Empowering the Heavenly Parent Holy Community
... The High Court decision itself acknowledged that “it cannot be definitively determined” that unlawful acts occurred due to lack of facts and evidence, while simultaneously stating that “the possibility cannot be denied.”
... Even though the legal mechanism of this case is common, the subject matter is highly unusual. The dissolution of a religious corporation in Japan is extremely rare. It raises constitutional questions about religion and…
... The Happiness Realization Party is speaking out because the case could establish a legal precedent allowing the Japanese state to dissolve religious organizations based on civil liability, which religious movements see as a potential…
... The fundamental human rights that Japanese citizens normally enjoy are now at risk of being taken away. I believe the organisation must urgently demand that the government strongly protect and safeguard the human rights…
... It is profoundly regrettable that, despite the absence of concrete evidence of any violation of statutory law and without due recognition of the efforts made toward reform and improvement, the District Court’s dissolution order…
... Beyond institutional and constitutional theory, there is also a human dimension. Tens of thousands of adherents in Japan identify with the Family Federation as their spiritual community. For them, the dissolution of the religious…
... Just as with the Tokyo District Court’s decision last March, the biggest problem with the Tokyo High Court’s recent dissolution order against the Family Federation is that it was issued without granting the right…
... Religions tend to outlast the forces that seek to destroy them. Those forces may believe they have “won” in Japan. History suggests otherwise. It is usually the persecuted who have the last laugh.
... We will never accept this unjust judicial decision and will continue to fight – including by filing a special appeal – to defend freedom of religion.
... Japan has honored Pal for decades. Its courts now face a test of whether Pal’s principled position still applies—three quarters of a century later—when the defendant is unpopular and the political waters are churning.