Soto Zen, a 11-million-strong Buddhist sect, is no friend of the Unification Church. Yet it warned that the dissolution may be against the Constitution and set a dangerous precedent.
by Massimo Introvigne
Other religious organizations start casting doubts about the case filed by the Japanese government seeking in court an order for the dissolution of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (formerly known as the Unification Church) as a religious corporation.
In the last week, a controversy erupted around the position of the Soto Zen sect, the largest Buddhist organization in Japan, which controls some 15,000 temples and at least eleven million believers.
It should be clarified that Soto Zen is not a friend of the Unification Church. On the contrary, it has harshly criticized its theology and its publications have also reported sympathetically about campaigns against the so-called “spiritual sales” and the problems of second-generation believers.
At the same time, Soto Zen has doubts that the request of dissolution is appropriate. As many others did, it noted that the provisions about dissolution of the Religious Corporation Act have been traditionally interpreted to mean that religious organizations can be dissolved only if they have been found guilty in criminal cases. This was also the position expressed originally by Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, before he changed it overnight under pressure from the media and political opposition and announced that religious corporations can be dissolved even if they have lost civil (as opposite to criminal) cases.
Soto Zen understands that this is problematic for all religions. It commented about a dissolution based only on civil cases that “there is no precedent for this.” The fact that “restrictions are placed even on organizations that have not been prosecuted in a criminal case,” Soto Zen noted, may actually be against the Japanese Constitution, which stipulates that limitations to the freedom of religion “should be imposed only to the minimum extent necessary to achieve them, without exceeding authority. It is stipulated in the Constitution that there shall be no unreasonable restriction of the people’s freedoms and rights.”
Media reported that at the 143rd Ordinary Session of the Soto Shu (Soto Zen) General Assembly, a member asked the organization to reconsider the issue. Soto Zen’s religious head Hattori Shusei answered that the organization has “no plans to correct the statement.”
The newspaper specialized in religion “Bunka Jiho” reported on May 5 that the fact that Soto Zen “has expressed a different view from that of the Religious Council, which approved the request for the dissolution order with the participation of religious representatives, has caused a stir.” The newspaper did not mention the widely reported fact that several members of the Religious Council had doubts about the dissolution, but the government lobbied them one by one insisting that this was a matter of national importance, and the government needed their support.
“Bunka Jiho” reported the criticism by “Councilor Tetsuzu Jinno (Yudokai, Aichi) [who said] ‘The sect’s response is very strange and could be taken as a message of approval of the former Unification Church. Many religious scholars and constitutional law scholars, including Professor Emeritus Susumu Shimazono, who once served as chairman of the Religious Organization Council, have indicated that the former Unification Church’s huge donations and forceful solicitation of members deviated significantly from the purpose of a religious organization and that no criminal case is necessary to demonstrate its illegality.’”
Of course Professor Shimazono is not a legal expert. He is a respected sociologist I happen to know. His statements are best read as how after the sarin gas terrorist attacks of 1995 by Aum Shinrikyo, a group some academics had expressed some sympathy to (obviously without being aware of the criminal activities of its leaders), many Japanese scholars felt that either they jumped on the anti-cult’s bandwagon, or their career would be jeopardized.
That Soto Zen has expressed “approval of the former Unification Church” is not true. As mentioned earlier, they have strongly criticized it and show no sign they will refrain from doing so in the future. They have also indicated that they will respect the verdict of the Japanese courts on the dissolution issue, whatever it may be. They are just concerned, and rightly so, that dissolving a religious organization that had committed no crime, based on civil cases only, may be against human rights, the Japanese Constitution, and principles of religious liberty that protect all religions, large and small.
