Mainichi’s English translators invent war criminal “remains” at the Yasukuni Shrine

I am not all too familiar with Shinto customs so could you please enlighten me more on that? AFAIK, after the bodies are cemented, ashes and some bones are placed in a jar and kept under the tombstones. Maybe that what they meant by physical remains?

And a Shinto priest at Yasukuni is insisting that once the soul is enshrined , it can not be removed just as when the flame is mingled with another flame, you can not remove the original flame..

I think this man explains the worship of “ghost” quite well.

“I’m familiar with the Chinese practices, and that’s where Japan’s practice of Buddho-Taoist belief came from, including ghost worship. It’s more of an awareness that spiritual entities and forces can effect your life in good ways and certainly in bad ways. So people view it as a necessary burden, very much like doing taxes: Gotta pay that damn monthly tax.”

http://www.japanwindow.com/index.php?showimage=649

This is about Japanese Buddhist temple , but the basic idea is similar; the traditional Shinto idea is that whether good of bad while living, the “ghost” or “soul” can effect your life, so that you need to enshrine it.

Japan is ghostly.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/shi/igj/index.htm

So in Yasukuni, “enemy” souls and animal souls that died at the war are also enshrined.

People are not worshiping the evil spirit that killed a million of people.

I think some Japanese bereaved family think for instance, Tojou was ultimately responsible for the suffering not only for the victims, Asian people, American POW, etc but also for Japanese soldiers who took irrational orders from the superiors.; Why does my father’s soul have to live with his soul? And if this is a big political issue, and if the separation of Tojou’s soul makes us as well as other Japanese visit Yasukuni peacefully, why not remove it?—-China says as far as the souls of A-criminals are removed, there is no problem. ( By contrast, Korea says there is a problem as far as Japan does not change the view on history)

Tojou’s granddaughter says, “hey my grandfather was hanged dead for Japanese war, and it is Japanese who supported him at the time. What is wrong with his soul enshrined?

I might be mistaken but that is my impression I get from the discussion about removing the soul from Yasukuni shrine.

(The issue of Yasukuni itself is a lot more complicated, though)

Apparently, the head priest at Yasukuni insists kami cannot be removed. There is, however, precedent from the Tokugawa period, when all of the kami were de-enshrined (in effect, the shrine was closed down, for lack of a better term) and then only those that were wanted in the shrine were re-enshrined in a mass ceremony. It would take some time, but there’s no reason I’ve yet heard why that couldn’t be done again. Have their been changes in procedure or dogma since late Tokugawa? (If anyone knows, please fill me in.)

It seems de-enshrinement is being called impossible because a reduction in controversy would be a reduction in attention paid to the shrine, which might divert some of its donations. It was also surely disappoint some the current shrine’s msot ardent supporters, who would be basically called wrong if the priests were to change their arguments now. Again, a loss of attention and, hence, revenue for Yasukuni.

Indeed the translation is not fantastic. But more to the point, I think the problem is that people have forgotten what Yasukuni Shrine is about…

Its remembering the sacrifice not the politics… Its remember the death of a human, not what uniform he wore…

This is something the Chinese have simlpy not addressed at all.

Good points, yet we’ve seen sainthood stripped when it was determined necessary.

You do raise a good point: that Japan’s religion is strongly political, and heavily tied to the state, like it or not. This is, of course, true of other religions. It would be wonderful to see a beautiful country such as Japan rise above such ties. It would be good for its bid for a permanent seat on the UNSC as well.

Which is sort of the crux of the argument. Today’s Japan is indeed not the Tokugawa bakufu, which did not deal with foreign policy, post-war asian relations, global capitalism, the desire to have a permanent seat on the UNSC, the wake of Koizumi, and a host of other bedbugs that have made it difficult for Japan to assert itself properly and with the full strength it has.

It is, of course, correct for a nation to honor its war dead – mainly to recognize the sacrifice that underclass citizens were forced into. Nonetheless, the idea that war criminals be worshiped does not sit well with today’s political reality, which as you say, is not part of the Tokugawa bakufu.

Today’s Japan has much to consider in terms of its role in the world. In order to assert its power and influence more strongly, it may have to move on from the deification of war criminals. So be it. Either/or, neither/nor. In today’s global political reality, Japan cannot have its cake and eat it. It just won’t feed that last UNSC veto. Simple political reality.

気持ち悪い, it seems you missed my point last time. I was asking about changes in the procedures of the religion, not politics. The changes that removed the Emperor’s deity status did not explicitly address the procedural aspects of enshrinement.

