State’s Faith War: Prosecution to Dissolution

From criminal prosecution to possible dissolution, Gingrich warns that the state’s trial against Hak Ja Han is part of a broader war against religious freedom

The conviction of Hak Ja Han (한학자), co-founder and international leader of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, has become the centerpiece of a much broader controversy over religious freedom in South Korea. In an opinion article published by The Washington Times on 31^st August, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich argues that the case should not be viewed simply as a dispute over political financing or as an ordinary criminal prosecution. Rather, he presents it as evidence of a systematic, state-sponsored campaign to weaken and ultimately dismantle religious movements regarded as politically or socially conservative.

See also Preserve the FFWPU Bridge to North Korea

See also Embracing Role of Peacemaker When Persecuted

See also Mother Han: Guilty Without Proof?

See also International Outcry Over Hak Ja Han (83) Verdict

See also Hak Ja Han: A Nobel Case for Courage and Peace

See also Mother Han’s Legal War: 2 Years of Uncertainty

See also Mother Han Seeking Bail and Release Extension

Gingrich places the South Korean case within what he describes as a worldwide assault on religious freedom. In his assessment, this assault has traditionally been associated with openly authoritarian or communist regimes, where governments have used state power to suppress religious belief and organizations considered hostile to official ideology. What concerns him, however, is that similar mechanisms are increasingly appearing within democratic societies. He describes the phenomenon as a “global war on God”, arguing that the state is being transformed from a guarantor of religious liberty into an instrument for restricting and eliminating religious communities.

For Gingrich, South Korea represents an especially important test case because it is a longstanding democratic ally of the United States. The country therefore occupies a very different political category from authoritarian states where religious repression might be expected. Since the Korean War, American military forces have remained in South Korea as part of the broader effort to protect the country’s security and democratic system. Gingrich argues that the use of state power against religious organizations in such a country should therefore concern not only South Koreans but the entire democratic world.

He points first to a series of cases involving Christian leaders. Presbyterian pastor Son Hyun-bo (손현보) of the Presbyterian Segyero Church (세계로교회) in the large city of Busan, Gingrich writes, was imprisoned and convicted after opposing what he regarded as a “woke” agenda in public schools and defending Christian values. He also cites the arrest and prosecution of 95-year-old Lee Man-hee (이만희), leader of Shincheonji Church, together with investigations and raids involving other churches. Gingrich interprets these cases as indications of a broader pattern in which religious organizations can become targets when their beliefs or political positions are perceived as incompatible with the priorities of the government.

The case of Hak Ja Han (한학자 – also called Mother Han – is, however, central to his argument.

Mother Han, 83, became the sole leader of the Family Federation following the death of her husband, Sun Myung Moon (문선명), in 2012. Gingrich emphasizes Moon‘s own history of imprisonment under communism and portrays the Family Federation as a global religious movement that has expanded into more than 140 countries. He also stresses activities associated with the organization and Mother Han‘s leadership, including international conflict resolution, interfaith dialogue and advocacy for religious freedom. These activities, he notes, contributed to her nomination for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize.

Against this background, Gingrich portrays Mother Han‘s prosecution as particularly troubling. He points to her age and serious health problems, noting that she is legally blind, suffers from a severe heart condition and underwent major shoulder surgery while in detention. At the time of his article, she had spent approximately 340 days in pretrial detention. Seoul special prosecutors had also sought a 13-year prison sentence on allegations involving bribery and violations of political-funds legislation.

Gingrich argues that the significance of the case extends beyond the specific criminal charges. In his view, the prosecution represents the first stage of a much broader campaign directed at the Family Federation itself. He describes the criminal proceedings as the “spearhead” of a coordinated effort in which legal prosecution, political rhetoric and proposed legislation could work together to place increasing pressure on the organization.

Particularly significant, in Gingrich’s interpretation, is the possibility of institutional dissolution. He points to statements attributed to members of the government of President Lee Jae-myung (이재명) concerning the use of foreign dissolution orders as a model for disbanding the Family Federation. He also highlights President Lee’s public characterization of the organization as “heretical” and his call for its dissolution.

For Gingrich, such rhetoric becomes especially consequential when combined with legislative initiatives. He discusses Civil Code Amendment Bill No. 2215932, which he says has been nicknamed the “Church Dissolution Act.” According to his description, the proposed legislation would give the government extensive powers to audit, inspect and potentially dissolve religious organizations that it determines have “interfered in politics”. Gingrich warns that broadly defined or undefined criteria could potentially be applied far beyond the organization currently under scrutiny.

The issue, therefore, is not merely whether a particular religious leader committed a criminal offense. Gingrich frames the deeper question as one of state power and religious autonomy: how far may a democratic government go in regulating, investigating, financially penalizing or ultimately dissolving a religious organization because of its political activities or perceived political influence?

