The Tokyo High Court Unification Church Decision. 6. Who Will Protect the Believers? — Massimo Introvigne

B IT T E R HO M E ABOUT CH I NA v FROM TH E WO RLD v I NTERVI EWS DOCU M E NTS AND TRANSLATIO NS v ABOUT E DITORIAL BOARD TOPICS £> W I NT E R

You a re here: H o me » From th e Wo rld » Op-eds G l oba l Sea rch

Th e To kyo H igh Co u rt U n ifi cati o n N E W S L ETT E R C h u rch D eci si o n . 6. Wh o Wi l l P rotect th e Be l i eve rs? E m a i l a d d re ss:

Yo u r ema i l add ress by M assi m o I ntrovigne | Apr 1 , 2026 | Op-ed s G l o ba l

Th e co u rt a ss u res us that i n d ivi d u a l d evotees Sign u p wi l l n ot be d iscri m i nated aga i n st. Th e rea l ity is d iffe re nt. by Massimo Introvigne S U P P O RT B I TT E R W I N T E R

Article 6 of 6. Read a rti cle 1 , a rticle 2, a rti cl e 3, a rticle 4, a nd a rti cl e 5.

M O ST R EA D Wo m en’s H istory M onth M ust N ot Forget Uygh u r Women

Th e N ew Law on Eth n i c U n ity: A Th reat to Ti beta n Bu dd h ism

Th e Tokyo H igh Cou rt U n ificatio n Ch u rch Decisi o n . 2. The G host of “B ra i nwash i ng” Ch i n a H a i ls Ja pa n’s Disso l ution of the U n ifi cation Ch u rch

A few hours after the dissolution decision was announced, believers all overJapan were Th e Tokyo H igh Cou rt U n ificatio n preventedfrom entering the premises of their local churches. Al-generated. Ch u rch Decisi o n . 5. Vi olati ng I ntern ati o na l Law The H igh Cou rt recogn izes that d issolvi ng th e U n ificati on Ch u rch as a rel igiou s Ch i n a’s N ew Yea r G ift to M ou nt corporati o n cou l d significa ntly affect the da i ly l ives of h u nd red s of thousa n ds of Ka i lash Pi lgri ms: M o re haVe suTref^d o ue’id’Tne’i r pastneS witrftn e’^ nufcn;’ tn e actudrnu mbe rdT - d evotees whose rel igious freed om a nd d a i ly l ives a re now at risk is m uch greater. L E GA L The cou rt solem n ly p roc la i m s that it d oes not wa nt to i nte rfe re with th e i n d ivid ua l rel igiou s l i berty of be l ievers. They “a re n ot prevented from contin u i ng a n Privacy Policy u n i n co rpo rated rel igi o us o rga n izati o n o r from n ewly form i ng one, n or a re th ey p revented fro m perfo rm i ng rel igi o u s acts o r newly p re pa ri ng faci l iti es a n d m ateria l s for use i n su ch a cts. That is, a dissol uti o n ord e r is not attend ed by a ny l ega l effect wh atsoeve r p ro h i biti ng or restricti ng the re l igio us a cts of bel ievers.”

The decisio n eve n atte m pts to a rgu e that the corporate freedom of rel igion of the bel i eve rs’ co m m u n ity wi l l stil l be p rotected : “They a re not preve nted fro m conti n u i ng the ‘Fa m i ly Fed e ration fo r Wo rld Pea ce a nd U nificatio n’ as a rel igious o rga n ization without lega l pe rso na l ity, n o r a re th ey preve nted fro m esta bl i sh i ng a new re l igi ou s orga n izati on . Th us, it can not be sa id th at th ey wou ld be u na b le to condu ct rel igio us activiti es as a n o rga n ization .”

