The Concept of Separation of Religion and State Often Misinterpreted
UENO Kagefumi / Civilizational Thinker
October 21, 2022
Since it was revealed that the assassin who killed Former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo in early July, was motivated by indignation against the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (previously known as the Unification Church), with whom, he thought, Abe was in close ties, Japanese society paid higher attention to the said Family Federation. Then it became known that many Japanese politicians, notably those of the LDP, had contacts with the Federation. Accordingly, Japanese media came to be filled with enlivened discussions on such topics as “the relationship between politicians and religious bodies” or “the state-religion relationship”, where I perceived some misinterpretation and confusion.
First, I had an impression that some discussants here misinterpret “the state-religion separation” as meaning “the separation between
politician and religion”. Obviously, the concept of “the state-religion separation”, stemming from “the separation of church and state”, is
aimed at power structures, be they central or local, who should never, in simpler words, meddle in religious people or bodies, but not at political parties or politicians in general.
Possibly due to such misinterpretations, I have heard views expressed to the effect that religious people shouldn’t exert influence over the policy-shaping of political parties, or that religious people or bodies should not support the activities of political parties, notably election campaigns. The principle of the state-religion separation, I repeat, is not aimed at blocking the interchange or interinfluence between politicians and religious people. On the contrary, political parties and religious bodies keep unimpeded and close contacts in many Western countries.
For instance, it is not seldom that politicians and religious people closely work together on such issues as abortion and LGBT. It is also well-known that during the US presidential election campaign in 2020, many conservative Catholic clergies supported the Trump team whereas liberal ones assisted the Biden team.
Second, I also realized that some discussants misunderstand state-religion separation as a universal principle. The fact is that world-widely the plurality of nations, let alone many Islamic ones, keep a close state-religion relationship (i.e. “non-separatist”), and, hence, “the separatist” like Japan and Western Europe are the minority. Even in Europe, the eastern Orthodox countries, such as Russia, are by and large “non-separatist”. Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church supported Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Third, I witnessed the remarks of a well-known scholar on a TV program where he more than once emphasized that the freedom of faith is in principle concerned solely about the internal sphere of the human person. Ironically China is a case in point, keen to contain faith within a person’s mind, whereas most of the Free World doesn’t take such a position. After all, religious activities gain meanings only after they have an interface with politicians and other external people.
All in all, here, it should be made aware that in the West at large, the interchange between politicians and religious people takes place without hinderance.
UENO Kagefumi is former Ambassador to the Holy See. This essay is the revised version of an essay which first appeared at Nikkei on September 26th 2022.
First, I had an impression that some discussants here misinterpret “the state-religion separation” as meaning “the separation between
politician and religion”. Obviously, the concept of “the state-religion separation”, stemming from “the separation of church and state”, is
aimed at power structures, be they central or local, who should never, in simpler words, meddle in religious people or bodies, but not at political parties or politicians in general.
Possibly due to such misinterpretations, I have heard views expressed to the effect that religious people shouldn’t exert influence over the policy-shaping of political parties, or that religious people or bodies should not support the activities of political parties, notably election campaigns. The principle of the state-religion separation, I repeat, is not aimed at blocking the interchange or interinfluence between politicians and religious people. On the contrary, political parties and religious bodies keep unimpeded and close contacts in many Western countries.
For instance, it is not seldom that politicians and religious people closely work together on such issues as abortion and LGBT. It is also well-known that during the US presidential election campaign in 2020, many conservative Catholic clergies supported the Trump team whereas liberal ones assisted the Biden team.
Second, I also realized that some discussants misunderstand state-religion separation as a universal principle. The fact is that world-widely the plurality of nations, let alone many Islamic ones, keep a close state-religion relationship (i.e. “non-separatist”), and, hence, “the separatist” like Japan and Western Europe are the minority. Even in Europe, the eastern Orthodox countries, such as Russia, are by and large “non-separatist”. Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church supported Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Third, I witnessed the remarks of a well-known scholar on a TV program where he more than once emphasized that the freedom of faith is in principle concerned solely about the internal sphere of the human person. Ironically China is a case in point, keen to contain faith within a person’s mind, whereas most of the Free World doesn’t take such a position. After all, religious activities gain meanings only after they have an interface with politicians and other external people.
All in all, here, it should be made aware that in the West at large, the interchange between politicians and religious people takes place without hinderance.