He notes that major Christian organizations, including the World Evangelical Alliance, a global alliance of evangelical Christians, have expressed opposition to the proposed legislation precisely because of the possibility that vague standards could eventually be used against other religious communities. From this perspective, the Family Federation becomes a possible precedent: a government action initially justified against one controversial or politically unpopular movement could establish legal mechanisms subsequently applicable to a much wider range of religious organizations.

Gingrich consequently presents South Korea as a warning to other democracies. If an elderly religious leader with an international peacebuilding record can be imprisoned and convicted, while the organization she leads faces possible dissolution through the combined use of criminal proceedings, political pressure and new legislative powers, he argues that no religious community can assume that it is permanently protected from state overreach.

His conclusion is therefore directed beyond Seoul. The conviction of Hak Ja Han (한학자), in Gingrich’s view, should prompt democratic societies to reconsider the boundaries between legitimate law enforcement and governmental interference with religious freedom. The central question is whether South Korea will remain a democratic “beacon of freedom” or move toward what he calls a communist-inspired, anti-religious authoritarianism.

For Gingrich, the international community should not remain silent. He calls on democratic governments, and particularly the United States, to defend religious liberty and to make clear that attacks on religious organizations can have consequences for international relationships. He specifically urges President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to raise the issue with Seoul.

The larger warning running through the article is stark: when political disagreement with a religious movement becomes grounds for mobilizing the coercive power of the state against its leaders, institutions and assets, the principle of religious freedom itself is placed at risk. In Gingrich’s interpretation, the prosecution of Mother Han is therefore not simply a Korean legal controversy. It is a test of whether modern democracies can resist the temptation to use state power to dismantle religious movements they regard as troublesome, conservative or politically inconvenient.

See also Preserve the FFWPU Bridge to North Korea

See also Embracing Role of Peacemaker When Persecuted

See also Mother Han: Guilty Without Proof?

See also International Outcry Over Hak Ja Han (83) Verdict

See also Hak Ja Han: A Nobel Case for Courage and Peace

See also Mother Han’s Legal War: 2 Years of Uncertainty

See also Mother Han Seeking Bail and Release Extension

See also Tax Rules Put Overseas Religious Work at Risk

See also No Charges Over Family Federation Probe Delay

See also States Weaponizing the Law in War on Faiths

Text: Knut Holdhus, editor

Featured image above: From prosecution to dissolution. Illustration: ChatGPT, September 2026.

Related to state’s faith war: Mother Han: The Dangers of Guilt by Position

Related to state’s faith war: Mother Han: Beyond One Trial – the Wider Stakes

Related to state’s faith war: At Issue: Religions Taking Reality Seriously

Also related to state’s faith war: Religion Between Engagement and Withdrawal

Also related to state’s faith war: State Failure and Non-State Peace Projects

More, related to state’s faith war: Detention: Harsh Cell Conditions Spark Outcry

And more, related to state’s faith war: Official Statement on Recent Media Coverage

Also related to state’s faith war: Defense Challenges Core Claims of Indictment

And also related to state’s faith war: Unificationism Emerging as a World Religion

More, related to state’s faith war: Decline of Family Values Creates Social Crisis

And more, related to state’s faith war: Unificationism, Industry, and Cold War Survival

And more, related to state’s faith war: Movement Promoting Family as National Solution

Yet more, related to state’s faith war: “Church Closure” Risks in South Korea’s New Bill

Still more, related to state’s faith war: Mother Han Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize 2026

Also related to state’s faith war: Democratic Party’s Assault on Family Federation

And even more, related to state’s faith war: Mother Han (82) in Poor Health in Damp, Cold Cell

And still more, related to state’s faith war: Korean Crisis: “True Democracy Must Serve Heaven”

And yet more, related to state’s faith war: Faith Leaders Protest State Assault on Religion

And more, related to state’s faith war: Trump Raises Alarm Over Church Raids in Korea

Even more, related to state’s faith war: Mike Pompeo Calls Probe of Co-Founder “Lawfare”

Still more, related to state’s faith war:  Korean Faith Crackdown: USA Urged to Confront It

Yet more, related to state’s faith war: Korean Bribery Scandal: Media Clears Federation

Related to state’s faith war: Lawfare: State Uses Legal System in War on Faith

More, related to state’s faith war: Shocked Author: “Japan Ignores Basics of Justice”

 Still more, related to state’s faith war: Legal Inconsistencies A Blow to Democracy

Even more, related to state’s faith war: Japan: Court Accused of Using Speculation

Also related to state’s faith war: MEXT’s Legal Spin and “Dissolution at All Costs”

Also related to state’s faith war: UN Report: Japan’s Lawfare Against Faith Minority

And also related to state’s faith war: Protesting No Transparency in Closed-Door Trial