Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2008, Page 43
Aleph insisted that visitors be selected cautiously, according to their understanding of
religion. Aleph favored advocates of human rights and religious tolerance.
On April 24th, 2002, a meeting entitled ―Dialog with Aleph and viewing of the second
documentary film of Aum „A2‟” was scheduled to be held at the court of GS Heim and to
include the film producer, social critics, and the owner of the Aum residence. But residents
strongly opposed it because they were offended by a phrase in the organizers‘ commercial
leaflet that contained part of the ruling by the Tokyo District Court in the resident card suit,
which stated, ―The dialog between Aleph and residents should aim at securing public safety
and promoting mutual understanding—simply regarding Aleph with hostility not only robs
everybody of an opportunity for mutual understanding, but makes the solution of the
problem more difficult.‖ This pronouncement of the Tokyo District Court to Setagaya Ward
referring to the municipality‘s duty was intentionally distorted by the meeting organizers
who pointed out that local residents should do the same.
Surely, dialogue is necessary, and the intention of the organizers to create such an
opportunity is laudable. However, to what extent did they conduct this meeting to sway
public opinion, rather than to address the concerns of the condo residents? And what sort of
dialog did they intend to undertake with Aleph rather than the residents? They seemed to
overlook the fact that after two years of arguing over residential problems with Aleph, condo
residents had given up on building mutual trust. Familiarity toward individual Aleph
followers and anger toward a religious body that had responded to the residents in an
inconsistent and remote manner must be distinguished. Frank conversations between Aleph
followers and local opponents are frequently observed, as, for example, ―You should go back
to your parents‘ home. If you defected from Aum, we would take care of you.‖ Yet, we
should also not overlook the fact that the condo residential area is watched by security
police at all hours.
The difficulties faced by the opposition movements of condo residents and locals mirror the
limitations of legal redress and public authority. They have no choice but to follow the
dictates of social ethics and learn to deal with the drawbacks of the situation, what is called
consideration of the rights of a religious minority. Although the construction of a
condominium might be stopped by local residents‘ right to sunlight, the infringement on
quality of life by a specific organization is not regarded as a human-rights violation.
Condominium residents reported that they were closely united by the opposition movement
and sometimes enjoyed small parties and excursions together for a change of pace. The
council members, who included the old chairman, shop owners, housewives, and ward staff,
also valued their relationship. Without the Aleph incidents, they would not have
communicated deeply. Yet, in fairness, despite the deadlock with Aleph, they have reaped
some advantage from the disaster, and they encourage each other so as not to be isolated
individually and see their opposition movement forgotten by the general public.
Recent Aleph
According to several newspapers issued on May 5th, 2006, conflict within Aleph‘s inner
factions was in full swing and would result in its split. This fact was not uncovered by
reporters, but preemptively disclosed by the security police agency, which was concerned
about Aum/Aleph‘s fake dissolution and revival as a new religious group. Responding to this
analysis, the Aum bankruptcy administrator pronounced that even new groups would
assume liability indemnity to the sarin case injured parties.
In recent years, since a leader of Aleph, Fumihiro Joyu, was released, he has vied for power
with higher-ranking disciples of Asahara who were not arrested in the sarin gas attack and
other criminal incidents. He has been seeking to reestablish a new religious group that
breaks with the spiritual tradition of the founder of Aum because the notoriety of Aum and
Aleph insisted that visitors be selected cautiously, according to their understanding of
religion. Aleph favored advocates of human rights and religious tolerance.
On April 24th, 2002, a meeting entitled ―Dialog with Aleph and viewing of the second
documentary film of Aum „A2‟” was scheduled to be held at the court of GS Heim and to
include the film producer, social critics, and the owner of the Aum residence. But residents
strongly opposed it because they were offended by a phrase in the organizers‘ commercial
leaflet that contained part of the ruling by the Tokyo District Court in the resident card suit,
which stated, ―The dialog between Aleph and residents should aim at securing public safety
and promoting mutual understanding—simply regarding Aleph with hostility not only robs
everybody of an opportunity for mutual understanding, but makes the solution of the
problem more difficult.‖ This pronouncement of the Tokyo District Court to Setagaya Ward
referring to the municipality‘s duty was intentionally distorted by the meeting organizers
who pointed out that local residents should do the same.
Surely, dialogue is necessary, and the intention of the organizers to create such an
opportunity is laudable. However, to what extent did they conduct this meeting to sway
public opinion, rather than to address the concerns of the condo residents? And what sort of
dialog did they intend to undertake with Aleph rather than the residents? They seemed to
overlook the fact that after two years of arguing over residential problems with Aleph, condo
residents had given up on building mutual trust. Familiarity toward individual Aleph
followers and anger toward a religious body that had responded to the residents in an
inconsistent and remote manner must be distinguished. Frank conversations between Aleph
followers and local opponents are frequently observed, as, for example, ―You should go back
to your parents‘ home. If you defected from Aum, we would take care of you.‖ Yet, we
should also not overlook the fact that the condo residential area is watched by security
police at all hours.
The difficulties faced by the opposition movements of condo residents and locals mirror the
limitations of legal redress and public authority. They have no choice but to follow the
dictates of social ethics and learn to deal with the drawbacks of the situation, what is called
consideration of the rights of a religious minority. Although the construction of a
condominium might be stopped by local residents‘ right to sunlight, the infringement on
quality of life by a specific organization is not regarded as a human-rights violation.
Condominium residents reported that they were closely united by the opposition movement
and sometimes enjoyed small parties and excursions together for a change of pace. The
council members, who included the old chairman, shop owners, housewives, and ward staff,
also valued their relationship. Without the Aleph incidents, they would not have
communicated deeply. Yet, in fairness, despite the deadlock with Aleph, they have reaped
some advantage from the disaster, and they encourage each other so as not to be isolated
individually and see their opposition movement forgotten by the general public.
Recent Aleph
According to several newspapers issued on May 5th, 2006, conflict within Aleph‘s inner
factions was in full swing and would result in its split. This fact was not uncovered by
reporters, but preemptively disclosed by the security police agency, which was concerned
about Aum/Aleph‘s fake dissolution and revival as a new religious group. Responding to this
analysis, the Aum bankruptcy administrator pronounced that even new groups would
assume liability indemnity to the sarin case injured parties.
In recent years, since a leader of Aleph, Fumihiro Joyu, was released, he has vied for power
with higher-ranking disciples of Asahara who were not arrested in the sarin gas attack and
other criminal incidents. He has been seeking to reestablish a new religious group that
breaks with the spiritual tradition of the founder of Aum because the notoriety of Aum and