The head priest of Yasukuni is not making his argument on political grounds, he’s using religious rules to nullify the argument. I absolutely agree with you that the government shouldn’t be able to tell Yasukuni what to do, but to say that it had no connection to politics would be somewhat misleading. The whole idea of a shrine to those who died in the service of Japan automatically implies a political connection. Yasukuni is not your garden variety neighborhood shrine. It was established as an official site – changes in the words on paper can’t much in the way it is perceived or goes about its business.

Back to my point, though: Is there any religious reason why the chief priest of Yasukuni cannot do what his predecessors in the late Tokugawa period did? At that time, the shogunate surely had something to say about it, but politics were not the issue I was addressing. I never even implied that the government should tell Yasukuni what to do, only that the head priest seems to be making a demonstrably false argument.

all this debating about “enshrinement” – a concept that is about as abstract and inconsequential as can be – is making my head spin. we’re talking about “spirits” here folks…. it’s not like anyone seriously believes that the japanese make it a point to explicitly thank the “spirit” of tojo when they visit the place….

RYO, I agree with you that it is likely that no one prays to or for Tojo. I also agree that enshrinement is abstract. However, listing a kami as “enshrined” implies respect, admiration, and high status. Praying at a shrine, whether sincer or not, implies respect for those enshrined therein. At the very least, a visit by a public official such as the PM implies a lack of disagreement with the shrine and it’s policies. That’s the problem.

“Praying at a shrine, whether sincere or not, implies respect for those enshrined therein.”
Perhaps. But I would like to think that most people understand and assume that a visiting PM would not be praying out of respect for those war criminals who make up a very small percentage of the total number enshrined at Yasukuni.
“At the very least, a visit by a public official such as the PM implies a lack of disagreement with the shrine and it’s policies. That’s the problem.”
I respectfully disagree. It is certainly conceivable that a visiting PM might disagree with certain policies of a (privately-run) shrine while making regular visits. At the very least, the burden would be on critics to establish that the PM does not disagree with such policies, I would think. No such implication is warranted simply by the act of visiting and praying at the shrine, given that the vast majority who are enshrined there were not war criminals.
In any case, the frequency and extent of objections reflects poorly on those countries that insist on voicing diplomatic criticisms as a means of sidestepping domestic failings.

If freedom of individual worship is desirable, why is Yasukuni, a private institution, not at fault for its assumption that anyone and everyone who served in Japan’s military or colonial military is an adherent of what was, until the end of WWII, Japan’s state religion?

What an illogical argument. If, say, my religion says that everyone who has ever been born or ever will be born and has never is going to hell unless they pray to my savior, am I violating anyone else’s freedom of religion? It is you who lacks an understanding of the concept of freedom of religion: it does not mean that a religion’s practitioners can’t believe what they want about other people.

“Ponta, please don’t repeat that “Koizumi visited as a private citizen” line – you know that’s nonsense. He wore the semi-official morning dress uniform of his office, went with an entourage and press, and signed the visitors’ book “Koizumi Junichiro, the Prime Minister of Japan.” How could it have been more official?”

I guess that makes every US President’s visit to a church “official” too, then? Maybe you want to haul Bush and Clinton up before the Supreme Court for violating the separation of Church and State? This is another incredibly weak argument.

All I see from you here are desperate justifications for holding onto the idea that visiting Yasukuni must somehow be banned. I think Ryo puts the matter well in saying

“It is certainly conceivable that a visiting PM might disagree with certain policies of a (privately-run) shrine while making regular visits. At the very least, the burden would be on critics to establish that the PM does not disagree with such policies, I would think. No such implication is warranted simply by the act of visiting and praying at the shrine, given that the vast majority who are enshrined there were not war criminals.”

Indeed. Just as praying at St. Paul’s Cathedral does not mean one endorses everything the Church has ever had to say on infallibility, gays, abortion, Jews, etc., visiting Yasukuni says nothing about what one believes about Tojo and company, especially in the case of someone like Koizumi who went out of his way to say he thought Tojo’s regime was wrong and guilty of aggression. If certain governments which find Yasukuni useful for stirring up their domestic populations choose to ignore the actual opinions of the Japanese politicians they criticize, whose fault is that but their own?

Garrett

Thanks

“He wore the semi-official morning dress uniform of his office, went with an entourage and press, and signed the visitors’ book “Koizumi Junichiro, the Prime Minister of Japan.” How could it have been more official?”

I think PM would do the exactly the same thing if he was invited to the wedding party of his friend’s daughter, and yet it is a private visit.

