S. Korea: What Happens When Faith Becomes a Crime?

A comment on President Lee’s Dec. 2025 comments on dissolution: The erosion of religious freedom in public discourse when faith is treated as a social offense

Religious affairs reporter Jeong Seong-su examines the question “When Faith Becomes a Crime, Where Are We Headed?” in an article published in the South Korean daily Segye Ilbo on 16^th December.

See also When Probes Risk Becoming Collective Judgment

See also: Peaceful Worship Treated as Crime in China

See also Some Religions Are Welcome in Politics, Some Not

See also Faith, Finance, Fairness: Rethinking the Narrative

See also Escalation in Probe: 13-Hour Police Questioning

See also Court Delays Bail Decision for Mother Han (82)

Jeong argues that in contemporary society, debates surrounding religion are no longer confined to theological disagreement or institutional critique. Increasingly, faith itself is treated as a source of suspicion, and in some cases as something approaching criminality. This shift marks a troubling moment. When belief systems are no longer merely questioned but are framed as inherently dangerous or morally suspect, society enters a zone where criticism risks transforming into condemnation.

Jeong’s opinion piece examines this precarious boundary and asks a fundamental question: what happens to a democratic society when faith is no longer regarded as a protected freedom, but as a social offense?

According to the Segye Ilbo article, public discourse toward certain religious groups has hardened noticeably. Rather than measured analysis, it often adopts the tone of prosecution. Narratives accumulate and reinforce one another: accusations of rigid doctrinal absolutism, closed organizational cultures centered on powerful leaders, strategic engagement with political actors, and alleged attempts to fuse religious ideals with national policy or large-scale development initiatives.

Over time, these elements cease to be debated individually. Instead, they crystallize into a single, fixed image that defines an entire religion in the public imagination. Repeated across media platforms and social commentary, this image becomes less an argument than an assumption, resistant to nuance or contextual examination.

The article of Jeong does not deny that criticism may be warranted. History provides ample examples of religious institutions that have caused social harm, provoked legitimate controversy, or failed ethical standards. Accountability, in such cases, is essential.

The central concern, however, lies elsewhere: criticism increasingly operates not as a tool for correction or reform, but as a mechanism of collective judgment. Once a religion is framed as fundamentally culpable, facts and context lose relevance. Debate gives way to a presumption of guilt, and public conversation begins to resemble a trial in which the verdict has already been decided.

This transformation has serious consequences. Criticism serves a vital role in democratic society, particularly when belief systems intersect with power, politics, or public life. Yet when criticism expands into the assertion that faith itself is inherently dangerous, it crosses into the realm of social exclusion.

At that point, the issue is no longer misconduct or policy, but identity. Entire communities are repositioned as objects of fear or hostility, and the language of rational evaluation is replaced by emotional shorthand ‒ suspicion, resentment, and moral panic. The erosion of the boundary between critique and stigmatization signals a deeper erosion of democratic norms.

The article in the Segye Ilbo illustrates this dynamic through the example of the proposed Korea-Japan undersea tunnel. As a massive infrastructure initiative with far-reaching economic, technical, diplomatic, and security implications, the project demands careful assessment within the framework of national strategy and public policy.

However, debate around the proposal is frequently diverted away from these substantive considerations and redirected toward the religious motivations allegedly associated with it. In doing so, a complex public-policy discussion is reduced to a question of religious legitimacy. The focus shifts from feasibility and public interest to an implicit interrogation of belief, turning civic debate into something resembling doctrinal scrutiny.

This tendency reflects a broader misconception: that the presence of religious motivation automatically negates public value. The article challenges this assumption by pointing to historical precedent. Many advances in peacebuilding, human rights, education, welfare, and social reform originated from religious moral frameworks before being translated into secular institutions and widely accepted norms.

The decisive question has never been whether an idea was religiously inspired, but whether it met public standards of accountability, inclusiveness, and social consensus. Meaningful debate should therefore concentrate on outcomes, governance, and public impact ‒ not on the legitimacy of belief itself.

Yet contemporary discourse often bypasses this evaluative process. Instead of scrutinizing individual actions or proposals, society increasingly applies a blanket logic: if a specific religion is involved, suspicion is intensified by default. Political engagement, civic participation, or social initiatives undertaken by religious groups are interpreted not on their merits, but through a predetermined negative frame.

As a result, case-specific judgment disappears, replaced by a simplistic and irrational formula that equates religious identity with inherent wrongdoing. Jeong’s article argues that this approach resembles collective exclusion far more than principled critique.

Perhaps the most overlooked consequence of this climate is its impact on ordinary believers. These individuals are not abstract institutions or political actors; they are citizens who work, pay taxes, raise families, and participate in everyday social life. Nevertheless, as controversy escalates, they are stripped of individuality and absorbed into a stigmatized collective image.

The normalization of extreme rhetoric ‒ such as calls for the dissolution of entire religious organizations ‒ reveals how far discourse has drifted from democratic restraint. At that point, the question is no longer about regulation or accountability, but about the limits of permissible exclusion.

