OPINION: A reckoning for church-state separation

South Korea’s Constitution guarantees freedom of religion while mandating the separation of church and state, a principle enshrined in 1948. For more than eight decades, this constitutional boundary has remained largely uncontested. Recently, however, calls have emerged to clarify the scope of this separation and strengthen penalties for violations, reflecting growing concern that the principle is being eroded.

President Lee Jae Myung recently underscored the need for firm action against religious foundations that violate constitutional norms, warning that inaction could fuel social conflict reminiscent of religious strife. It is the first time a South Korean president has publicly raised the need for legal measures against unconstitutional religious activities. 

In principle, South Korea’s protection of religious freedom is broad, encompassing worship, education, and assembly.

The establishment of religious corporations is relatively easy, a system that has inadvertently enabled the proliferation of questionable religious groups. Yet the legal framework offers no clear mechanism for dissolving such entities — a stark contrast to Japan, where a court ordered the dissolution of the Unification Church following revelations over coercive fundraising practices. 

Religion has historically played a constructive role in Korea’s modernization and independence movements. Over time, however, some religious groups have expanded their influence through political alliances, often operating beyond effective oversight. Today, religious organizations openly engage in political activities, raising serious questions about their growing sway over public policy and governance. 

In a democratic republic, the separation of church and state is not merely symbolic; it is foundational. Allowing religious groups to exercise unchecked political power risks hollowing out this constitutional principle. Recent controversies surrounding the Unification Church underscore the urgency of legislative action to close existing legal gaps. 

President Lee’s remarks signal a renewed commitment to constitutional order. The challenge now is to translate that resolve into concrete legal and institutional safeguards — ensuring that freedom of religion is protected without allowing it to become a shield for political influence or legal immunity. 

Author's Background

Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.