Paper short abstract:

This paper seeks to understand the Naha Confucius Temple lawsuit in relation to post-1972 Okinawan identity. The paper argues that the lawsuit was not simply concerned with legal interpretations of religion, but reflected a broader political debate over the relationship between Okinawa and Japan.

Paper long abstract:

In February of 2021, a ruling handed down by the Supreme Court settled a legal dispute over whether the recently rebuilt Confucius Temple (kōshibyō) in Naha on Okinawa should be understood as religious or not under the 1947 constitution. Disregarding the fact that the organization behind the temple was organized as a general corporate juridical person and not as a religious corporation, the justices of the Supreme Court agreed with the previous instance courts and ruled in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that the temple itself served a religious function as a site for carrying out religious activities. As such, it was ruled that by granting the temple lease-free use of land in a municipal park, the mayor of Naha had violated the principle of secularism in the constitution.

Since the justices chose to disregard the legal status of the concerned organizations and instead relied on their own normative understandings of what constitutes religion, the Naha Confucius Temple lawsuit serves as a good example of judicial religion-making in contemporary Japan. However, it is also interesting in that it reflects a larger struggle over Okinawan/Ryukyuan identity. The temple was granted certain boons from the local government in Naha because of its significance to the local population in Kume village, an area settled in the 14th century by immigrants from Ming Dynasty China. For the mayor and the local neighborhood association, the temple first and foremost reflected Okinawa’s history as an independent kingdom with cultural ties to China as well as to Japan.

This paper will explore the motivations and ideological positions of the actors involved in the Naha Confucius Temple lawsuit. It builds on my previous work on the lawsuit and on fieldwork that I will carry out in Naha in the spring of 2023. My aim is to show how this lawsuit is not only about the postwar relationship between state and religion in Japan, but is also – perhaps more than anything else – concerned with the question of how to understand Okinawa as a cultural and geographical entity after its 1972 return to Japan.