The Shincheonji Church of Jesus has issued a statement condemning what it describes as the South Korean government's unconstitutional targeting of its religious community. The church asserts that government officials have categorically labeled it a 'social harm' and 'detriment' while mobilizing state power in a retaliatory manner, constituting a grave violation of Article 20 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, which guarantees freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.
On January 12, President Lee Jae-myung stated during a meeting with religious leaders that 'societal harm [caused by a specific religion] has been neglected for too long, resulting in great damage.' The following day, Prime Minister Kim Min-seok utilized terms such as 'cult' and 'heresy' during a Cabinet meeting to order a joint investigation and 'eradication' measures. The Shincheonji Church argues these statements effectively draw conclusions before any formal investigation has begun, preemptively branding the religious group as a 'socially problematic entity' and potentially compromising due process principles.
The church questions the government's authority to define and judge religious doctrine, asking 'By what authority does a secular government define and judge religious doctrine? On what legal basis does the highest seat of power provide investigative guidelines that undermine the independence of the judiciary?' The statement emphasizes that criteria for 'orthodoxy' or 'heresy' must never be based on political proximity or secular interests but must be rooted solely in religious texts.
Shincheonji Church has repeatedly proposed resolving theological disputes through an open, public Bible examination grounded in scripture rather than emotion or political pressure. The church maintains it has never claimed infallibility and is committed to correcting any genuine doctrinal or social errors if specifically identified. The statement highlights the church's community contributions, including voluntary service during national disasters and record-breaking blood drives during supply crises, while noting the government continues to use abstract labels without presenting specific instances of verified damage.
The church points to judicial history, noting that despite numerous past allegations, the judicial process has repeatedly resulted in acquittals or findings of no suspicion. The statement warns that 'If one religion is targeted today, any marginalized group could be the target tomorrow,' calling upon the government to cease emotional branding and base judgments on facts and law. The church affirms its constitutional right to freedom of religion and states it will stand firm within the framework of law and order.
This confrontation raises significant questions about the balance between state authority and religious freedom in democratic societies, particularly regarding how governments address religious groups they perceive as problematic. The Shincheonji Church's challenge to what it views as prejudicial government actions before proper investigation highlights ongoing tensions between religious autonomy and state oversight in South Korea and serves as a case study for other nations grappling with similar issues at the intersection of governance, minority rights, and constitutional protections.
