Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 59
men were invited to view a video of a self-development workshop, and the women were
invited to a ―culture center,‖ which included such topics as fortune-telling by numerology
(using the number of Chinese character strokes in women‘s names) and tracing family
lineage. Not until these women were deeply involved in various workshops were they made
aware of the religious content of the workshops and the association with the Unification
Church. By that time, they had already committed themselves to continuing the workshops.
According to the women, if they had been informed of the church's identity from the
beginning, they would not have participated in the workshops.
According to the court ruling, the Unification Church recruiters took advantage of
weaknesses in the former members (personal problems, illness of family members,
uncertainties about the future, etc.) and fanned anxieties in the recruits that had no direct
connection to the church's religious dogma (the fear of their family becoming extinct,
communicating with the spiritual world, curses, etc.), and consequently stirring up their
concerns over religious salvation.
The ruling, instead of focusing on whether the former members acted voluntarily or were
coerced into action, acknowledged the illegality in the purpose, means, and results of
systematic recruiting and indoctrination by the church members. Although the Unification
Church insisted on former members‘ self-responsibilities entering into the church and the
invalidity of applying mind-control theory into their conversion process, the ruling rejected
the contention of a mind-control controversy.
The above decision clearly indicated the systematic strategies by the Unification Church in
Japan to recruit more converts and indoctrinate more members. Moreover, it shows the
transitional process in those followers who had fallen for the strategy, from introduction, to
conversion, to devotion.
In addition, the ruling includes the epoch-making concept that in its missionary activities a
religion should teach its ideas as religious reality. Indoctrination of dogma camouflaged as
science would unjustly influence individuals' decision-making capabilities. In fact, the
Unification Church usually teaches its dogma as a fact that natural science and history have
already proved, and it reveals its name and actual activities to participants only at the final
stage of seminars. Most participants considered that they should follow the teaching of the
Unification Church, feeling it to be natural and necessary. Religious dogma could not be
proved and disproved by rational thought and knowledge of historical facts, and so once
participants misunderstood that dogma within the frame of reference of incontrovertible
fact, they were unable to challenge or undermine the worldview that the Unification Church
had constructed. They were robbed of the opportunity to decide for themselves whether
they accepted the religious interpretation of nature and history the Unification Church
provided.
Deprogramming Cases
In 1998 and 1999 members of controversial religions filed lawsuits against Protestant
pastors who had conducted deprogrammings1 and against the families who had given their
consent to a coercive deprogrammig that included confinement of members. The plaintiffs‘
claim that deprogramming is coercive proselytizing and contrary to basic human rights and
freedom of religion has been argued by the Unification Church for decades. However, in
Japan no such lawsuits existed accusing a husband and parents who had tried to rescue
their children from the Jehovah‘s Witnesses and the Unification Church, respectively. Before
I turn to the controversy of deprogramming, I shall briefly outline one case of the Jehovah‘s
Witnesses and two cases of the Unification Church.
men were invited to view a video of a self-development workshop, and the women were
invited to a ―culture center,‖ which included such topics as fortune-telling by numerology
(using the number of Chinese character strokes in women‘s names) and tracing family
lineage. Not until these women were deeply involved in various workshops were they made
aware of the religious content of the workshops and the association with the Unification
Church. By that time, they had already committed themselves to continuing the workshops.
According to the women, if they had been informed of the church's identity from the
beginning, they would not have participated in the workshops.
According to the court ruling, the Unification Church recruiters took advantage of
weaknesses in the former members (personal problems, illness of family members,
uncertainties about the future, etc.) and fanned anxieties in the recruits that had no direct
connection to the church's religious dogma (the fear of their family becoming extinct,
communicating with the spiritual world, curses, etc.), and consequently stirring up their
concerns over religious salvation.
The ruling, instead of focusing on whether the former members acted voluntarily or were
coerced into action, acknowledged the illegality in the purpose, means, and results of
systematic recruiting and indoctrination by the church members. Although the Unification
Church insisted on former members‘ self-responsibilities entering into the church and the
invalidity of applying mind-control theory into their conversion process, the ruling rejected
the contention of a mind-control controversy.
The above decision clearly indicated the systematic strategies by the Unification Church in
Japan to recruit more converts and indoctrinate more members. Moreover, it shows the
transitional process in those followers who had fallen for the strategy, from introduction, to
conversion, to devotion.
In addition, the ruling includes the epoch-making concept that in its missionary activities a
religion should teach its ideas as religious reality. Indoctrination of dogma camouflaged as
science would unjustly influence individuals' decision-making capabilities. In fact, the
Unification Church usually teaches its dogma as a fact that natural science and history have
already proved, and it reveals its name and actual activities to participants only at the final
stage of seminars. Most participants considered that they should follow the teaching of the
Unification Church, feeling it to be natural and necessary. Religious dogma could not be
proved and disproved by rational thought and knowledge of historical facts, and so once
participants misunderstood that dogma within the frame of reference of incontrovertible
fact, they were unable to challenge or undermine the worldview that the Unification Church
had constructed. They were robbed of the opportunity to decide for themselves whether
they accepted the religious interpretation of nature and history the Unification Church
provided.
Deprogramming Cases
In 1998 and 1999 members of controversial religions filed lawsuits against Protestant
pastors who had conducted deprogrammings1 and against the families who had given their
consent to a coercive deprogrammig that included confinement of members. The plaintiffs‘
claim that deprogramming is coercive proselytizing and contrary to basic human rights and
freedom of religion has been argued by the Unification Church for decades. However, in
Japan no such lawsuits existed accusing a husband and parents who had tried to rescue
their children from the Jehovah‘s Witnesses and the Unification Church, respectively. Before
I turn to the controversy of deprogramming, I shall briefly outline one case of the Jehovah‘s
Witnesses and two cases of the Unification Church.