Si nce th e rel igi ou s corpo rati o n ceases to exist, th e em p loym e nt contracts between it a nd its pa stors a n d other e m ployees “a re genera l ly u n d e rstood to te rm i nate” (a lthough th ey may co nti nu e for a wh i l e as e m ployees of the corporati on’s l iq u id ator, but without ca rryi ng out rel igiou s activiti es). H oweve r, the H igh Cou rt n otes that “a lthough th e em p loym ent contra cts between th e em p loyees a n d th e a p pe l la nt [the U n ifi cation C h u rch] as a j u rid ica l pe rson wou ld l ega lly term i nate, it rema i ns possi b le that those em pl oym e nt re lationsh i ps cou ld conti n u e a s em p loyment contracts between th e em pl oyees a nd the rel igious o rga n ization i n its no n-i nco rporated form .” I n the worst case sce na ri o, the H igh Co u rt assu mes that these pasto rs a n d other e m p loyees wou ld fi nd comfort i n the p rospect of su rvivi ng o n “u nem p l oym e nt i nsu ra nce a nd p u bl ic assi sta n ce.”

As fo r the socia l d iscri m i nati o n of bel ieve rs, the H igh Co u rt vi rtu o u sly co m ments that “there is no j u stification fo r the a p pe l la nt’s be l i evers to be su bjected to socia l d iscri m i nation, excl usio n, or pe rsecutio n as a resu lt of th e d issol uti o n o rd e r aga i nst th e a p pe l la nt. ( N eed l ess to say, socia l d isc ri m i nation, excl usion, or persec ution aga i nst th e a p pe l la nt’s bel i eve rs is i m pe rm issi bl e u n der a ny

ci rcu msta nces, rega rd less of the reasons).”

With a l l th ese noble wo rds, th e co u rt a d m its that th e resu lt of th e disso l ution o rder i s that, witho ut wa iti ng for the outcom e of the reco u rse fi led by the Ch u rc h with the Su preme Cou rt (a J a pa n ese lega l a n om a ly), a l iq u idato r wi l l i m med iately ta ke possessi on of the a ssets of the rel igi ou s co rpo ratio n, i nc l u d i ng pla ces of wo rsh i p, offices, a nd ba n k a ccou nts. It eu phem isti ca l ly ca l ls th ese “some i m ped i me nts” that m ay affect the bel ievers as “i nd i rect” co nseq u en ces of the d issol uti o n o rd er.

I m med iately mea ns im med iate ly. With i n h ou rs of the a n nou nce m e nt of th e d issol uti o n d ecision, lawyers a nd pol i ce officers a p pea red at the majority of th e 260 U n ificati o n Ch u rch p la ces of wors h i p th ro ugh o ut Ja pa n, seized a l l assets, confiscated the keys, a nd to ld bel ievers they wou ld not be a l lowed to enter the p rem ises. As reported by atto rn ey Patricia D uva l i n a statement at the U n ited N ati o n s i n Geneva, a d evote e revea l ed that “Eve n befo re the H igh Cou rt’s decisi o n was made pu bl i c, a p p roxi m ately 1 ,000 lawye rs a n d po l ice offi cers a ppea red to have col l a borated to ensu re that th e l iq u i dation p rocess we nt smooth ly. Desp ite assu ra nces from th e gove rn m e nt a nd the cou rts that re l igious freedo m wou ld be p rotected eve n after th e corporation’s d issol uti on, we q u i ckly fou nd ou rselves u na bl e to p ractice ou r re l igi o n . The si m u lta neou s d ispatch of l i q u i dators to chu rch es across the co u ntry resem b led a massive i nvestigation i nto a cri m i na l o rga n ization . Ch u rches a cross th e cou ntry were cl osed d u ri ng the d issol ution, l eavi ng bel i eve rs without a place of worsh i p.”

Even befo re th e disso l ution, loca l city cou nci ls a nd hotels refused to rent rooms to U n ification Ch u rch me m be rs, cla i m i ng th ey we re pa rt of a n “a nti-social” o rga n ization. If they ca n not use the prem ises seized by the l iq u idator no r rent oth e r p laces, where shou ld th ey gather for the i r re ligious a ctivities? Are th ese j ust “i m ped i m ents”? What a bo ut the H igh Co u rt’s assu ra n ce that bel i eve rs “wou l d n ot be preve nted fro m perfo rm i ng rel igious acts’? Who is protecti ng the fo l lowers from “socia l d iscri m i nation”?

Altho ugh th e l atter q u estio n re mai ns u na nswered , a nothe r q u estion has a n easy a nswer. Who i s active ly p ro m oti ng d iscri m i nation aga i n st U n ificatio n C h u rch bel i evers? Both the N ationa l N etwork of Lawyers Aga i nst Sp i ritua l Sa les and the J a pa n Fed e ratio n of Ba r Associations, wh ic h have long-sta n d i ng en m ity towa rd th e Ch u rch, iss u ed statements afte r the d issol ution o rder.

