Key Points: A Medical and Human Rights Perspective

 

1. Being 95 does not automatically make a person medically incapable or legally exempt from responsibility. Age is not a diagnosis.
2. But medicine clearly recognizes frailty as a measurable state of increased vulnerability, and frailty is strongly associated with worse health outcomes and mortality in older adults.
3. A 2026 meta-analysis of 59 prospective cohort studies involving 185,355 community-dwelling older adults found that non-robust older adults had an 83% higher risk of all-cause mortality than robust older adults.
4. The more reasonable medical and human-rights question is therefore not whether a 95-year-old person should automatically receive special treatment, but whether his actual medical and functional vulnerability has been appropriately assessed and accommodated while due process is respected.

1. A Doctor’s Question: Was His Medical Vulnerability Properly Assessed?

As a physician, I believe one important distinction should be made at the beginning of any discussion about a 95-year-old defendant.

Chronological age and medical vulnerability are not the same thing.

A person does not become medically incapable simply because they reach a particular birthday. A 95-year-old may have substantial functional independence, while another person who is considerably younger may be severely frail. Therefore, it would be medically inappropriate to conclude that someone cannot participate in a legal proceeding merely because of age.

At the same time, medicine does recognize that some older adults develop frailty, a clinically meaningful state of reduced physiological reserve and increased vulnerability to adverse outcomes.

This distinction is supported by recent medical research.

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2026 examined 59 international prospective cohort studies involving 185,355 community-dwelling older adults. Compared with robust older adults, non-robust older adults had a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality, with a pooled hazard ratio of 1.83. The association was even stronger when multidimensional frailty was considered, with a hazard ratio of 2.25.

In other words, frailty is not simply a synonym for “being old.” It is a measurable medical condition associated with substantially greater vulnerability.

This is why I would frame the medical issue differently.

The question should not be:

“He is 95. Should he automatically be treated differently?”

Instead, the more medically appropriate question is:

“What is his actual physical and functional condition, and what medical considerations are appropriate for that individual?”

That is a very different argument.

It does not ask society to excuse a person because of age. It asks society to avoid making medical assumptions based solely on age.

And equally importantly, it asks us not to ignore genuine vulnerability simply because the person happens to be involved in a controversial legal case.

2. What Happened in Brussels?

This distinction provides important context for the peaceful gathering held in Brussels on August 1, 2026.

According to the report, Fundamental Rights Organisation PostVersa organized a peaceful gathering at Place du Luxembourg in front of the European Parliament under the theme “A Call for Universal Human Rights, Due Process, and Human Dignity.”

Belgian journalists, human rights activists, and citizens participated in the event. Their stated concerns included due process, humanitarian treatment, freedom of religion or belief, and the protection of human dignity for the Chairman Lee Man-hee, a 95-year-old religious and peace leader currently facing trial in South Korea.

Importantly, the organizers said that the event was not intended to determine the Chairman Lee Man-hee’s guilt or innocence or to interfere with South Korea’s judicial process.

That distinction deserves attention.

A call for due process is not necessarily a declaration of innocence.

Similarly, asking for humane treatment of an elderly defendant does not necessarily mean opposing prosecution or demanding a particular verdict.

These are separate questions.

The first question is what the court ultimately determines based on the evidence and applicable law.

The second is whether the person involved is treated with dignity and whether appropriate legal and humanitarian safeguards are maintained while that process takes place.

At the Brussels event, organizers installed an empty chair with glasses and a walking stick. They explained that the chair symbolized the Chairman Lee Man-hee, while also representing elderly and vulnerable people whose human dignity requires protection.

Participants then observed 95 seconds of silence, corresponding to his age, and expressed messages concerning human rights, justice, freedom, hope, peace, and human dignity.

The symbolism was simple, but the underlying question was much broader:

Can a society pursue justice without losing sight of the vulnerability and humanity of the individual involved?

3. Why Frailty Matters More Than a Number

From a medical perspective, this is where the concept of frailty becomes particularly important.

Physicians do not normally determine an older person's medical vulnerability by looking only at their date of birth.

We consider factors such as mobility, muscle strength, ability to perform daily activities, nutritional status, cognition, comorbidities, medications, and overall functional reserve.

The medical literature supports the importance of identifying vulnerability among older adults. A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis examined 57 studies involving 125,412 older adults presenting to emergency departments. The researchers evaluated different frailty and vulnerability screening instruments and found that the Clinical Frailty Scale, using a cutoff of 5 or higher, had a pooled sensitivity of 81% and specificity of 71% for predicting 30-day mortality. The authors nevertheless cautioned that existing screening instruments should not be used as standalone prognostic tools.

That last point is especially important.

Frailty assessment is useful, but no single score can tell us everything about a human being.