Do you think, PM does not have right to visit Church to pray? Does he have to visit Church without a guard man ? Does he have to wear T shirt to make it clear it is not official visit. Does he have to write just his name without a title though it is customary to write the title even in a private party? If he does not write the title, is it okay for him to visit the shrine if he does not write the title? I think it is a bit extreme you can not act as a private person
suddenly when you become PM.

My opinion is as far as it is private, it is his constitutional right to visit Church or Yasukuni or wherever; for it neither facilitate nor oppress a specific religion. That is, as far as it does not violate the principle of the separation of the state from the religion. his freedom to faith should be protected.

China think it hurts the feeling of Chinese people; it may if PM is praying for another war with China, but he is not doing that. He makes it clear that he is praying for peace so that what happened
to the war-dead will not happen again. I think he is talking to the war dead, because of their sacrifice Japan could have build itself this much, we won’t make the same mistake again. By the dialogue with “ghost”, the ghost would be pacified.

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/postwar/yasukuni/position.html

I think what Yasukuni or the war memorial near the Yasukuni should do is to make it clear that Japanese troop committed horrible war crimes.

And if Yasukuni voluntarily removed the souls of A criminals by developing the newest spiritual technology and place them in other place to pacify them, it might be better for political purpose..
But even if it is not removed, it is not that PM honor the crimes that A criminals committed.

Besides, I don’t think A criminals’ spirit has to be like criminals; Darth Vader, who would have been A criminal , after his death appeared with fellow Jedi in spirit form without evidence of his scars and infirmities. That was scenario of the film, but the similar thought might be scenario for Shinto believers and I think that might be a kind of soul that the shinto believer is talking to.

If I may be so bold, I think you guys may be reading things into my argument that I didn’t say.
First, I am in no way for the dissolution of Yasukuni shrine or even a change in its raison d’etre. I am not even necessarily opposed to sitting Prime Ministers visiting the shrine, although I think it is politically unwise.
Second, I have made no church-state separation argument as I don’t think that’s really the problem. The problem is not a sitting PM visiting a shrine, it’s a sitIting PM visiting Yasukuni shrine.

When a US President visits a church, yes, it’s an official visit if it’s public beyond photographers happening to follow him. And, yes, it implies he is not disapproving of the institution, not the whole religion. I never said Koizumi’s visits implied anything like an approval of every aspect of Shintoism. If Clinton or Bush were to visit St. Paul’s, it would imply that there was nothing at St. Paul’s they found unacceptable. Were Bush to sign “George W. Bush, President of the United States of America,” of course it would imply a visit in something of an official capacity.
Comparing visiting St. Paul’s implying approval of all the Church does with visiting Yasukuni implying an approval of war criminals’ enshrinement is a poor analogy. A better comparison would be a visit by a sitting US President to the grave or shrine of a group including an individual. For example, if a US President were to visit a memorial to Nathan Bedford Forrest or to CSA Generals, it would imply a lack of disapproval.

Furhtermore, the Church is not now and has never been an institution of the US Government. Yasukuni is removed from such a status only by written statute and not much in practice. It receives subsidies from the Government of Japan as an historical site and was established an official shrine. It continues to be a monument to the war dead.

If the Church had beatified Mussolini, you’d have an analogy.

Furthermore, Koizumi was fully cognizant of the controversy surrounding the shrine, made an oath to visit, visited for the last time on August 15th, never publicly disagreed with the statements of those in his Cabinet who disputed the validity of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East or even went so far as to say the militaristic wartime government hadn’t really done anything wrong (which should offend people here considering a great number of that government’s victims were Japanese), and made a point of saying that he’d go in spite of any other factors.

In a way, that’s admirable, I don’t think Koizumi or any other PM should kowtow to the wishes of any foreign power. What’s unfortunate is that Koizumi’s public statements intended to mitigate the furor over his visits were so clearly insincere. Had they been sincere, had he been visiting just to honor those who had died defending Japan, had he truly felt that the 1979 political decision to enshrine the 14 Class A war criminals, which elevates to the status of minor deities (which matters if we’re talking religion), he would either not have visited or at least been consistent in his public statements concerning the shrine.

Yes, Japan has strong separation of church and state, but I don’t buy the statement that politicians refrain from voicing opinions on Yasukuni because of that. Fukuda Yasuo, while Chief Cabinet Secretary, and again while running for the Presidency of the LDP, said he thought a separate, secular war memorial should be established if kami could not be de-enshrined (which would not require any change in religious practice – that was the point of indicating precedent.)

