Recently in Japan, there is a lot of discussion about the Unification Church. Even as a Shiba Inu, I’m a little worried about such trend and I’m thinking “That‘s not right.” So I will talk about it in this blog.
Actually, I really want to write more amusing stories for my early blog posts to keep people interested. That is, what we call, “Tsukami” in Japanese Rakugo world. “Tsukami”means the so-called ”catch”.
By the way, please understand that I'm not a UC advocate, and my religious belief, if any, is "God dwells in all things." If you say “What is Shiba Inu's religious belief?", you don't need to read this blog, so hurry up and take a bath and go to bed!!
Other people who want to read this blog need to be prepared for this blog to be long! Don't sleep!
At first, I want to give you an example. The setting is that one criminal killed many people you loved, for example, raped them, robbed them of their dignity as human beings, and killed them mercilessly. You will hate the criminal so much that you want to kill him with your own hands. If you specifically stab him with a “Sashimi-Boutyo”, very sharp kitchen knife for “Sashimi”, and kill him, you'll have achieved a splendid revenge, and there may be some people who say "Well done!"
Japan is a country ruled by law, right? Such a revenge is never allowed. Because the Constitution doesn't say that revenge is legal. You may say "That's such a simple story?" Actually, I think it's a simple story. The reason why there is no description to allow revenge is because humans often make mistakes in judgment, right? It's been true in the past that one who had absolutely nothing to do with some other people was believed to be the culprit and was killed because of revenge. If you think it's bad that the constitution doesn't say "revenge is legal", please revise the constitution and create a related law, and take revenge after the law comes into force! That's fine. In the future, I may see that revenges will be done here and there. That might be exciting!
By the way, about the death penalty, I think that if the criminal is caught and put on trial, and the chosen third party decides that the death penalty should be given, of course, I think he should be put to death. I support the death penalty in Japan. But conditions must be met in order to carry out the death penalty. In order for it to be appropriate to use the power of the state to put him to death, I think that it must be a major premise that the judgment has been made in court. I never think the United States has the right to criticize Japan's death penalty system, because the police simply shoots ("executes") criminals based on on-site judgment of the police even if it is not the case of "emergency evacuation". Here, I hav e to say “if you want make the debate about whether there should be a law that revenge is legal or shoud be not, you should do it elsewhere in your spare time.
Even if the constitution has a problem, at least in Japan, The Japanese legal system says to follow the constitution. Carlos Ghosn ran away saying, "I'm right and the Japanese law is wrong, so I will run away." On the other hand, Socrates pretended to say, "Evil law is also law," and he himself followed the evil law and drink poison cup. If it's okay for people to decide whether to follow the law or not, then the "law" itself, also the "rule of law" itself loses its meaning. It means "Wellcome to the jungle!"
What I wanted to say in this parable is that if you are proudly saying that our state is not a "jungle" but a "country ruled by law ", the people must obey the "law" (I, the Shiba Inu, don't obey it. Sorry!), even in the case of exercising the state power of "death penalty", I think that the trial should be held and the punishment should be imposed by "law" instead of "on-site judgments".
In other cases, such as the "so-called forced labor lawsuit" in country K, far from being based on objective evidence, it is not only based on the "testimony" of the old plaintiffs, who sometimes equivocate, but also based on the prejudice that Japanese annexation of Korea in the World War Ⅱ was illegal without clear evidence. It is at least a "point of contention" between the both two countries and many countries (I believe that Country K's allegations are bogus. I was convinced after reading the full Japanese version of the judgment). However, the judgment was made unilaterally on the premise that " Japanese annexation of Korea is illegal." Since the legal principles of "based on evidence" and "proof" were not observed, this case says "Country K can no longer be called a country ruled by law". Not in the lower courts, the judgement has been done in the Supreme Court, I don't believe. In other words, if behavior of people, the exercise of state power, and judgements of courts don't have to be based on laws and principles, then the signboard of the "country ruled by law" should be put down, and should be changed to the signboard "Nationwide Safari Park! It's here!." I'm thinking that countries R and C are the similar countries like K.
Sorry, it's been too long. Now comes the core. you there! Don't sleep!