A physician must still evaluate the individual.

It means that if medical vulnerability is relevant to decisions concerning an extremely elderly person, it should be assessed rather than assumed.

That principle applies whether the individual is famous or unknown, popular or unpopular, religious or nonreligious, accused of a serious offense or a minor offense.

4. Justice, Human Dignity, and the Person Behind the Case

The Brussels gathering also raises a broader question about how we think about justice.

When a person becomes the subject of a controversial criminal case, it is easy for the individual to become reduced to a headline, a charge, a political controversy, or an organizational identity.

But medicine begins from a different perspective.

A physician sees a person before seeing a label.

That does not mean ignoring wrongdoing. It does not mean declaring a patient innocent. And it certainly does not mean that medical considerations should replace judicial decisions.

It means recognizing that human vulnerability does not disappear when someone enters the justice system.

The participants in Brussels reportedly emphasized due process, the presumption of innocence, humane treatment of detainees, medical and humanitarian consideration for elderly people, and freedom of religion or belief.

They also used the phrase:

“Human Rights Have No Exceptions.”

For me, this phrase is meaningful precisely because it should apply beyond this particular case.

If human rights are truly universal, they cannot depend entirely on whether society likes the person involved.

A controversial religious leader should have human rights.

At the same time, universal human rights do not mean universal exemption from the law.

That distinction is essential.

Due process is not the same as acquittal.
Humanitarian treatment is not the same as immunity.
Medical assessment is not the same as a declaration of innocence.

These distinctions allow us to discuss the case without prejudging the outcome of the Korean judicial process.

As a physician, my position is therefore relatively simple.

I do not believe that being 95 years old automatically establishes that the Chairman Lee Man-hee should be exempt from legal responsibility.

But I also do not believe that his age should be treated as medically irrelevant.

The appropriate approach is individual assessment: What is his actual medical condition? What is his functional capacity? Is there clinically significant frailty? Are there medical or humanitarian considerations that should be taken into account? And can those considerations be addressed while preserving the integrity of the judicial process?

Those are legitimate questions.

They are not arguments against justice.

They are part of what humane justice should look like.

The peaceful gathering in front of the European Parliament ultimately drew attention to a principle that extends far beyond one Korean religious leader.

It asks whether we can maintain two commitments at the same time:

accountability under the law and respect for human dignity.

Indeed, I would argue that a mature justice system should not have to choose between them.

The court should decide the legal questions through the appropriate judicial process.

Medical professionals should evaluate medical questions based on evidence rather than assumptions.

And society should continue to recognize that fundamental human dignity does not disappear simply because a person has become a defendant.

Perhaps that is the most useful way to understand the Brussels gathering.

It does not require us to decide whether the Chairman Lee Man-hee is guilty or innocent.

It asks us to consider something more fundamental:

Even when a person is facing the full force of the law, can we still see the human being standing behind the case?

From a medical perspective, the answer should be yes.

And from a human-rights perspective, that principle should not depend on age, religion, nationality, reputation, or popularity.

Justice should be firm.
Due process should be fair.
Medical vulnerability should be assessed objectively.
And human dignity should remain intact.

Article Source: https://www.newscj.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=3422385

Medical Sources

1. Li Y, Seo H, Cho Y, et al. Association of frailty and mortality risk in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 59 international prospective cohort studies. BMC Public Health. 2026;26:489. PubMed — 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis

2. Ku NW, Hsu YC, Mudhur J, et al. The Prognostic Accuracy of Frailty and Vulnerability Screening for Older Adults in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2025;86(5):496–510. PubMed — 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis

Medical note: The research cited above concerns associations between frailty/vulnerability and health outcomes in older populations. These findings should not be interpreted as evidence of Lee Man-hee’s individual medical condition.

What justifies placing a 95-year-old religious leader in pretrial detention before he has been convicted of any crime?

That question lies at the heart of the ongoing case involving Shincheonji Church of Jesus. Regardless of how the trial ultimately concludes, the immediate issue is not whether the accused is guilty or innocent. It is whether pretrial detention was truly necessary.

Before discussing the allegations themselves, every democratic society should ask five fundamental questions:

• Was there a genuine risk that the suspect would flee?
• Was there a realistic risk of destroying or tampering with evidence?
• Did the court adequately consider the suspect's age and physical condition?
• Could the objectives of the investigation have been achieved through less restrictive measures, such as bail, house arrest, or judicial supervision?
• Was pretrial detention proportionate to the nature of the alleged offenses?

These are not questions about guilt. They are the legal standards by which pretrial detention is generally evaluated in societies committed to due process and the rule of law.