The opinion piece by Jeong Seong-su further complicates the prevailing narrative by highlighting the global footprint of a religion that began modestly in postwar Korea and expanded over several decades to nearly every corner of the world. Its involvement in interfaith dialogue, peace forums, humanitarian initiatives, education, healthcare, and cultural preservation challenges the reductive portrayal that dominates domestic debate.

Yet despite these contributions, the religion continues to be consumed through a narrow lens of doctrinal controversy, labeled and dismissed rather than examined in full context. This raises an uncomfortable question about whether a society that claims to value diversity is truly practicing inclusion.

The article draws a firm ethical line. Unlawful acts, violence, and human rights abuses committed in the name of religion must be confronted without hesitation. No belief system is exempt from the rule of law.

However, when society moves from condemning actions to criminalizing belief itself, it undermines the very foundations of freedom and tolerance upon which democracy rests. A mature democratic society is not one that eradicates uncomfortable beliefs, but one that maintains principled standards ensuring criticism does not devolve into hatred. When faith itself becomes a crime, Jeong’s article warns, society forfeits its claim to genuine freedom.

See also When Probes Risk Becoming Collective Judgment

See also Faith, Finance, Fairness: Rethinking the Narrative

See also: Peaceful Worship Treated as Crime in China

See also Some Religions Are Welcome in Politics, Some Not

See also Climate of Suspicion: Peace Reframed as Politics

See also Escalation in Probe: 13-Hour Police Questioning

See also Court Delays Bail Decision for Mother Han (82)

Text: Knut Holdhus, editor

Featured image above: From a large demonstration by Family Federation supporters in support of religious freedom, held near Seoul City Hall 2nd November 2025. Photo: Masataka Asaoka.

See also President’s Own Party Drawn into Lobbying Claims

See also Balcomb: “Prosecutors’ Case Is Politically Driven”

See also Likely Long Legal Battle Ahead for Mother Han

See also Bail Hearing with Mother Han’s Spiritual Message

See also Trial Day 1: Mother Han Denies All Allegations

See also Asia Today Editorial: “Avoid Detention of Clergy!”

See also Complaint Filed Against Lead Special Prosecutor

See also SKorea’s Polarization Shapes Views of Mother Han

See also Inside the Detention Center: A 10-Minute Visit

See also Health Concerns: 82-Year-Old Pretrial Detainee

See also In Tiny Solitary Cell: Irreversible Harm Caused

See also Mother Han Briefly Released for Medical Reasons

See also Message of Religious Unity from Detention Cell

See also Over 50 Days in Vigil Outside Detention Center

Related to when faith becomes a crime: Mother Han’s December Trial: Long Detention Ahead

Also related to when faith becomes a crime: A 10-Minute Visit to Mother Han in Detention

Also related to when faith becomes a crime: Denying Allegations: Hak Ja Han (82) in Inquiry

Also related to when faith becomes a crime: SKorean Court’s Sharp Criticism of Prosecutors

And also related to when faith becomes a crime: Detention: Harsh Cell Conditions Spark Outcry

More, related to when faith becomes a crime: Ugly: Arrest Warrant Sought for Hak Ja Han (82)

And more, related to when faith becomes a crime: Critics Warn of “Authoritarian Drift” in SKorea

Even more, related to when faith becomes a crime: Court Decision to Prolong Detention Condemned

Still more, related to when faith becomes a crime: Co-Founder, 82, Questioned 9 Hours by Prosecutors

Also related to when faith becomes a crime: Democratic Party’s Assault on Family Federation

And even more, related to when faith becomes a crime: Mother Han (82) in Poor Health in Damp, Cold Cell

And still more, related to when faith becomes a crime: Korean Crisis: “True Democracy Must Serve Heaven”

And yet more, related to when faith becomes a crime: Faith Leaders Protest State Assault on Religion

Also related to when faith becomes a crime: News Release Blasts Indictment of Hak Ja Han, 82

More, related to when faith becomes a crime: 70 Years On: Detention History Repeats Itself

And more, related to when faith becomes a crime: Trump Raises Alarm Over Church Raids in Korea

Even more, related to when faith becomes a crime: Mike Pompeo Calls Probe of Co-Founder “Lawfare”

Still more, related to when faith becomes a crime:  Korean Faith Crackdown: USA Urged to Confront It

Yet more, related to when faith becomes a crime: Korean Bribery Scandal: Media Clears Federation

And also related to when faith becomes a crime: Raids Blur Line Between Justice and Politics

More, related to when faith becomes a crime: Heavy-Handed Raid on Sacred Sites Condemned

And more, related to when faith becomes a crime: Scholar Sounds Alarm: State Raiding the Sacred

Even more, related to when faith becomes a crime: Raids as Political Spectacle and Media Trials

And even more, related to when faith becomes a crime: Religious Freedom: 330 Faith Leaders Speak Up

Yet more, related to when faith becomes a crime: Yonhap: Repeated Allegations Create Public Bias

Still more, related to when faith becomes a crime: Japan Following the Way of China

And still more, related to when faith becomes a crime: Warning of Threat from CCP Fearing Korean Unity

And also related to when faith becomes a crime: Japan’s Dissolution Case Echoes China’s Playbook