I recently wrote a column about the Religious Corporation Law.
最近、旧称 統一教会への『質問権』について、話題になっておりますが、
There has been a lot of talk lately about the "right to question" the former Unification Church.
ぶっちゃけ、私は、このネタを"外し"ました。
To be honest, I "missed" this story.
残念です。
It's a shame.
私も、首相の最初の見解『宗教法人関係者が、刑事事件を起こしていないと、法人解散命令は無理』という判例の立場を取っていたからです。
I also took the position of the Prime Minister's first opinion, 'If a person involved in a religious corporation does not have a criminal case, it is impossible to order the dissolution of the corporation,' because I had taken the position of the precedents.
しかし、この最判(最高裁判所判決)を厳密に適用すれば、
However, if we strictly apply this decision (of the Supreme Court)
―― 教団(の幹部)が、テロ事件でもおこさない限り、法人格の取消ができない
"Unless a terrorist attack is committed by a senior member of the church, the corporate status of the church cannot be revoked"
ということになり、現在の社会通念や常識から鑑みても、不合理です。
This is unreasonable in light of current social conventions and common sense.
そんなこと(テロ)を本当にやったのは、オウム(真理教)のような「言語に尽し難いバカ」くらいです。
The only people who really did such a thing (terrorism) are "unspeakable idiots" like the Aum.
旧称 統一教会が、宗教の究極的な目的 ―― 『人々の心の安寧』と真逆なことをやってきて、何度、改善を主張しようとも、全く改善がなかったことは、明らかなのです。
It is clear that this religion group, formerly known as the Unification Church, has done the exact opposite of the ultimate purpose of religion -- "the peace of mind of the people" -- and no matter how many times it claims to have improved, it has not improved at all.
そもそも、私、この話を1980年前半に知っていました。
To begin with, I knew about this story in the early 1980's.
それが今になって、国会で問題になってきたことについて、信じられないほどの「悪質さ」を感じるのです。
I feel incredibly "vicious" about the fact that this has now become an issue in the Diet.
私も自己批判しなければなりません。どうも、私は、最判(最高裁判所判決)至上主義に陥っていたみたいです
I must also criticize myself. Apparently, I have fallen prey to the supremacy of the decision (Supreme Court decision).
-----
で、この最判なのですが、「これ」のことかな、と思っています。
So, I am wondering about this Supreme Court ruling, maybe "this is it".
大量殺人を目的として計画的、組織的にサリンを生成した宗教法人について、宗教法人法八一条一項一号及び二号前段に規定する事由があるとしてされた解散命令は、専ら宗教法人の世俗的側面を対象とし、宗教団体や信者の精神的・宗教的側面に容かいする意図によるものではなく、右宗教法人の行為に対処するには、その法人格を失わせることが必要かつ適切であり、他方、解散命令によって宗教団体やその信者らが行う宗教上の行為に何らかの支障を生ずることが避けられないとしても、その支障は解散命令に伴う間接的で事実上のものにとどまるなど判示の事情の下においては、必要でやむを得ない法的規制であり、憲法二〇条一項に違反しない。
The dissolution order issued against the religious corporation that systematically and systematically produced sarin for the purpose of mass murder for the reasons stipulated in Article 81, paragraph (1), item (i) and the first sentence of item (ii) of the Religious Juridical Persons Act was issued with the intention of targeting only the secular aspects of religious corporations, and not with the intention of tolerating the spiritual and religious aspects of religious organizations and their followers. On the other hand, even if the dissolution order inevitably causes some hindrance to the religious activities of the religious organizations and their followers, such hindrance is only indirect and de facto, and under the circumstances described in the decision, it is necessary and unavoidable. Under the circumstances described above, the order is a necessary and unavoidable legal restriction, and does not violate Article 20, paragraph 1 of the Constitution.
以下、江端の自己解釈
Self-interpretation by Ebata as follows
(1)(表向きの内容)そもそも81条(解散命令)第1項1号の成立目的は、「大量殺人」という世俗的な問題を起すような宗教団体に対して適用されることを想定してできている。だから問題はない。
(1) (Ostensibly), the purpose of Article 81 (dissolution order), Paragraph 1, Item 1 is designed to be applied to religious organizations that cause secular problems such as "mass murder. Therefore, there is no problem.
(2)(黙示的な内容)大量殺人テロ団体が「宗教の自由(憲法第20条)」などと語るんじゃねえ
(2) (implied content) Don't let a mass-murdering terrorist group talk about "freedom of religion (Article 20 of the Constitution).
-----
さて、これを、旧称統一教会に当てはめてみると、
Now, let's apply this to the group known as the Unification Church.
(1)(表向きの内容)そもそも81条(解散命令)第1項1号の成立目的は、「信者をたぶらかせて全財産を差し出させて、家族を破産させるということを、"献金"と言い張る」という世俗的な問題を起すような宗教団体に対して適用されることを想定してできている。だから問題はない。
(1) (Ostensibly) The purpose of Article 81 (dissolution order), Paragraph 1, Item 1 was originally intended to be applied to religious organizations that cause secular problems, such as "insisting on 'donations' to induce believers to give up all their assets and bankrupt their families. So there is no problem.
(2)(黙示的な内容)人の心の弱さに付け込んで、信者の生命と生活を危機に陥れて、なお、それを"献金"だの"浄財"だのと言い張る宗教団体ふぜいが「宗教の自由(憲法第20条)」を語るんじゃねえ
(2) (Implicit content) Don't talk about "freedom of religion (Article 20 of the Constitution)" when religious organizations take advantage of people's weakness of mind, and make believers' lives and livelihoods in danger.
------
『最判を援用する』という方向で、最高裁判決の解釈の一部変更が、期待されます。
I am expecting that some of the interpretations of the Supreme Court's decisions will be changed in the direction of "applying precedents".