UENO Kagefumi is former Ambassador to the Holy See. This essay is the revised version of an essay which first appeared at Nikkei on September 26th 2022.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
誤解が多い「政教分離」
上野 景文 / 文明論考家
2022年 10月 21日
自民党をはじめとする政治家と旧統一教会との関係の実態が明らかになる中、メディを始め各方面で、「政治（家）と宗教の関係」、「政教分離」につき、活発に意見が交わされているが、若干の誤解や議論の混乱があることに気付いた。
第1に、「政教分離」は「政治と宗教の分離」を意味するとの誤解があるようであるが、「政教分離」は、「統治機構（state）と宗教」の分離をうたったもの（西欧では“separation of church and state”）あり、「統治機構」、すなわち、「政府（中央・地方）」を視野に置いた概念である。平たく言えば、政府は宗教者・団体に手を出すなと言うことであり、政党、議員などの政治家をターゲットとしたものではない。
このような誤解があるためか、「宗教者が、政党の政策に影響を及ぼすことは問題だ」、「宗教者・団体が、選挙支援を含む政党活動を支援することは問題だ」等の発言が聞かれるが、「政教分離」の原則は、議員等の政治家・政党が宗教関係者・団体と交流すること、或いは、影響しあうことを律するものではない。それどころか、欧米諸国では、政党・政治家と宗教者は折々自由かつ密接に接している。
現に、中絶やLGBTなどにつき、多数の国で、政治家と宗教者は共闘しているし、2020年の米国大統領選挙戦では、保守派のカトリック聖職者はトランプ陣営、リベラルな聖職者はバイデン陣営に加担して、選挙面でも協力していた。
また、「政教分離」は普遍的原理だとの誤解も聞かれるが、世界的に見れば、イスラム国を含め、国家と宗教が密接な関係にある「密接派」の国が多数派であり、日本を含む「分離派」は少数派だ。欧州にフォーカスすれば、「分離派」が多い西欧とは対照的に、ロシアを含む東方正教会の国は「密接派」が主流だ。右背景に照らせば、ロシア正教会のトップであるキリル総主教がウクライナ侵攻を支持したことは、驚くに当たらない。
更に、高名な学者が討論番組で、「信仰の自由」は、本来は人間の「内面」にかかわることだと強調していたが、宗教活動は、政治家を含む多くの対外接触を伴うことではじめて意味を持つ場合がある。中国政府は宗教を人の内面に「閉じ込める」ことにこだわるが、自由主義圏は総じてそのような立場はとらない。
以上のように、欧米に関する限り、政治（家）と宗教の関係は総じて自由に展開されている。この点は、もっと知られて良い。
筆者は元駐バチカン大使。本論考は、2022年9月26日に日本経済新聞に掲載されたものを、若干改定したもの。
第1に、「政教分離」は「政治と宗教の分離」を意味するとの誤解があるようであるが、「政教分離」は、「統治機構（state）と宗教」の分離をうたったもの（西欧では“separation of church and state”）あり、「統治機構」、すなわち、「政府（中央・地方）」を視野に置いた概念である。平たく言えば、政府は宗教者・団体に手を出すなと言うことであり、政党、議員などの政治家をターゲットとしたものではない。
このような誤解があるためか、「宗教者が、政党の政策に影響を及ぼすことは問題だ」、「宗教者・団体が、選挙支援を含む政党活動を支援することは問題だ」等の発言が聞かれるが、「政教分離」の原則は、議員等の政治家・政党が宗教関係者・団体と交流すること、或いは、影響しあうことを律するものではない。それどころか、欧米諸国では、政党・政治家と宗教者は折々自由かつ密接に接している。
現に、中絶やLGBTなどにつき、多数の国で、政治家と宗教者は共闘しているし、2020年の米国大統領選挙戦では、保守派のカトリック聖職者はトランプ陣営、リベラルな聖職者はバイデン陣営に加担して、選挙面でも協力していた。
また、「政教分離」は普遍的原理だとの誤解も聞かれるが、世界的に見れば、イスラム国を含め、国家と宗教が密接な関係にある「密接派」の国が多数派であり、日本を含む「分離派」は少数派だ。欧州にフォーカスすれば、「分離派」が多い西欧とは対照的に、ロシアを含む東方正教会の国は「密接派」が主流だ。右背景に照らせば、ロシア正教会のトップであるキリル総主教がウクライナ侵攻を支持したことは、驚くに当たらない。
更に、高名な学者が討論番組で、「信仰の自由」は、本来は人間の「内面」にかかわることだと強調していたが、宗教活動は、政治家を含む多くの対外接触を伴うことではじめて意味を持つ場合がある。中国政府は宗教を人の内面に「閉じ込める」ことにこだわるが、自由主義圏は総じてそのような立場はとらない。
以上のように、欧米に関する限り、政治（家）と宗教の関係は総じて自由に展開されている。この点は、もっと知られて良い。
筆者は元駐バチカン大使。本論考は、2022年9月26日に日本経済新聞に掲載されたものを、若干改定したもの。
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