The Question Is Not Whether an Investigation Was Appropriate

South Korean prosecutors allege that Shincheonji Church of Jesus organized the enrollment of thousands of members into a political party in an effort to influence internal party elections. The prosecution argues that this enrollment campaign involved coercion.

Shincheonji Church of Jesus disputes that allegation. The church maintains that its members were never forced to join any political party and argues that voluntary political participation is a constitutional right enjoyed by all citizens.

This distinction is crucial.

Simply joining or supporting a political party is not the central legal issue. The case ultimately turns on whether coercion can be established through evidence presented in court.

That question should be decided during trial—not presumed beforehand.

Why Critics Question the Need for Detention

According to Shincheonji Church of Jesus, the accused cooperated throughout the investigation, including compliance with search-and-seizure procedures, before being placed in detention.

If that account is accurate, critics argue that an important legal question naturally follows: Why was physical detention necessary?

A leading international researcher specializing in religious freedom and minority religions has argued that detaining a 95-year-old suspect in a non-violent criminal case raises serious questions about proportionality under internationally recognized human rights principles.

The researcher did not argue that elderly suspects can never be detained. Rather, the concern is whether detention represented the least restrictive measure available after considering the suspect's advanced age, health, and the apparent absence of violence in the allegations.

That distinction is significant because international human rights principles generally treat pretrial detention as an exceptional measure rather than a default response.

Due Process Matters Most Before Conviction

The accused has not been convicted of any crime.

That fact deserves emphasis because criminal charges and criminal guilt are not the same.

The presumption of innocence exists precisely to ensure that individuals are not treated as though guilt has already been established before the court has examined the evidence.

When detention occurs before trial, many legal scholars argue that governments bear a heightened responsibility to demonstrate why less restrictive alternatives would not sufficiently protect the judicial process.

For this reason, the debate extends beyond one defendant or one religious organization. It concerns the standards that democratic societies apply whenever they deprive someone of liberty before conviction.

Why This Case Has Drawn International Attention

The case has attracted attention among observers of religious freedom and human rights not because it involves Shincheonji Church of Jesus alone, but because it raises broader questions about equal treatment under the law.

The head of an international religious-freedom research organization argued that democratic societies are ultimately judged by whether they apply the same procedural protections to unpopular or minority groups that they extend to everyone else.

That principle does not require anyone to agree with the beliefs of Shincheonji Church of Jesus.

It requires only that legal standards remain consistent regardless of religion, public opinion, or controversy.

The Real Test Comes Before the Verdict

The court will ultimately determine whether the prosecution has proved its allegations.

But another question deserves equal attention before that verdict is ever reached.

If a 95-year-old suspect who has not been convicted was placed in pretrial detention, despite claims that he cooperated with investigators and despite the availability of less restrictive alternatives, was detention truly necessary?

That is not a question about one religion.

It is a question about due process.

It is a question about proportionality.

And ultimately, it is a question about how confidently a democratic society applies the rule of law before guilt has been established.

 Key Points

• A 95-year-old religious leader has been placed in pretrial detention.
• The court stated that there was a concern regarding possible destruction of evidence.
• The religious organization argues that there is no realistic risk of flight or evidence tampering and expresses concern over the defendant's health.
• The case raises broader questions about how the justice system should balance due process, public interest, and humanitarian considerations.

---

The recent decision to place a 95-year-old religious leader in pretrial detention has sparked public discussion that extends beyond the allegations themselves. While the legal proceedings are still ongoing, many observers are asking whether this extraordinary situation deserves closer examination.

According to the court, the detention was ordered based on concerns about the possibility of evidence destruction. Under criminal procedure, courts may authorize pretrial detention when they determine that statutory requirements have been met, including the risk of interfering with evidence or the judicial process.

On the other hand, the religious organization involved has expressed regret over the decision. It maintains that the defendant has consistently cooperated with investigators throughout the investigation, that relevant materials have already been secured through repeated searches, and that there is virtually no possibility of either fleeing or destroying evidence. The organization also argues that detaining a 95-year-old individual with ongoing medical needs could pose significant health risks before any final judicial determination has been made.

These contrasting positions highlight an important issue that deserves thoughtful consideration.

Pretrial detention is not intended to serve as punishment. Rather, it is generally regarded as a procedural measure designed to ensure that judicial proceedings can continue fairly and effectively. For this reason, many legal systems recognize the principle that detention before conviction should be applied only when legally justified and necessary.

At the same time, courts also have a responsibility to protect the integrity of criminal investigations and judicial proceedings. When judges determine that legal requirements for detention are satisfied, they may conclude that detention is appropriate regardless of factors such as age.

This particular case therefore raises a broader question that extends beyond any single individual or organization:

How should the justice system balance the protection of legal procedures with humanitarian considerations when dealing with defendants of extremely advanced age?