I also did not say that Nakasone, Koizumi, or any of the PMs who less publicly visited, either during or after their terms, were supporting Tojo or any of the other Class A war criminals. They did not show disapproval, they did not publicly acknowledge the great wrong done by those men, which is something simple they could have done. When dealing with the legacy of a man like Tojo, it is most definitely important to give voice to your disapproval of the man and his actions, to say publicly that there is a portion of the inseparable homogenous flame for which you hold no reverence. Koizumi didn’t do that.

Do you really think his visits were private and apolitical? Why, then, did his visits become an annual tradition after he made them a campaign pledge. Why, then, did he make such a big deal about them? And, yes, it matters, why did he put on the de facto uniform of a Diet member, visit with an entourage (more than guards), the press corps, and sign with his title? There are all indications of officiality.
Simple: It was a political statement.

You can pretend Yasukuni is just another shrine, but we all know that is far from true. If it were just another shrine, why visit that one? It is not a special Diet members’ shrine or a shrine dedicated to great leaders. There isn’t a tradition of postwar PMs publicly visiting Yasukuni. It is a political statement. It is just plain disingenuous to pretend it’s not.

As for Darth Vader. Well, you’ve got me there. George Lucas redeemed Darth Vader, so it’s all right to be the Prime Minister and Commander of the Army of a military dictatorship guilty of atrocities at home and abroad. Hell, while we’re at it, why don’t we canonize Hitler and Mussolini, just be cool with the cult of Mao and Lenin, and maybe make a little offering to Stalin. Pol Pot? Where’s he buried? Perhaps Hun Sen can make a little apolitical visit. If Darth Vader can be redeemed, I guess we can just forget all about everything that happened from 1937 to 1945 and just be happy.

Garrett,

I think you’re way off in terms of Darth Vader. First of all, as the former Anakin Skywalker, his redemption would come directly from the Jedi Council, which transcends death. In no way, shape or form was such a redemption proven by his appearance at the closing moments of Return of the Jedi. yes, he appeared with Yoda and Obi-Wan – but it seems as though they might have been estranged from the Council, due to the fact that Mace Windu did not appear with them. Remember, it was the severing of his arm that pushed Anakin over the top and sealed his fate as a Sith, as he defended the soon-to-be Emperor.

Remember that Obi-Wan trained Anakin, and that it was Yoga’s misguided decision that allowed the child that was to be Darth begin his training. What we see next is a spiral of events that were born of those misguided judgments.

What you’re ignoring is the separation of Jedi Council and the Intergalactic Senate. The Senate, with its ultimate veto power by virtue of holding the Council’s purse strings, never allowed for that to truly happen. As it transferred into the Imperial Senate, naturally the Jedi Council was outlawed. This made it a rogue group, yet one that no longer actually actively existed. I think the way you confuse this issue is just disingenuous. It’s like telling a child that Darth Vader killed your father; it might be true, but we all know the political reality that Yoda, Obi-wan and Anakin all conspired to engender the force that actually killed Anakin. Why would you go on telling Luke such baldfaced lies?

Well, if you can’t separate the Council from the Senate, I just can’t follow the logic.

Oops, missing <strong> tag there. A preview button would really be useful here < hint, hint >

Garrett
Thanks.

“If it were just another shrine, why visit that one?”

I think because Yasukuni shrine is the shrine especially dedicated to the war dead and Japanese soldiers promised each other to meet after their death at none other than Yasukuni.

As for Darth Vader, it was a clumsy comparison, you can forget it .
But the point is not that you can redeem the war criminals, but that you can still talk to the war dead even if you approve they were guilty of a war crime. And Koizumi admitted that A criminals were war criminals. Japanese government accepted the judgment of Tokyo Trial.

I think Fukuda’s idea is another solution. And as Ken said, it might be better for PM not to visit Yasukuni in view of international relation and real-politics.

But the point as I see it is whether it is plausible for PM as a private person to visit Yasukuni.

You said you were talking about it in view of ethics, you think it is ethically wrong. I think it is ethically plausible.

