Editing Religion in Japan (section)

==Religion and law==
{{See also|Freedom of religion in Japan}}

In early [[History of Japan|Japanese history]], the ruling class was responsible for performing propitiatory rituals, which later came to be identified as Shinto, and for the introduction and support of Buddhism. Later, religious organization was used by regimes for political purposes; for instance, the [[Tokugawa shogunate|Tokugawa]] government required each family to be registered as a member of a Buddhist temple. In the early 19th century, the government required that each family belong to a shrine instead, and in the early 20th century, this was supplemented with the concept of a divine right to rule bestowed on the emperor. The [[Meiji Constitution]] reads: "Japanese subjects shall, within limits not prejudicial to peace and order, and not antagonistic to their duties as subjects, enjoy freedom of religious belief".

Article 20 of the [[Constitution of Japan|1947 Constitution]] states: "Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all. No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the State, nor exercise any political authority. No person shall be compelled to take part in any religious act, celebration, rite or practice. The State and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity". This change in constitutional rights provided mechanisms for limiting state educational initiatives designed to promote Shinto beliefs in schools and freed the populace from mandatory participation in Shinto rites.<ref>LeFebvre, J. (2021) [https://brill.com/view/journals/jrj/aop/article-1163-22118349-20210001/article-1163-22118349-20210001.xml "The Oppressor's Dilemma: How Japanese State Policy toward Religion Paved the Way for Christian Weddings"]</ref>

In postwar years, the issue of the separation of Shinto and state arose in the Self-Defense Force Apotheosis Case. In 1973, Nakaya Takafumi, a member of the [[Japan Self-Defense Forces|Japanese Self-Defense Forces]] and husband of Nakaya Yasuko, died in a traffic accident.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|title=Shintō and the State, 1868-1988|last=Hardacre|first=Helen|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=1989|isbn=978-0691020525|location=Princeton, NJ|pages=153}}</ref> Despite Yasuko's refusal to provide relevant documents for her husband's enshrinement at the [[Yamaguchi Prefecture|Yamaguchi]] prefectural National-Protecting Shrine, the prefectural Veterans’ Association requested the information from the Self-Defense Forces and completed the enshrinement.<ref name=":0" /> As a result, in 1973, Yasuko sued the Yamaguchi Prefectural Branch of the Self-Defense Forces, on the grounds that the ceremony of [[apotheosis]] violated her religious rights as a Christian.<ref name=":0" />

Although Yasuko won the case at two lower courts, the ruling was overturned by the [[Supreme Court of Japan]] on June 1, 1988, based on the precedent established by the [http://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=51 Tsu City Shinto Groundbreaking Ceremony Case]. First, the Supreme Court ruled that because the Veterans’ Association—which was not an organ of the state—had acted alone when arranging the ceremony of apotheosis, no violation of Article 20 had occurred.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|title=Shintō and the State, 1868-1988|last=Hardacre|first=Helen|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=1989|isbn=978-0691020525|location=Princeton, NJ|pages=154}}</ref> Second, the Supreme Court held that the Self-Defense Forces' provision of Takafumi's documents to the Veterans’ Association did not constitute a religious activity prohibited by Article 20, because neither the intention nor the effects of its action harmed or patronized any religion.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Shintō and the State, 1868-1988|last=Hardacre|first=Helen|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=1989|isbn=978-0691020525|location=Princeton, NJ|pages=154–155}}</ref>

Third, the Supreme Court adopted a narrow interpretation of individual religious rights, by ruling that violation of individual rights to religion did not occur unless the state or its organs coerced individuals to perform some religious activity or limited their religious freedom.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Shintō and the State, 1868-1988|last=Hardacre|first=Helen|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=1989|isbn=978-0691020525|location=Princeton, NJ|pages=155}}</ref> On June 2, 1988, a report by the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' described the Japanese Supreme Court's decision as “a major setback for advocates of stronger separation of religion and state in Japan.”<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-06-02-mn-5840-story.html|title=Japan Widow Loses Religious Rights Case|last=Schoenberger|first=Karl|date=1988-06-02|work=Los Angeles Times|access-date=2018-05-01|language=en-US|issn=0458-3035}}</ref> On June 7, 1988, an article published in the [[The New York Times|''New York Times'']] expressed concern that the Japanese Supreme Court's decision was likely to encourage the resurgence of [[State Shinto]] and [[nationalism]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/07/world/tokyo-journal-shinto-is-thrust-back-onto-the-nationalist-stage.html|title=Tokyo Journal; Shinto Is Thrust Back Onto the Nationalist Stage|last=Haberman|first=Clyde|access-date=2018-05-01|language=en}}</ref> Because the prefectural National-Protecting Shrines perform the same ceremony of apotheosis as the [[Yasukuni Shrine]] does, the significance of this case also lies in its implications for the constitutionality of state patronage of and official visits to the Yasukuni Shrine.<ref name=":1" />