What the Unification Church Case Means for Religious Freedom

In late 2023, Japan's Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) filed a formal request to dissolve the Unification Church, officially known as the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification. The move was based on repeated civil law violations.

For some, it was a long-overdue measure. The 2022 assassination of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe by a man who held deep resentment toward the church had brought long-standing grievances to light. These included claims of coerced donations, family estrangement, and aggressive proselytization.

Public outcry surged. Political ties between certain politicians in the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and the church came under intense scrutiny.

In March 2025, the Tokyo District Court approved the dissolution order. Yet, many have questioned the legitimacy, transparency, and potentially unintended consequences of the government's move.

Massimo Introvigne, an Italian sociologist and founder of the Center for Studies on New Religions, criticized the Tokyo District Court's March 25, 2025, ruling to dissolve the Unification Church. He argued that the decision "damages all religions, Japan, and its international image." The move sets a concerning precedent for governmental overreach into religious affairs, he suggests. ​

Introvigne highlighted that the dissolution was based on civil, not criminal, violations. This departs from previous cases where religious organizations were dissolved following criminal convictions. He warned that this shift could endanger other religious groups, stating, "All religions are among the losers as they are now at risk in Japan." ​

Long-standing Doubts

Advertisement

Such concerns are not new. Scholars and commentators in Japan have raised questions about the legal and constitutional risks of dissolving religious organizations for years.

In a dialogue featured in the December 2023 issue of Seiron, theologian Haruhisa Nakagawa and commentator Tsutomu Nishioka raise serious doubts about the fairness and legal basis of the MEXT's petition to dissolve the church.

Nakagawa, who has experience in anti-cult activism, acknowledged the problematic nature of the church's practices. However, he warned that the state's actions must be held to high standards of legal neutrality and religious freedom. "We must distinguish clearly between faith and organization," he insisted.

Changing the Rules

The government's justification for requesting the dissolution order centered on alleged systemic violations of civil law, including aggressive spiritual sales tactics and large-scale donation fraud.

Critics like Nishioka argue that these actions, while ethically dubious, do not amount to criminal violations on the scale typically required for dissolution. He noted that in previous cases involving religious corporations, such as the Aum Shinrikyo cult, "the standard was high: demonstrable criminal acts leading to direct harm, such as the Tokyo subway sarin gas attack."

However, the ministry shifted its interpretation of the Religious Corporations Act, citing repeated civil violations rather than criminal convictions as grounds for dissolution. This reinterpretation, Nakagawa warned, could set a troubling precedent. 

"The bar for what constitutes grounds for dissolution has suddenly dropped," he said. He points out that the Unification Church was not convicted of a major criminal offense at the time of the request. "This isn't just about one group. It's about how far the government can go in determining what religious practices are acceptable."

Advertisement

Due Process or Political Pressure?

Another key concern involves the neutrality of the process. Nishioka emphasizes that the investigations carried out by the government were done in a way that compromised impartiality. 

Rather than relying solely on public evidence and due process, the government engaged in extensive coordination with activist lawyers' groups. Many of those have long campaigned against the Unification Church. This close cooperation, critics argue, made it difficult to distinguish any legal proceedings from political activism.

The media's role further complicates the matter. Since Abe's assassination, reporting on the Unification Church has largely been one-sided, often conflating individual suffering with institutional guilt. Stories of ruined families and financial exploitation dominated headlines, fueling public anger.

However, voices from current members or those with positive experiences were notably absent from mainstream coverage. Nakagawa warns that such media bias has real consequences: "In the court of public opinion, the church was already dissolved before the legal process even began."

Underlying all this is a deeper tension between protecting vulnerable individuals and preserving freedom of religion. Japan's constitution guarantees religious liberty, a right historically seen as sacrosanct. 

Until the Tokyo Court's decision, the Unification Church, despite its many controversies, remained a legally recognized religious organization with tens of thousands of adherents. Nishioka and Nakagawa both stress that disbanding such a group — especially without criminal convictions — risks eroding those constitutional protections.

The Future of Faith and Law

There are also concerns that the precedent could impact other minority religions. Nakagawa, a Christian pastor, noted that certain Protestant sects have also been accused of coercive behavior or emotional manipulation. However, few would advocate for their dissolution. "Once you open the door to state intervention based on vague definitions of harm or social disruption," he said, "it becomes difficult to know where to draw the line."

Was the dissolution a necessary act of justice or an opportunistic political maneuver in response to public outcry? Can civil violations justify the liquidation of a religious corporation? Most importantly, will this case come to define how Japan balances individual protection with collective freedom?

For now, the move to dissolve the Unification Church stands as a landmark decision in Japan's modern religious and legal history. Whether it will ultimately be viewed as a triumph of accountability or a dangerous overreach of state power remains to be seen.

Advertisement

RELATED:

• Is the Unification Church Dissolution Order Rewarding a Criminal?
• [Speaking Out] Unification Church Issue as Seen by a Christian
• Sarin Gas Attacks Victims Not Given Enough Help 30 Years Later
  
  

Author: Daniel Manning