Reconsideration of the detachment of political power and religious organization

1. What is meant by the Japanese Word "Sei-kyou-bunri"?

I wish to make clear that what is meant by the Japanese Word"Sei-kyou-bunri" which sounds like the detachment between politics and religion on the basis of literal meaning of Japanese characters.

Contrary to the imagination made by the most people, "Sei" means political power, not politics. Definitely speaking, "Sei" means power of nation and power of local government. "Kyo" means religious organization, not religion in general. I have to make clear this matter, so as not to make it a play of words.

When we discuss on "Sei-kyou-bunri" or the above-mentioned detachment, we are focussing on the Article 20, Section 1 of the Japanese Constitution, stipulating that this Constitution guarantees to whomever the right to believe in religion, and that no religious organization is allowed to exercise the political power, based on the privilege given by the nation.

The point is that, who and what is prohibited by the provision that no
religious organization is allowed to exercise the political power.
Those who think highly of the right to believe in religion would be tended to interpret this provision rigidly, on the other hand those who do not would be tended to interpret them loosely. As far as I am concerned, I stand on the former position since I regard the Article 20 as well as the Article 19 as the most fundamental provisions to guarantee the right for freedom to the member of the nation. For your information's sake, the Article 19 is the provision stipulating that the freedom for conscience and thought are never to be invaded.

It is needless to say that the subject of the sentence that no religious organization is allowed to exercise the political power is obviously religious organization, indicating what is the object of regulation. Nevertheless, Sokagakkai or Komeito insists that our constitution is aimed for regulating the administration, not regulating other entities including religious organizations.

Therefore, they insist that this provision stipulates that the administration of the nation is not allowed to let a religious organization exercise the political power. This way of interpretation is logically strange, in the light of the regulations of the Constitution given upon entities other than the administration of the nation. For instance, the Article 30 of the Constitution provides that a member of the nation has obligation to pay capital-gains taxes pursuant to a law.

Under the circumstance, the said provision should be interpreted in the manner that religious organization is prohibited to exercise the political power.

2. A limitation or restriction imposed on the political activity of religious organizations

The most important part of this interpretation of the said provision would be what is meant by the sentence that religious organizations exercise the political power.

At first, let me see the assertion of Sokagakkai or Komeito. That is as follows:
That religious organization exercises political power signifies that religious organizations exercise the power of police or taxation, based on the entrust from governments, being against the Constitution. There is no more limitation than this to be imposed on the political activity of religious organization.

But under the current Constitution, it is nothing but the violation of the Constitution that religious organization exercises the power of police, taxation, and justice, based on the entrust from the government. Besides, the said situation cannot be imagined even virtually. For instance, let me think of the case that Sokagakkai exercises the power of justice, based on the entrust from the government. Who would be the judge for this trial? Who would be the prosecutor? What qualification does the plaintiff's lawyer have at the above-mentioned black trial? No one can imagine them.

That is my refutation against the summary of refutation made by Sokagakkai or Komeito against my original view.
(Refer to the Nagatacho-Tsurezuregusa No62)

It is obvious that the interpretation made by Sokagakkai or Komeito does not make sense, from the standpoint of thinking highly of the freedom of a member of the nation to believe in the religion. The interpretation of this provision is to be made, based on the viewpoint of protecting the right to believe in religion.

At first, we have to consider why the provision handling the relationship between religious organization and the administration was incorporated into the Constitution. That is because, indeed good believer of the religion might be indifferent toward secular power, but the secular power means very much to the general public.

When a religious organization set up special relationship with the administration, such religious organization obtains advantageous position, as compared to other religious organizations and people with no particular religion, being unfair from the viewpoint of protecting the right of other religious organizations or people with no belief to believe in the religion. That is the reason why the provision was incorporated into the Constitution. In other words, in my view, this provision stipulates that religious organization should not take advantage of secular power when spreading their belief.

When the interpretation of the sentence that no religious organization is allowed to exercise the political power is made from the above mentioned viewpoint , this provision means to regulate the activity of the religious organization to a large extent.

Indeed, any religious organization is guaranteed by the Constitution to do political activity as one society. But obviously, the Constitution prohibits that religious organizations exercise the political power.
The point is that , what is the limitation or restriction imposed by the Constitution on the political activity of religious organizations.

Indeed , there is a way of thinking that to impose the restriction on the political activity of religious organization might not be allowed, in the light of the provision stipulated by the Article 21 of the Constitution protecting the freedom of holding meeting, building society , and freedom of expression.

But, it would be possible to impose certain restriction on the religious organization for the purpose of higher dimension as protecting the right to believe in religion.That is not contradictory each other in the provisions of the Constitution.

3.What is meant by the phrase of exercising the political power?

- Post Mr.Kato's challenge in the LDP.-

It is my view that our Constitution prohibits that one religious organization organizes the political party under the control of the organization "Afterwards, referred to as religious political party," and sets up the candidates for the national election.

This is because any party will aim for the administration once the party sets up the candidates for the election.

It is nothing but the matter prohibited by the Constitution saying that no religious organization is allowed to exercise the political power that a religious organization tries to obtain the political power, directly or indirectly. How many persons are elected from the party does not matter.

