The Supreme Court on Feb. 24 ruled that the Naha city government violated the constitutional separation of politics and religion by allowing a Confucian temple to use public land at no cost. 

The temple is devoted to Confucius, the ancient Chinese philosopher who founded a system of thought and behavior known as Confucianism.

The Constitution says, “The state and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity.”

The purpose of this clause is said to be to institutionalize the principle of separation of politics and religion to protect freedom of religion, which the Constitution guarantees to all people.

This constitutional principle strictly prohibits the central and local governments from providing support or benefits to specific religious organizations or facilities. We welcome the ruling, which clearly upheld this basic constitutional creed.

The legal dispute revolved around the municipal government’s financial support to the temple called Kume Shisei-byou, which was built eight years ago on public land in a park in the Okinawa prefectural capital of Naha.

The city government acknowledged the value of the temple as a tourist attraction and exempted the temple from paying an annual rent of 5.76 million yen ($54,300).

The contours of the constitutional principle, however, have been ambiguous and contested as there are various forms of relationships between the state and religion. It is not easy to draw a clear line between constitutional and unconstitutional interactions between the state and religious institutions from the standpoint of protecting freedom of faith.

With regard to this point, the top court ruling offered a legal framework of judgment based on a set of criteria.

The court argued the constitutionality of the local government’s act related to the temple should be determined through a comprehensive evaluation of such factors as past judicial precedents, the nature of the facility, the process leading to the city’s decision to exempt the temple from paying rent, the extent of the benefits provided and the public's views about the facility.

In line with this approach, the court examined such factors as the exterior of the building, the rituals conducted at the facility, the historical background behind the establishment of the temple and the amount of rent it has been spared.

The ruling concluded that there is good reason for the public to think the municipal government is supporting a specific religion.

The constitutional provision mandating separation of religion and politics reflects bitter lessons from how Japan’s militarist government before and during World War II provided special support to Shinto as a de-facto national religion and used it for wartime purposes.

Japanese citizens during the period were forced to follow the faith while the government cracked down on various other religions under a totalitarian regime that led the nation to a devastating defeat in the war.

Due to this historical background, most past constitutional cases concerning this principle involved Shinto shrines and Shintoism. But it goes without saying that the constitutional provision should be applied to all religions.

All government organizations should understand the implications of the ruling, check whether any of their activities could be problematic and keep the principle in mind in carrying out their tasks.

There are many cases in which facilities and events with religious origins have become so deeply rooted in communities that they are part of local residents’ daily lives. The judiciary has not categorically rejected the government’s interactions with any facilities and events with religious implications.

But freedom of faith is related to deep inner thoughts and feelings of individuals. It would be a serious mistake to impose the values of the majority on people.

There are still Japanese political leaders who commit acts that might be seen as a violation of the separation of religion and politics, such as Cabinet members visiting Yasukuni Shrine. This Shinto shrine in Tokyo, which was once deeply linked to state support to the religion for war purposes, is often discussed from the viewpoint of Japan’s relationships with its Asian neighbors.

But at the heart of the issue is the constitutional imperative established in response to so many sacrifices.

The top court ruling should be taken as a fresh reminder of the importance of the constitutional separation of religion and politics.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Feb. 26