When the president pay respect to Arlingtoncemetery is he praising the My-Lai “Massacre?
When someone visits the national memorial in the U.S. is he/she honoring what Dudley Walker Morton did?
When Regan visited the Kolmeshöhe Cemetery. was he applauding the men who had served in the Waffen-SS?
I think not.
In case of Koizumi,

“Prime Minister Koizumi is of the firm conviction that Japan’s present peace and prosperity are founded on the noble sacrifices made by those who lost their lives in the war. He visits Yasukuni Shrine to mourn and offer his respect and thanks to those who had to lay down their lives on the battlefield against their will; to reaffirm the importance of ensuring the present peace and prosperity of Japan, which those who died in the war were unable to witness; and to uphold Japan’s pledge not to engage in a war. He makes the visits as an individual citizen, not in an official capacitymofa

I think it is ethically plausible for PM or president to pay respect the war-deads, whether there are a few war-criminals included in the place, if his/her intention is not to praise the crimes.

Feel free to criticize.

Garrett
Thanks
I think we are getting closer.

Ponta, I think you brought an important issue to the fore: the separation of graves. It is quite easy to go to Arlington National Cemetery and visit individual graves while ignoring others.

When the president or a foreign minister from abroad visits Arlington Cemetery, are they paying respect to a specific grave?

As for Reagan visiting Kolmeshoehe, that’s an entirely different situation because a.) Mike Deaver didn’t know about the Waffen-SS members buried there, so he couldn’t tell Reagan and b.)

According to wiki

Chancellor Kohl responded in an interview with the New York Times: “I will not give up the idea. If we don’t go to Bitburg, if we don’t do what we jointly planned, we will deeply offend the feelings of [my] people.” A poll revealed that 72% of West Germans thought the visit should go forward as planned.

Kohl made a call to the White House days before Reagan’s visit to make sure the president wasn’t wavering in the face of criticism, not to mention pressure from wife Nancy.wiki

And Dudley Walker Morton is listed on the wall of honor. And it is the nationalmemorial.

His visits in and of themselves were not unethical, his handling of the visits was. His lying about his motives and the intended message was.

I don’t know his “real”motivation, but I agree it might have been stupid of Koizumi to have visited in the way he did. And I agree that he might have been better if he made it clearer that he condemned war criminals.

On that last point, Ponta, we fully agree. Korea and China are definitely using Yasukuni as one more way to shift attention from domestic problems by stirring up anti-Japanese sentiment.

Both China and South Korea have far more egregious examples of the distortion of history than Yasukuni. The portrayal of Japan, even present-day Japan, in both countries, is a farce. That doesn’t necessarily let pols in Japan dealing with Yasukuni off the hook, though.

I do think that Japan needs to come to terms with it 20th century history, but I would fully agree that there are far more important domestic and foreign policy issues for Japan than Yasukuni. Then again, as I said way back on Seijigiri #4, it within the power of current and future Japanese political leaders to make the issue disappear by simply not going and not announcing that they’re not, or going on a low-profile basis, not announcing it, and being honest about it if asked. If Japanese leaders refuse to stoop to China’s or South Korea’s level and ignore the bait, the issue’s importance will be reduced.

▼韓国併合に関与した人物をあがめる現象 – That is a little unclear, isn’t it? I’m with you that it could be Ito or any of the late Meiji leaders (although Ito is most likely, considering he was Resident-General.) Now there’s a guy to be conflicted about. Ito made some indisputable contributions, but the womanizing, the (alleged, but likely) rape, not to mention what he did in Korea.
It’s funny you should mention him, as I am, at this very moment writing a piece about him that I hope to publish later tonight on Trans-Pacific Radio. Come by, we can hash it out over the old man’s legacy.

Ponta, you are absolutely right – China and Korea are making politics of the issue – as they should. It is a wedge for them and one angle from which they can attack Japan. A nations with ‘lesser’ economic status and nations which have been fairly recently conquered by Japan, we should not expect less. It’s natural for them 1) to not like official visits to the shrine by sitting (elected) politicians and 2) to try to play the situation for the own domestic support as well as 3) use the issue to deny Japan further global power since 4) the idea of a more powerful Japan scares them. This is realpolitik, and they know how to play it. I think that Japan, with it’s incessant checkbook diplomacy, has been very bad at playing this gam, but needs to get better in order to better assert its role in the world. Koizumi did wonders for the banks in Japan but great harm to Japan’s international reputation by making the visists.

Sorry. The message was cut by <.

(A) Crimes against Peace – Why real criminals?
(B) Conventional War Crimes – They are exactly war criminals
(C) Crimes against Humanity – Maybe they are too

Japan went forward on the defeat when JMF(Japan Maritime Force) started war with the US. JMF is foolish, but Tojo(one of A criminals) is not so.

I think,,,

Japan fought with the red Marx’s children from 1894. Japan was defeated at USA. If both of Japan and USA crushed REDS(China, USSR), the world is good a little more now.

Thanks to reading this cruel English.