U n bel ieva b ly, th e N etwo rk a rgu es that th e ha rs h m ea su res i m posed o n U n ification Ch u rch bel ieve rs fo l lowi ng the d isso l ution a re i nsufficient. It ca l ls for new laws restricti ng their rights to proselytize a nd col l ect do natio ns, wheth e r as i nd ivid ua l bel ievers or on beha lf of a ny newly esta bl ished o rga n izations. It a lso wa nts ex-mem be rs who spea k p u b l i cly aga i nst the Ch u rch (those sociol ogists ca l l “a postates”) to be p rotected fro m “d efa mati on a nd sla nd e r.” The law provides b road protecti on aga i nst defa m ati on . H owever, it a p pea rs th e N etwork see ks a n add itio na l safegua rd — a s pecific sh ie ld that wo u ld preve nt i n depend e nt j ou rna l ists a n d schola rs from exposi ng th e a postates’ assertio ns wh e n th ey d ee m those c la i ms fa lse.

Family Federation members protesting for religious liberty in Hiroshima, 2024.

The Network i nsists that “on ly a very s ma l l porti on of vi cti ms h ave re po rted thei r d a mages.” The statem e nt i m pl i es that eve ry second - or th i rd -ge n e ration m e m ber is a “victi m,” a lth ough most of th em “have not yet s po ken out.” I n fact, every ch i ld born to pa rents who be l i eve i n the U n ification Ch u rch’s teach i ngs is a potentia l victi m .

The n u m be r of victi ms is th erefore li m itl ess. The Rel igious Co rpo ration Act a nd the Arti cl es of I ncorporati on of th e Ch u rch state that on ce a d issolved e ntity’s l iq u i datio n i s fi n i shed a nd victi ms (a n d th e i r lawye rs) have bee n pa id , a ny rema i n i ng assets sh o u ld be tra nsfe rred to a n entity d esignated by the origi na l o rga n ization . Lawyers a re c reati ng a syste m to ensu re that n o a ssets are l eft behi nd, a s new cla i ms from a d d ition a l “victi m s” wi l l conti n ue to a rise, potenti a l ly forever.

I n th e u n li kely event that a nyth i ng rema i ns, the H igh Cou rt ha s a l ready i ncl u ded i n its d ecision ma l i ciou s com m ents a bout Te nch i Sei kyo, the rel igiou s orga n ization l ega l ly i nco rporated s i nce 1 987, wh ich, si n ce 2009, the U nificati o n Ch u rch h a s i nd icated shou ld receive its resid ua l assets i n the eve nt of d issol ution . Essentia l ly, t h p N i a h C m i rt n ntp d t h a t Tp n r h i ^p i kvn a n d i tc M p a d P r i p ct h a d r n n c i cfp n t lv

V . I K. , . 1^ . , «_ W W I <. . Ml .« <-» . . .

m a i nta i ned friend ly relations with the U n ificatio n Ch u rc h a nd ca n not be consid e red tru ly i nd e pe ndent from th e Ch u rch. N atu ra l ly, a ch u rch wou ld wa nt its assets to pass to a frie n d ly rel igiou s orga n ization . I t wo u l d be stra nge fo r it to d esignate a h osti l e grou p.

The Network c la i ms that “u n l ess so m e p rovi si on is ma de,” some assets of th e d issolved U n ificati on Ch u rch m ay end u p with Ten ch i Sei kyo, wh ich is accused (with out evid e n ce) of havi ng a lso victi m ized “ma ny victi ms of the U n ifi cation Ch u rch .” Th e J a pa n Fed eratio n of Ba r Associ ati o n s recogn ized that the provis ion for transferri ng th e resid ua l assets to Te n ch i Sei kyo is l ega l ly va l i d, a nd states that “it is essentia l to ta ke lega l m easu res, such as esta b lish i ng a n exceptio n to the ru les rega rd i ng th e d istri bution of rema i n i ng assets i n th e case of d issol utio n by o rder, before the l i q u id ati o n proced u res a re com pl eted .” It a lso a sks for fu rth er l egi sl ati o n to “ta ckle the fu nda m enta l prob lems related to the a ntisocia l rel igi o u s activities that l i e be neath th e surface” a nd extend the “protecti o n” of “seco nd- gen eratio n m e m bers” to oth er “rel igious gro u ps.”

