My Assessment to Japan Dissolving the Family Federation

Answering Massimo Introvigne and Masaki Nakamasas Articles on Bitterwinter

I largely agree with the assessment and justified criticism provided by Massimo Introvigne and Masaki Nakamasa. Both are certainly far more competent than I am regarding aspects of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification—formerly known as the Unification Church or, more maliciously, the “Moon Sect.”

However, my profession as a qualified lawyer and long-time attorney and human rights defender “on the front lines” of proceedings involving so-called “sects” gives me the opportunity to argue from the inside of such cases.

The truly surprising thing is that these are not actually new or precedent-setting cases for me; rather, they are the slowly and laboriously foreshadowed interventions into religious freedom and the state’s duty of neutrality (which includes the courts)—apparently a global phenomenon. This makes initiatives like FoRB (Freedom of Religion or Belief) all the more important.

Fabricated Rules and Rules Not Necessarily Implemented

In the case of the “Twelve Tribes,” it was claimed at the time that the community’s educational rules were mandatory, even though the reality of their lives was different. Alleged dogmas had been demonstrably altered and intensified by third parties. No one cared that even the publishing house printing the educational guidelines distanced itself from the version presented in the proceedings—which had been commented upon (!)—and confirmed its lack of authenticity.

Furthermore, the fact that parents always and without exception decide how their children are raised—which is why at least one fair expert at the time saw no signs of child endangerment—does not fit the “sect narrative” currently being dusted off and used in Japan. Or take the fact that a forensic pathologist rejected the charge of dangerous bodily harm because the “chastisement” practiced by the Twelve Tribes, while violating §1631 of the German Civil Code (BGB), did not lead to significant danger—this interests no one. Courts, sect experts, and unfortunately an uninformed public rarely go that deep into the detail.

No Verification of Who Tells the Truth in “Sect” Proceedings

Claims by alleged “sect victims” are also rarely scrutinized scientifically regarding their basis in actual experience.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe has established the following requirements for obtaining a psychological statement analysis:

1. The evaluation of statements from not only adult but also child or adolescent witnesses is inherent to the nature of judicial findings of fact and is therefore generally entrusted to the trial judge (BGHSt 8, 130; BGH NStZ 2001, 105). However, obtaining an expert opinion on psychological statement analysis is required if the facts or the person of the witness exhibit such peculiarities that doubts may arise as to whether the court’s expertise is sufficient to assess credibility under the given special circumstances (established case law; BGHR StPO § 244 Para. 4 Sentence 1 Credibility Opinion 2; BGH StV 1994, 173). (Source: BGH 1 StR 579/05 - Decision of April 25, 2006 (LG Munich))

Particularly regarding “sect narratives,” one must assume special aspects inherent to the person of the witness. Or would anyone describe Tetsuya Yamagami, the murderer of Shinzo Abe, as “normal”? Yet, despite “600 cases” being alleged, the “victim” was not subjected to a psychological statement analysis.

Even in the case of Go&Change, where messages exist that exonerate the perpetrator, these are neither cited nor professionally investigated via statement analysis. Is it so difficult to scrutinize a situation where a “victim” denies rape in messages and perhaps describes themselves as “ill”?

In any case, most courts overlook the fact that they simply lack the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood—even though that is their job. A 2008 meta-study found that professional statement evaluators, such as police officers, prosecutors, and judges, achieve hit rates of only between 45% and 60% in detecting lies based on their own experience. (...) (Source: Makepeace, The Polygraph as Exonerating Evidence, 2023, p. 177).

Judges recognize whether someone is lying between 45% and 60% of the time. In other words: flipping a coin or guessing would be statistically just as reliable, significantly cheaper in finding the truth—and more neutral. Bond and DePaulo found the same figures for non-professional evaluators. The noteworthy difference between experts and laypeople, as cited by Makepeace via Vrij, is: “The former tend to vastly overestimate themselves.”

Based on my experience and practice, I can and must fully endorse this.

Why Do Communities Not Speak About the Good They Do?

I had recently anticipated Massimo’s point when I stated that communities should talk more about the good they do.

While “victims” like to claim they were forced to donate, I hear that repayments are kept silent in the same breath—just as all personal responsibilities are kept silent.

If I wish to follow the example of the Apostles or Francis of Assisi and give away my earthly possessions (Twelve Tribes, joining a monastery), this voluntary decision does not become coercion. If such “psychological coercion” truly existed, I wonder how many guardianship proceedings concluded that donors were not of sound mind and acted illegitimately—which would lead to claims for restitution. Do we need a “coup d’état” at the highest judicial level for this? No, because individual case reviews (in Germany; Japanese law is not my area of expertise) already provide options without infringing upon religious freedom.

The State Interferes Too Much in Religious Affairs—And Has for Years

The idea that courts or authorities do not interfere in religious matters is more a wish than a reality. Church asylum has long been ignored, mosques are entered with shoes on, monasteries are banned, and people are labeled “gurus” by profession, and more. Religious founders become “self-proclaimed prophets,” though no one would label the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) or Jesus Christ that way. It is inherent to faith that there are no witnesses. Nevertheless, such adjectives are used even by the Federal Court of Justice, albeit softened as “so-called.”

Lack of Spirituality in the Courts

A lack of neutrality and a lack of spirituality—which I see as an essential prerequisite for deciding on cases of religious freedom and for being able to recognize and understand specific nuances—have been increasingly on the rise for years. This is why the developments surrounding the Unification Church are not surprising; rather, they appear to have been prepared globally.

What is most strikingly loud in all of this is the silence of the large religious communities.

German version inkl summaries of the quoted articles https://www.foref.info/staatliche-grenzuberschreitung-und-oberflachliche-religionskritik-am-beispiel-der-vereinigungskirche/