Today the Family Federation, Tomorrow a Temple?

Japan’s religious double standard under scrutiny as Buddhist priest warns of dangerous precedent for all faiths set by today’s dissolution of the Family Federation

Continued from Buddhist Priest Warns Japan ‘Cult’ Ban Risks All

Religion and politics: is there a double standard?

As pointed out by Dr. Massimo Introvigne in his Bitter Winter article 21^st July, the question of political connections also concerns Buddhist priest Shindō Mizuta (水田真道).

See also Zen Head: “FFWPU Case A Warning to All Religions”

See also Mistrust of Religion: State Persecuting Minority

See also Large Zen Group: “Dangerous Precedent Set”

See also Japan: FFWPU Case Signals Dangerous State Power

The Family Federation has been criticized for its historical connections with politicians of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party. In a video conversation with literary critic Eitaro Ogawa (小川榮太郎), Mizuta does not deny that religious organizations and political actors can have relationships. Instead, he asks whether such relationships are being judged consistently.

He refers to an incident involving protest boats off the coast of Henoko in Nago City on the southern island of Okinawa, near a US military base. One of the boat captains was a pastor associated with the United Church of Christ in Japan, while another had previously been a candidate for the Japanese Communist Party.

For Mizuta, the question is therefore not whether religion and politics ever intersect. They plainly do. The question is whether such interaction is being treated as inherently problematic only when it involves a particular religious movement.

He worries that Buddhist priests themselves may sometimes repeat accusations against the Family Federation without sufficiently examining the principles underlying those accusations. In his view, religious leaders should be particularly careful about participating in collective condemnation.

What would dissolution mean for a Buddhist temple?

Perhaps the most powerful part of Mizuta’s argument comes when he considers what would happen if the same kind of dissolution order were directed against Kongoji Temple, where he is chief priest.

A court-appointed liquidator could potentially take control of the temple’s assets. These would not merely consist of abstract financial holdings. They could include the temple buildings, land, bank accounts, ritual clothing and ceremonial implements. Residents of the temple could potentially lose their homes.

This is particularly significant because Japanese temples are often simultaneously religious institutions and family residences. A dissolution could therefore affect not only the organization but also the priest and his family.

Mizuta explains that more than 80 percent of Kongoji’s activities involve wakes and funerals conducted in the main hall. If the temple were prevented from operating normally, these religious services could no longer be performed. The priest could lose his position and become unable to carry out funerals for members of the surrounding community.

In other words, dissolution could effectively mean the destruction of the temple as a functioning religious institution.

This thought experiment is central to Mizuta’s warning. The question is not whether Kongoji is currently threatened with dissolution. It is whether a legal mechanism capable of producing such consequences for one religious community could eventually be applied to another.

A modern “Purple Robe Incident”?

Mizuta compares the present controversy with the Purple Robe Incident of the Edo period, when the shogunate in 1627 intervened in disputes concerning religious authority and the appointment and recognition of Buddhist priests. Zen master Takuan Sōhō (沢庵 宗彭 – 1573–1645) and others opposed the government’s interference.

Mizuta sees the present situation as a possible modern equivalent – a “Purple Robe Incident” today. He therefore asks why more religious leaders are not speaking out when the state intervenes so extensively in the affairs of another religious organization.

Ogawa shares this concern. He questions whether a dissolution process should have consequences extending into such fundamental religious activities as conducting funerals. He also argues that if historical conduct can be scrutinized selectively across long periods of time, authorities could theoretically find reasons to investigate almost any religious tradition.

Both men are also concerned about the role of the media. Ogawa describes what he calls “information magic”: the ability of repeated reporting to amplify certain narratives while making other perspectives almost invisible. In particular, he argues that the voices of people who identify themselves as victims can receive extensive attention, while believers who remain committed to their religious community may receive much less.

A warning that goes beyond the Family Federation

The significance of Mizuta’s intervention therefore lies less in defending every action of the Family Federation than in raising a constitutional and religious-liberty question: What limits should exist on state intervention in religious organizations?

For supporters of the Family Federation, the dissolution order is naturally experienced as a direct attack on their own religious community. Mizuta asks the broader question of what happens when the same principle is normalized.

A Buddhist temple, a Christian denomination, a new religious movement or another faith community may differ radically in theology and organization. Yet all depend upon some degree of protection from arbitrary state interference if freedom of religion is to have substantive meaning.

Mizuta and Ogawa ultimately appeal to religious leaders to look beyond denominational boundaries. Their argument is that solidarity should not depend on whether one approves of another religion. Precisely because religious communities differ, they need principles that protect them all.

From this perspective, the Family Federation case is not merely about the fate of one controversial religious organization. It is also a test of how far the Japanese state may go in determining which religious communities are entitled to exist as functioning institutions – and, consequently, of what religious freedom will mean in Japan in the future.

See also part 1: Buddhist Priest Warns Japan ‘Cult’ Ban Risks All

Text: Knut Holdhus, editor

Featured image above: The dissolution order reaching temples. Illustration: ChatGPT, August 2026.

Related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Lawfare: State Uses Legal System in War on Faith

More, related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Scholar Questions Secrecy in Dissolution Case

And more, related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Shocked Author: “Japan Ignores Basics of Justice”

 Still more, related to today Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Legal Inconsistencies A Blow to Democracy

Even more, related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Court Accused of Using Speculation

Also related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: MEXT’s Legal Spin and “Dissolution at All Costs”

Also related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: UN Report: Japan’s Lawfare Against Faith Minority

And also related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Protesting No Transparency in Closed-Door Trial

More, related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Dangerous Flaws in Dissolution Order Decried

Also related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: “Lawyers Lying and Shaming Japan” for 50 Years

And also related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Japan Following the Way of China

And also related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Japan’s Dissolution Case Echoes China’s Playbook

More, related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Media/Legal Expert: Communism Behind Persecution

And more, related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

More, related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Collusion to Rob Minority of Its Rights

And more, related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: State and Media Creating “Today’s Non-Citizens”

Still more, related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Japan Copying China: State Seizure of Churches

And still more, related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: 12 Religious Freedom NGOs Denouncing Japan

More, related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: 4300 Abductions and Forcible Detentions

And more, related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Japan: Families Fear for Graves of Loved Ones

Yet more, related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Lawyers Manipulating, Coercing, Lying

Also related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Kishida Follows Anti-Family Federation Minister

Also related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

Still more, related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Malicious One-Sided Government Source Selection

And still more, related to today Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Japan Urged to Make U-Turn

And yet more, related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Dangerous Precedent to Crush Religions

Even more, related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Japan Following the Way of China

Yet more, related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Japanese Communists’ Final War

Still more, related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Political and Social Activism behind Oppression

Still more, related to today, Family Federation, tomorrow a temple: Dissolution Case: Rule of Law on Trial 4th March