These co m ments a re very i nte resti ng beca use th ey show that the left-l ea n i ng a nti - U n ification-Ch u rch lawye rs, who sta rted th ei r pol itica l ly motivated ca m pa igns aga i nst the U n ificati o n Chu rch i n 1 987, are not h a ppy with j ust d issolvi ng the o rga n ization . They a lso n eed to kee p worki ng, fi nd i ng new ta rgets fo r thei r efforts.

Wh i le the H igh Cou rt c l a i m s that th ose wh o bel ieve i n the m essage of Reveren d M oo n a nd M other H a n as th e Tru e Pa rents “a re not p revented from co nti n u i ng a n u n i nco rporated rel igi o us organ izati o n o r from n ewly form i ng one,” the m i l ita nt l awye rs ca l l fo r m ea s u res to e ra d icate a ny gro u p that wi l l co nti n u e to prom ote th is bel ief. Th ey a lso h o pe to use the H igh Co u rt d ecis ion a s a p reced e ntto ta rget oth e r grou ps. M ost u nfortu nately, the H igh Cou rt’s com m ents attac ki ng the U n ification Ch u rch th eo logy d i rectly a nd p ro m oti ng th e pseu do-scie ntific theo ry of m i nd contro l offe r a sol id fou n dation for th ese ca m pa igns. Th e battl e for rel igiou s l i berty i n J a pa n is entering a n ew ph ase.

J a pa n, Re l igious Li be rty, U n ificatio n Chu rch

M a ssi m o I ntrovigne M a ssi m o I ntrovign e ( born J u n e 1 4, 1 9 55 i n Ro m e) is a n Ita l ia n soci o logist of rel igions. H e is the fou nd er a nd m a nagi ng d i recto r of the Center fo r Stud ies o n N ew Re l igi on s (C ES N U R), a n i nte rnationa l netwo rk of sch ol a rs who stu dy n ew re l igio us movements. I ntrovigne is th e a uth o r of so m e 70 boo ks a nd m ore th a n 1 00 a rticles i n the fie l d of sociol ogy of rel igi o n . H e was the ma i n a uthor of the Enciclopedia delle religioni in Italia ( E n cycloped ia of Rel igi o ns i n Ita ly). H e is a m e m ber of th e ed ito ria l boa rd fo r th e I nte rd isc i p l i na ry l ou rna l of Resea rch on Re l igio n an d of the executive board of U n ive rsity of Ca liforn i a Press’ N ova Re l igio. Fro m Ja n u a ry 5 to Dece m be r 3 1 , 20 1 1 , he h as served as th e “Representative o n com bati ng raci sm, xenop h ob ia a n d d i scri m i nation, with a specia l focu s on d iscri m i nati on aga i nst Ch ristians and mem be rs of oth e r rel igi o n s” of th e O rga n izati on for Secu rity a nd Co-operati o n i n Eu ro pe (OSC E). From 20 1 2 to 20 1 5 he served as cha i rperson of the O bse rvato ry of Re l igious Li berty, i n stituted by the Ita l ia n M i nistry of Foreign Affa i rs i n ord e r to m o n itor probl e ms of rel igi ou s l i berty o n a wo rl dwide sca l e . www. cesn u r.org/

R EA D M O R E

Th e To kyo H igh Cou rt The To kyo H igh Co u rt Th e To kyo H igh Co u rt U n ificati o n C h u rch U n ifi cati on Ch u rc h U n ifi cati o n C h u rch D ecis i o n . 5 . Vi olati ng Dec i si o n . 4. Th e 2009 Deci si o n . 3 . “Sp i ritu a l Sa les” I nte rnati o na l Law “Co m p l ia n ce Dec l a rati o n” a n d Excessive Do nati o n s M a r 3 1 , 2026 M a r 3 0, 2 0 2 6 M a r 28, 2026

E m a i l a d d ress: Via Co nfienza 1 9 O x o 1 0 1 2 1 - Tori no You r ema i l add ress Italy i nfo@b itterwi nter.org Don a te