Separation of Church and State, Giving Rise to Anti-Religious Secularism
by the Religious Freedom Investigative Team of the editorial department of Sekai Nippo
prepared by Knut Holdhus
Why is it that violations of freedom of religion, such as the reinterpretation of the Religious Corporations Act overnight by Prime Minister Fumio Kishida (as of October 2022), can occur so readily in a democratic nation like Japan? Why does the mass media turn a blind eye to the enforcement of faith-breaking – an infringement on fundamental human rights?
While freedom of religion is guaranteed under the Japanese Constitution, it is a fact that this freedom was effectively granted rather than won through struggles like the religious wars or persecutions seen in Western countries. This historical context and its limitations cannot be ignored. Additionally, in postwar Japan, the concept of separation of church and state has been misunderstood, giving rise to an extreme secularist trend.
On 15th December 1945, the General Headquarters (GHQ) of the Allied Powers issued the “Directive for the Abolition of Government Guarantees, Support, Maintenance, Supervision, and Propagation Related to State Shinto and Shrine Shinto”, commonly known as the “Shinto Directive”.
The GHQ, aiming to spiritually disarm Japan, ordered the separation of State Shinto – viewed as a pillar of Japanese militarism – from the government. Furthermore, it advocated for a complete separation of state and religion.
However, William Parsons Woodard, a staff member of the GHQ Civil Information and Education Section (CIE) who played a central role in the drafting of the Religious Corporations Act, later acknowledged flaws in the Shinto Directive. He pointed to “an overly extreme separation of religion and the state, rather than just the separation of church and state”. These issues have been brought to light through the research of religious studies scholar Yasuo Ohara (大原康男).
Article 20 of the Japanese Constitution begins by stating, “Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all. No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the State, nor exercise political authority.”
It first ensures freedom of religion, followed by the so-called principle of separation of church and state. The separation of church and state aims to prevent the government from favoring a specific religion and thereby infringing on freedom of religion. This intention is evident from the historical context of the Shinto Directive and the creation of the new Constitution.
Even when examining the reality of the separation of church and state in Western nations, it is clear that this does not imply that politics must be completely disconnected from religion. The goal is to safeguard freedom and fairness.
In 1977, the Japanese Supreme Court made a significant ruling on the separation of church and state in the Tsu Groundbreaking Ceremony Lawsuit (津地鎮祭訴訟). This lawsuit was initiated by a Communist Party city councilor, who argued that using public funds to pay for a Shinto priest’s service at the groundbreaking ceremony for a gymnasium in Tsu City, Mie Prefecture, was unconstitutional. The Court held that while the principle of separation of church and state requires the government to maintain religious neutrality, it does not entirely prohibit any involvement with religion. The Court stated: “Separation of church and state requires the state to maintain a neutral stance on religion. However, it does not mean that any interaction with religion is entirely prohibited. Acts involving religion must be judged based on their purpose and effect, and they should only be deemed unconstitutional if they exceed reasonable limits under these conditions.”
This judgment explicitly rejected the notion of “complete separation” of state and religion under the Constitution. It also clarified that the purpose of the separation of church and state is to ensure the government’s religious neutrality and to protect freedom of religion.
Nevertheless, even after this Supreme Court decision, lawsuits seeking stricter enforcement of the separation principle – often driven by leftist factions – persisted. This trend fostered an atmosphere where even minimal interaction between politics or administration and religion was hastily labeled as a “violation of the separation of church and state”. Consequently, an extreme and anti-religious form of secularism began to take root.
When ties between politicians and the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (formerly the Unification Church) became prominent, a widespread view emerged that such connections were inherently wrong. This perspective was shaped by the excessive secularist trends that had taken hold.
Ironically, the misinterpretation and political exploitation of the principle of separation of church and state—originally designed to protect religious freedom—have threatened that very freedom. The current crisis surrounding religious freedom, highlighted by the move to dissolve the Family Federation, cannot be adequately understood without recognizing the role of the GHQ’s ad hoc religious policies and the leftist factions that have exploited these policies over time.
Click here to read more on Religious Persecution
Featured image above: The former main entrance of the building housing the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology; the Japan Sports Agency; and the Agency for Cultural Affairs (Tokyo Office) in Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda Ward, Tokyo. Photo: Reiwa Kato (加藤玲和)