When Probes Risk Becoming Collective Judgment

Probes by special prosecutors, religious freedom, and media coverage: Where accountability ends and collective blame begins

Religious affairs correspondent Jeong Seong-su (정성수) wrote an opinion piece for the South Korean daily Segye Ilbo headlined “The ‘Unification Church Special Prosecutor’ Is Nothing to Fear”. It was published on 22^nd December.

See also Climate of Suspicion: Peace Reframed as Politics

See also Escalation in Probe: 13-Hour Police Questioning

See also Some Religions Are Welcome in Politics, Some Not

See also Response to “Pilgrimage by Ferry” Media Claims

See also Fact-Based Clarification of Media Misreporting

See also Advisory Fees Misrepresented in S. Korean Media

Since President Lee’s own party was drawn into lobbying claims, two weeks ago, South Korean politics has become increasingly focused on the possible appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate alleged ties between the Family Federation and political power.

Because of certain claims by former Federation leader Yoon Yeong-ho, what initially appeared to be partisan rhetoric has now solidified into a near certainty. Politicians across the ideological spectrum have publicly invoked phrases such as “church-state collusion”, “illegal political funding”, and “influence peddling”. Even the presidential office has indicated openness to the investigation. At this point, the political momentum behind the special prosecutor appears irreversible.

Reporter Jeong emphasizes in his article that amid the intensity of the political debate, an essential question risks being overlooked: What, exactly, is the target of this investigation? Is it intended to hold specific individuals accountable for concrete unlawful acts, or is it drifting toward putting an entire religious movement on trial in the court of public opinion? This distinction matters profoundly, not only for the Family Federation but for the health of democratic governance itself.

In democratic societies, investigations into corruption or abuse of power are both legitimate and necessary. According to the Segye Ilbo, when political authority, financial resources, and social influence intersect in opaque or improper ways, rigorous scrutiny is a form of institutional self-correction. However, democracies are also built on clear limits ‒ limits that define who may be investigated, on what grounds, and with what protections. The danger arises when those limits blur and suspicion expands from individual wrongdoing to collective blame.

South Korea’s constitution, like those of many Western democracies, enshrines two principles that must coexist: the separation of religion and state, and the freedom of religion. These principles are often misunderstood as being in tension with one another. In fact, they are mutually reinforcing. The separation of church and state is not designed to suppress or marginalize religion, but to prevent political power from exploiting religious belief for its own ends. At the same time, freedom of religion protects individuals and communities from being targeted or penalized simply because of their faith.

The concern raised in the article by Jeong Seong-su is that much of the political language surrounding the proposed special prosecutor has begun to frame the Family Federation itself ‒ not merely particular actors within it ‒ as a suspect entity. When an entire religious organization is casually described as a “political intervention group” or the central player in a scandal, democratic norms are placed under strain.

In Western historical memory, such generalizations evoke uncomfortable precedents, where religious minorities became convenient symbols of broader political anxieties.

If evidence exists that unlawful political donations were made, or that certain individuals engaged in improper exchanges with those in power, then accountability should be clear, narrow, and personal. Responsibility in democratic legal systems attaches to actions taken by identifiable individuals, not to religious labels or group affiliations. To suggest otherwise ‒ to imply that millions of ordinary believers must bear suspicion or social stigma simply because they share a religious identity ‒ amounts to a form of collective punishment. Such an approach undermines the presumption of innocence and risks normalizing discrimination.

The human consequences of this shift in tone should not be underestimated. When religious organizations are publicly framed as politically suspect, ordinary believers often pay the price. People begin to question whether they should conceal their faith at work, in schools, or within their local communities. They may face subtle exclusion, reputational harm, or open hostility, despite having no connection whatsoever to political decision-making or financial misconduct. From a democratic perspective, this outcome is deeply troubling.

The article also raises a broader critique of political behavior itself. It asks whether politics truly acts as a guardian of democratic pluralism or whether it treats religion instrumentally ‒ embracing it when useful and discarding it when expedient. When religion is viewed primarily as something to be “managed”, “controlled”, or sacrificed during moments of political crisis, it ceases to function as a space of conscience and moral conviction. Instead, it becomes another tool within the machinery of power.

For decades, the Family Federation has publicly advanced ambitious ideals, including national reconciliation, global peace, and international cooperation in the post-Cold War era. Its activities ‒ such as promoting international conferences, unofficial diplomacy, or large-scale infrastructure visions ‒ are undeniably controversial and invite debate. In pluralistic societies, such debate is not only acceptable but healthy. However, controversy alone does not constitute criminality. To retroactively reinterpret all such initiatives as mere profit-seeking schemes or political lobbying efforts risks erasing the sincerity of belief that motivates many participants.