When one religious political party tries to obtain the administration, the party has to get a majority in the House of Representatives. But, in case of coalition government, it is needless to get the majority. But, even in this case, the religious party can exercise big influence over the administration.

Religious organization can grasp the power of the nation directly or exercise the influence over administration, by putting the religious political party between them.

Our Constitution prohibits that religious organization virtually controls the political power or tries to control them in the above manner, regarding them as exercising the political power.

As I mentioned before, when particular religious organization virtually controls the administration, the organization gets the advantageous position due to the relationship with the administration, compared to the other religious organization.
The constitution stipulates the principle of the detachment between political power and religious organization so that any particular religious organization cannot obtain the advantageous position.

Sokagakkai or Komeito insist that both entities are legally differently existed. It is a matter of course that both are legally differently existed. That is not the point.
The point is whether the relationship between Sokagakkai and Komeito is one which one entity controls the other. That is to say, the point is whether Sokagakkai virtually controls the party or not.

It is true that Sokagakkai and Komeito made endeavor so as to give impression to the people that both entities are detached from the standpoint of Seikyoubunri, or the detachment between political power and religious organization.

But, can Komeito exist without the religious organization Sokagakkai? I believe that they cannot exist. As long as the existence itself depends on the Sokagakkai, it is fairly said that Komeito is the political party virtually controlled by Sokagakkai.

In addition, Sokagakkai or Komeito insists that since their procurement of the seats in the Diet, have they violated the right to believe in the religion. Komeito insists that they are one of the parties which think highly of the right to believe in the religion.

But if the Komeito violates the right to believe in the religion, such activity is considered to be big problem.

The point is that Komeito obtained the seats in the Diet and in fact formed a coalition government, although the seats they obtained are limited.
The participation of Komeito into the coalition government signifies that Sokagakkai virtually controlling the Komeito is controlling the political power. This is very much contradictory against the provision of the Constitution that no religious organization is allowed to exercise the political power.

4.Obligation of the policymakers and the mission of the statesmen

Is it allowed for Dietmen or statesmen to oversee this contradiction, in the face of the above-mentioned contradiction? The Article 99 of the Constitution stipulates that Emperor, Regent, Ministers, Dietmen, judges, other officials have the obligation to abide by and pay respect to this Constitution. This is referred to as the obligation to observe the Constitution.

Even if some Dietman does not stand on the totally equal footing, it is very natural that those who understand Japanese language normally doubt the coalition of LDP and Komeito as infringement of the Constitution, in the light of the provision of the Constitution that no religious organization is allowed to exercise the political power.

Statesman who pushes the coalition positively will be punished by the history. Most people are opposed to the coalition of LDP with Komeito. In spite of this situation, a statesman who admits the coalition passively, putting priority on the self- political interest, will face the severe complaints in the future. I feel myself as helpless because I could not hinder such development as one Dietman of the LDP.

And it is atonement for my Sinn that I am now facing inconvenience, due to the political attack from Sokagakkai or Komeito.

What on earth is the mission of the statesman? Needless to say, That is to protect the independence of the nation, to secure the security of the society, to promote the political, economic, and social freedom of the people. What on earth change the devastated situation of our country at the end of the Second World War into the current affluent country? There were indeed, even in the devastated situation, highly educated people in our country, technologies at the high level, and racial solidarity.

But, there existed newly legislated Japanese Constitution to guarantee the freedom to the people. No one can deny that under this Constitution capability of the people were exerted in every field to bring about fruitful results.

Our country developed in the above manner came into a deadlock in every field, being stagnant politically, economically, and socially. Now, our country needs the freedom at the one step higher dimension. Namely, that is to promote the deregulation in every field, and thus to secure the free and vivid activity of the people. There is no way to break through this predicament, other than this strategy.

Just before the start of the 21st century, although Japan has to promote the deregulation, coalition government of Jijiko and subsequent Jikoho were born. This fact reveals the level of freedom about which our statesmen are seeking for.
The coalition government which Komeito participated into is the one being contradictory against the Article 20 of the Constitution, giving menace to the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Under such administration, it is very difficult to anticipate fruitful results coming from free and vivid activity of the people. In addition to this, the participation of Komeito into the administration has brought about conflict in the every field of the society. Originally, religion is aimed for relieving the soul. Therefore, the opposition to the coalition of Jiko based on the religious passion gave rise to the conflict in the politics, causing the political confrontation which is never reconciled. Besides, from advanced countries developed under the mind of freedom Japan will sooner or later receive the insult and the laugh.

Even if there is freedom in one country, happiness is never guaranteed. But, those who lost freedom will never be happy. True courageous people will never appear where freedom of soul is not guaranteed. The country without true courageous people will never develop smoothly. As long as the coalition government of Jikoho continues, our country will never avoid this proposition. Accordingly, I have been opposing to the coalition of Jiko, and am opposing it. To stop fighting against the coalition of Jiko signifies the cease of my political activity.

This thesis was made, summarizing compactly what I have mentioned before. Namely, I added some refutation to the refutation made by Sokagakkai or Komeito against my view. In order to understand this issue deeply, your reading my following thesis and interview is appreciated.

Main thesis : The coalition government of Jijiko is against the Constitution.
Refutation: To confirm the principle of detachment of political power and religious organization (stipulated by the Constitution)