EDITORIAL: State-church separation

It is not uncommon to see old shrines and temples standing on publicly owned land.

Sorachibutojinja shrine in Sunagawa, Hokkaido, originated from a small shrine erected by local residents during the Meiji Era (1868-1912) when Hokkaido was undergoing development. The shrine is currently owned by a neighborhood association and run by parishioners. The shrine has no priests. When festivals are held, a priest from another shrine comes there to conduct Shinto rites.

The problem is the city government is leasing the land free of charge. The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the practice violates the Constitution's principle of separation of politics and religion that bans the central and local governments from expending or appropriating public money or other property for religious organizations.

We support the ruling that clearly stated the practice is unconstitutional.

While the principle does not totally prohibit central and local governments from having anything to do with religion, they must not go too far. In the case of Sunagawa, the Supreme Court ruled that the practice can be viewed as support by the city for a specific religion.

The court turned down the city's claim that the practice is constitutional because "the religious nature of the shrine is faint and the city has no religious purpose."

How should traditional customs and a fundamental principle of the Constitution be reconciled?

Regarding this point, the ruling stated that the removal of the shrine, as demanded by the plaintiff, is not the only way to deal with the unconstitutional situation. The court said other realistic solutions include transferring land ownership and leasing at a price.

The Supreme Court had broadly interpreted acts that are admissible in light of the principle of separation of politics and religion since 1977, when it recognized the constitutionality of a jichinsai, or a ground-breaking ceremony, conducted by the city government of Tsu, in Shinto style.

The top court put a brake on the trend for the first time 13 years ago when it ruled that the Ehime prefectural government violated the Constitution by using public funds to make offerings to Yasukuni Shrine. Wednesday's ruling is in line with the 1997 decision.

In the past, the principle of separation of politics and religion was strictly scrutinized in cases involving Yasukuni Shrine and other Gokokujinja shrines dedicated to the war dead across Japan. Although the shrine in question this time is not one of them, the ruling carries weight.

The elderly plaintiff underwent tragic experiences at a time when the state and religion acted as one. That was also what moved the plaintiff to sue. The principle of separation of politics and religion was incorporated into the Constitution from the historical reflection that state-sanctioned Shintoism served as mental support for militarism. We must not forget this point.

Many Japanese people hold Christian weddings, organize Buddhist funerals and visit shrines at New Year to pray for good luck. Such is the outlook on religion shared by many Japanese.

Some religious facilities are historically and culturally valuable. Some serve as tourist attractions, and forests surrounding temples and shrines are useful in conserving the environment.

That is partly why, in handing down the ruling, the Supreme Court stated that a comprehensive decision should be made in light of socially accepted beliefs, taking into consideration the nature of religious facilities and the evaluation of the general public.

Fundamental principles stipulated by the Constitution must apply even to matters that we take for granted in everyday life. It was a ruling that drove home that point.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Jan. 21