The Constitution of Japan guarantees "freedom of religion," "freedom of conscience," and "freedom of thought and belief," right? However, recently, the trend is to kick the Unification Church out of Japan because it is anti-social. But I wonder who will judge "this religion is anti-social". I don't think even that fucking Aum-Shinrikyo could be considered anti-social if people just "believed in Aum" before Aum broke the law. So, despite deep grief of many families, it was not possible to crack it down until the criminality of Aum Shinrikyo was exposed.
Recently, Minister Kono said, "The Unification Church has robbed Japanese people of their property through psychic marketing, and there have been tragic cases such as broken families. I will not hesitate to issue a dissolution order." I think that his plot is a mess. "Illegal acts should be punished" → "Unification Church committed illegal acts" → "Religious freedom of Unification Church members should be restricted"? The last sentence is clearly unconstitutional! It sounds such as that the "minister", who should be obligated to follow the constitution, is openly saying that he's violating the constitution. An illegal act is an illegal act. But is it okay to suppress faith itself? We have to remember, I think, that the Puritans went to the America in search of freedom of religion and founded the United States of America on the basis of "freedom of mind". Moreover, historically speaking, in Japan, which can be said to be "relatively tolerant of religion" (Do you have an objection? Come on! I'll always be your opponent!), then why don't you suppress Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Soka Gakkai and all other religions? Are you good at "this is this, that is that"?
Mr. Kappa Encho Shiba Inu, a YouTuber who is of the same breed as me, has also made mistakes about the recent Unification Church issue. I almost always agree with him! Also, I think that the Unification Church has dangerous ideas for Japan. So, in common sense, I think that it would be better for Japan to exclude the UC, but I don’t think that we have the right to take away their freedom of religion. Mr. Kappa may say, "The Unification Church is anti-Japan, so destroy it.“ Even if Mr. Kappa get restricted on YouTube due to the people who judge what he says as hate, he will be never oppressed even if he will say “K country is fool!” because his freedom of thought and belief are protected by the government. Doesn’t he know that he is protected? However, for the Unification Church members, does he say that we don't have to protect their rights because they are in an anti-Japanese criminal group? Are they all criminals?
For example, during the war, Takiji Kobayashi was beaten up and killed by “Tokkou Keisaku”, the special police who said, "Marxism never be tolerated.” Mr. Kappa Encho, look in the mirror and see yourself! You are now a "Tokkou Keisaku". The fact that Takiji Kobayashi was beaten up by the special police and now the fact that Unification Church members are being deprived of their freedom of religion just because they are members of the Unification Church have the same roots! Mr. Kappa Encho, don't you realize your mistakes until you're actually suppressed or "oppressed" by the government? By the time you realize it, it's already too late, “It was “Sudeni Osushi".
When I say such principles, some people call me as "pseudo-non-conservative". But I think that only “true conservatives with guts'' must and can guarantee “freedom of speech'', “freedom of thought and belief'' and “freedom of belief'' to “EVERYONE''. I'm just saying that you can't protect “true democracy" without "true tolerance"! Still, the "oppression" group believes that, when illegal acts and beliefs are closely related, for example, some protocols on the religious side (procedure, or the entire procedure and the thought that underpins it) are related to illegal acts, that is, in the case that the unity of the religion and the illegal act is recognized, for the sake of the present and future happiness of the majority of the people, the complete elimination of such a religion is also the way to be taken. But I think that if we allow the only one case such that the government can oppress it because the opinion such as “This religion is a xie jiao” becomes the majority opinion, that would set a precedent that, if the majority supports it, individuals' freedom of mind can be violated.
No matter how evil a religion is, I think that people have the freedom to believe in it. For example, regarding LGBT, it is not permissible to force a man who thinks he is a woman inside to give up his “freedom of mind” by saying, “You look like a man as majority recognize, so you should behave like a man.” Ignoring the principles to be observed, it shows the same composition of suppressing the minority opinion by the majority opinion.
To me, extreme right and extreme left look the same. Both said, "Our thoughts and beliefs are correct, and their thoughts and beliefs are wrong, so we should eliminate them". Neither seems to realize that both have exactly the same logic of exclusion.
Since it's about the human world, it doesn't really matter to me, a Shiba Inu. I want live in a world where "Every dog is a very good dog."
Oh, I don't know what I’m talking about. I'm tired, so I'm going to sleep.
Good night then!
The photo shows me in preparation for the typhoon.
Cool, right?
Comments