Observers argue that dissolving the religious organization called the Family Federation could create unforeseen problems for the Japanese authorities and easily make the cure more damaging than the disease
An Opinion from Segye Times
Prepared by Knut Holdhus
A major debate about religious freedom, government authority, and the limits of state power has emerged in Japan following a court decision to dissolve a religious organization. The case involves the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, formerly known as the Unification Church.
For decades, it has been subjected to a veritable witch hunt, often orchestrated by left-wing forces afraid of the Federation’s growing influence, with its teachings openly opposed to God-denying Communism. Other times, opposition came from nationalist forces, critical of the international marriages the Family Federation has become so famous for. Right-wing nationalists were especially hostile to Japanese citizens marrying South Koreans, from a race long considered inferior due to historical imperial ideology, pseudoscientific racial theories imported in the 19th century, and colonial propaganda.
On 4th March, a Japanese court approved the government’s request to dissolve the group as a religious corporation. This decision triggered a complex process in which authorities began closing facilities, restricting access to religious buildings, and managing the organization’s remaining assets.
For many observers, the move represents a strong effort by the Japanese government to hold a religious institution accountable for alleged misconduct. However, others argue that the consequences of dissolving an entire religious organization may be far broader than intended.
An opinion article, 10th March by religious affairs reporter Jeong Seong-su (정성수) published in Segye Ilbo, a South Korean newspaper, argues that the decision could have significant social, legal, and political repercussions – not only for the group involved but also for Japan’s approach to religious freedom.
The article raises a fundamental question: Can a democratic government eliminate the legal structure of a religious organization without undermining the freedom of belief that its own constitution guarantees?
Closing Institutions Does Not Eliminate Belief
Japan’s constitution explicitly protects freedom of religion. In theory, the state can revoke the legal status of a religious corporation – meaning it can dissolve the organization as a recognized institution. But belief itself cannot be dissolved through legal action. Personal faith exists within individuals and communities, not only within buildings or official structures.
The article argues that closing churches and dismantling an organization does not automatically end the religious beliefs of its followers. Hundreds of thousands of believers associated with the group may still want to practice their faith. If official worship spaces are shut down, they will simply look for other ways to continue practicing.
History suggests that faith communities often adapt when faced with restrictions. When public religious practice becomes difficult or impossible, believers frequently shift their activities into private spaces – homes, small gatherings, or informal networks. In this sense, attempts to suppress organized religion can unintentionally push it underground rather than eliminating it.
The author refers to historical precedents, such as early Christian communities in ancient Rome. During periods of persecution, Christians gathered secretly in catacombs and private homes. The pattern illustrates a recurring phenomenon: when religion is excluded from the public sphere, it tends to reappear in hidden forms rather than disappear altogether.
The Risk of Escalating Social Costs
Another major concern highlighted in the article is the potential for increasing social and administrative costs. Dissolving a large religious organization does not end a conflict; instead, it can create a new series of legal and social challenges.
For example, the liquidation of the organization’s assets may lead to lengthy court battles. Determining how to distribute property, buildings, and financial resources could involve complicated disputes among the government, former members, and related institutions.
The dissolution could also affect the livelihoods of people who worked for the organization. Staff members who depended on the Federation for employment may suddenly lose their jobs. In addition, ordinary believers might experience social isolation or confusion if their religious community suddenly disappears from public life.
The article suggests that these consequences will ultimately fall on the state itself. Government agencies will need to manage legal disputes, social tensions, and administrative complications resulting from the decision. In this sense, the attempt to solve a problem could unintentionally create a much larger one.
The author describes this possibility using a familiar idea: sometimes the cure becomes more damaging than the disease. If the policy creates more social disruption than it resolves, the government may end up spending significant public resources managing conflicts that could have been addressed more narrowly.
The Principle of Minimal Government Intervention
Modern legal systems often emphasize what is known as the “principle of minimal infringement”. This principle suggests that when governments intervene in people’s rights or freedoms, they should do so in the least intrusive way possible.
According to the article, if individuals within a religious group committed unlawful acts, the most appropriate response would be to investigate and punish those specific individuals. Holding the responsible parties accountable is consistent with the rule of law.
However, dissolving an entire religious organization may be seen as a much broader measure. Critics argue that such an action affects not only those who committed wrongdoing but also many ordinary members who were not involved.
From this perspective, the government’s decision may appear disproportionate. Instead of precisely targeting illegal behavior, it eliminates the institutional framework that supports the faith of a large number of people.
International Human Rights Concerns
The article also raises questions about how the decision might be perceived internationally. Freedom of religion is widely recognized as a fundamental human right. This principle is protected in global agreements such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that governments should not arbitrarily interfere with people’s beliefs or religious practices.
Japan is a signatory to this treaty, meaning it has committed to upholding these protections. Critics therefore worry that physically closing places of worship or dismantling a religious organization could attract scrutiny from international human-rights institutions.
Japan is often regarded as a leading democracy and an important member of the global liberal order. Because of this role, its domestic policies are closely watched. The article suggests that the country’s credibility could be affected if its actions appear to contradict the values of religious freedom and pluralism that democratic societies promote.
Balancing Accountability and Religious Freedom
The central challenge highlighted in the article is finding the right balance between accountability and religious freedom. Governments have a responsibility to protect citizens from fraud, abuse, or other illegal activities. When wrongdoing occurs within a religious organization, authorities must investigate and respond.
At the same time, democratic societies must ensure that the actions taken against misconduct do not unintentionally restrict the broader freedom of belief. The principle of separation between religion and the state was originally designed to protect individuals from excessive government control over their spiritual lives.
The article argues that the separation of religion and state should function as a safeguard against government intrusion into personal belief. It should not become a tool that allows the state to dismantle religious communities entirely.
The Broader Implications
Finally, the article expresses concern about the potential loss of positive contributions that religious communities can make. Many faith-based groups participate in charitable work, promote dialogue between different religions, and advocate for peace or humanitarian causes.
If government action unintentionally suppresses these positive activities, society may lose valuable sources of social cooperation and moral engagement.
The author concludes by emphasizing that the purpose of government is to provide stability and predictability for its citizens. Instead of deepening social divisions, state policies should create conditions in which people with different beliefs can coexist peacefully.
In this view, addressing wrongdoing within religious organizations is necessary – but it must be done carefully, in ways that protect both justice and the fundamental freedoms that democratic societies seek to uphold.
Featured image above: Japanese believers gathering for prayer March 2026. AI-generated Illustration March 2026.