In Japan today, there are many things: same-sex marriage, Janie Kitagawa's sex crimes, new capitalism, declining birthrate, abductions, pensions, etc.

Whenever a problem arises, people shout about it on social media to make themselves feel better and quickly forget about it. What they are doing is, after all, masturbation.

As a "victim," I have previously criticized those who show me masturbation.

However, my blog is also a masturbatory act. But I want to focus on one erotic book, even if it is a masturbatory act.

This is why I am now concentrating on the issue of the "Request for Dissolution of the former Unification Church."

-----

The former Unification Church continued to engage in inhumane acts of disregard for human rights (despite numerous warnings) that skirted the interpretation of our country's guarantee of "freedom of religion based on the goodness of faith. This has led to the law being amended.

Even I, here, found the revision 'unavoidable.

At any rate, if we continue to recognize the religious juridical status of the former Unification Church, we will allow a second or third former Unification Church to emerge.

From the responses so far (including the response to the right of the Cultural Affairs Ministry to ask questions), I understand that it is 'completely futile' to expect the former Unification Church to come up with a full concept of human rights, modern social conventions, and the rule of law.

So, what is the significance of this dissolution request?

We must "let the former Unification Church set a precedent" so that religious organizations that abuse the law and trample on human rights will not again become "state patronage targets.

----

I believe wholeheartedly that 'religion is something that saves people's hearts and makes them happy and, therefore, needs to be protected by the state.

Therefore, a group that brainwashes its followers destroys family ties and uses the afterlife, which none have seen as bait to take their personal property. It has no right to call itself a religion.

No, to be precise, even such an organization may call itself a religion. Because "religion" of any kind is "freedom" (Article 20 of the Constitution of Japan).

However, the state has neither the obligation nor the duty to protect the privileges of their religious juridical status by law and with the blood taxes of the Japanese people.