As the special prosecutor process moves forward, the political environment is likely to become even more polarized. Progressive and conservative factions may weaponize the issue against one another, with little incentive to protect a religious organization that offers no clear electoral advantage. In such a climate, the Family Federation risks becoming politically isolated ‒ criticized by one side as an object of reform or eradication and used by the other merely as a tactical device. Neither posture offers genuine protection.

Given this reality, Jeong’s article argues that seeking salvation through political alliances is neither realistic nor wise. Instead, the most durable source of protection lies in principles rather than personalities. Constitutional guarantees, legal standards of individual responsibility, the presumption of innocence, and established human-rights norms form institutional barriers that are harder to erode than political goodwill. These are the same safeguards that protect any religious or ideological minority when public sentiment turns hostile.

The conclusion drawn is both pragmatic and normative. The Family Federation, rather than searching for powerful patrons, should insist on clear boundaries: investigations may proceed, but accountability must remain individual; faith itself must not be criminalized; and no precedent should be set in which an entire religion is sacrificed to satisfy political pressure. Governments change, administrations come and go, but democratic dignity depends on upholding these limits consistently.

Ultimately, the argument is not a plea for immunity, but a defense of democratic discipline. In moments of political turbulence, the true test of democracy lies not in how aggressively it pursues suspicion, but in how faithfully it preserves principles. Holding fast to those principles, the article suggests, is the most sober and dignified path forward ‒ not only for the Family Federation and its believers, but for the integrity of democratic society as a whole.

See also Climate of Suspicion: Peace Reframed as Politics

See also Escalation in Probe: 13-Hour Police Questioning

See also Some Religions Are Welcome in Politics, Some Not

See also Response to “Pilgrimage by Ferry” Media Claims

See also Fact-Based Clarification of Media Misreporting

See also Advisory Fees Misrepresented in S. Korean Media

Text: Knut Holdhus, editor

Featured image above: A quote from religious affairs reporter Jeong Seong-su (정성수) in Segye Ilbo 22nd Dec. 2025. Photo (2025): Segye Ilbo

See also President’s Own Party Drawn into Lobbying Claims

See also Faith, Finance, Fairness: Rethinking the Narrative

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 South Korean probes: Mother Han’s December Trial: Long Detention Ahead

Also related to South Korean probes: A 10-Minute Visit to Mother Han in Detention

Also related to South Korean probes: Denying Allegations: Hak Ja Han (82) in Inquiry

Also related to South Korean probes: SKorean Court’s Sharp Criticism of Prosecutors

And also related to South Korean probes: Detention: Harsh Cell Conditions Spark Outcry

More, related to South Korean probes: Ugly: Arrest Warrant Sought for Hak Ja Han (82)

And more, related to South Korean probes: Critics Warn of “Authoritarian Drift” in SKorea

Even more, related to South Korean probes: Court Decision to Prolong Detention Condemned

Still more, related to South Korean probes: Co-Founder, 82, Questioned 9 Hours by Prosecutors

Also related to South Korean probes: Democratic Party’s Assault on Family Federation

And even more, related to South Korean probes: Mother Han (82) in Poor Health in Damp, Cold Cell

And still more, related to South Korean probes: Korean Crisis: “True Democracy Must Serve Heaven”

And yet more, related to South Korean probes: Faith Leaders Protest State Assault on Religion

Also related to South Korean probes: News Release Blasts Indictment of Hak Ja Han, 82

More, related to South Korean probes: 70 Years On: Detention History Repeats Itself

And more, related to South Korean probes: Trump Raises Alarm Over Church Raids in Korea

Even more, related to South Korean probes: Mike Pompeo Calls Probe of Co-Founder “Lawfare”

Still more, related to South Korean probes:  Korean Faith Crackdown: USA Urged to Confront It

Yet more, related to South Korean probes: Korean Bribery Scandal: Media Clears Federation

And also related to South Korean probes: Raids Blur Line Between Justice and Politics

More, related to South Korean probes: Heavy-Handed Raid on Sacred Sites Condemned

And more, related to South Korean probes: Scholar Sounds Alarm: State Raiding the Sacred

Even more, related to South Korean probes: Raids as Political Spectacle and Media Trials

And even more, related to South Korean probes: Religious Freedom: 330 Faith Leaders Speak Up

Yet more, related to South Korean probes: Yonhap: Repeated Allegations Create Public Bias

Still more, related to South Korean probes: Japan Following the Way of China

And still more, related to South Korean probes: Warning of Threat from CCP Fearing Korean Unity

And also related to South Korean probes: Japan’s Dissolution Case Echoes China’s Playbook