A person who is 95 years old represents an exceptionally rare circumstance within the criminal justice system. Regardless of one's opinion about the allegations, it is understandable that questions arise regarding whether existing legal safeguards are being applied in a manner that appropriately considers both the rule of law and the realities of advanced age.

It is also important to remember that criminal charges do not constitute a finding of guilt. The facts of the case will ultimately be determined through the judicial process, where both the prosecution and the defense will have the opportunity to present their arguments and evidence.

Another point that may warrant thoughtful reflection is whether public perception has been influenced by the identity of the defendant rather than by the legal standards alone. Because the individual involved is the chairman of Shincheonji Church, opinions about the organization itself are often strong and deeply divided. In such circumstances, it is reasonable to ask whether preconceived views—positive or negative—could unintentionally shape the way people interpret judicial decisions or public discussions surrounding the case.

From the standpoint of the rule of law, every defendant should be assessed according to the same legal principles, regardless of religious affiliation, organizational position, or public reputation. Whether one supports or criticizes Shincheonji should remain separate from the objective evaluation of procedural fairness. For that reason, it may be appropriate to carefully examine whether this case is being viewed solely through the lens of established legal standards, or whether existing perceptions of the organization have also influenced the broader public narrative.

Rather than drawing premature conclusions, this case may serve as an opportunity for broader public reflection on several important principles:

• The presumption of innocence before a final verdict.
• The legal standards governing pretrial detention.
• Humanitarian considerations for defendants of exceptional age.
• The need for judicial decisions to maintain both fairness and public confidence.

As the legal proceedings continue, careful attention should be paid not only to the outcome of this individual case but also to the principles that guide the justice system. In matters where legal rights, public trust, and human dignity intersect, thoughtful review and objective examination remain essential.

The following YouTube link contains Shincheonji Church's official statement expressing its deep regret. 

https://youtu.be/6kfF-ERV7tU?si=BqpG-0i7VAvFhnA6

 

7 Years Later... We Still Have Many 'Ji-in'

Key Points

1. Memorial Service for Gu Ji-in: Church members gather to remember the 7th anniversary of Gu Ji-in's death.

2. The Tragedy of Forced Conversion: The personal and societal impact of forced conversion.

3. Destruction of Families: The impact on families and the need to address forced conversion as a social issue.

4. Ongoing Fight for Religious Freedom: Efforts to raise awareness and eradicate forced conversions.

Memorial Service for the 7th Anniversary of Gu Ji-in's Death 🌸

On the 9th of this month, members of the Shincheonji Gwangju Church of the Peter Branch gathered to remember the memory of Gu Ji-in, who tragically lost her life due to forced conversion. Despite the freezing cold and heavy snow, church members of all ages came to the memorial booth to pay their respects. They offered chrysanthemum flowers and prayed, each person leaving heartfelt messages in memory of the late Gu Ji-in. The messages conveyed their deep longing and determination to never forget her story.

One message on the memorial booth poignantly read, "It's been a long time since I haven't seen our faces together. I always remember it in my heart, but I miss it every year. Let us be together again." This sentiment was shared by many attendees, including young believers who felt a personal connection to Gu Ji-in, as well as a father and daughter who had faced family opposition due to religious differences.

The Tragedy of Forced Conversion 💔

The memorial booth also displayed photos of Ms. Gu Ji-in, capturing her cheerful and playful smile. A young believer, who was the same age as Gu Ji-in, shared, "I think about her more because we are the same age. I remember that he must have had many difficult moments, but she always tried to keep her face bright. I think she's doing the same thing where she is now. I wrote a memorial message that said, ‘I will always pray for you until we meet again.’"

A father and daughter attending the service also shared their feelings. The father, with tears in his eyes, said, "I have a daughter of the same age, and I also had a hard time with my family's opposition when I moved from another church to this one, so I don't feel like it's anyone else's business." His words highlighted the personal impact of forced conversion on families and the importance of addressing this issue.

The leader of Gwangju Shincheonji Church, speaking at the memorial service, emphasized that forced conversion is not just a religious issue but a serious social problem that destroys families, violates human rights, and undermines the constitutional right to freedom of religion. He stressed that if we do not address the truth about illegal forced conversions, it is a tragedy that can happen to anyone.

Destruction of Families and Society 🏠

He further explained that forced conversion destroys the fundamental unit of society: the family. He stated, "Forced conversion destroys the 'family,' which is the most fundamental part of society. It is not just a religious issue, but a serious social issue that tramples on people's constitutional right to freedom of religion, violates human rights, and leads to the breakdown of families." His words underscored the need to protect human rights and religious freedom to prevent such tragedies from occurring.

The official from the Gwangju Jeonnam branch of the Human Rights Alliance for Victims of Forced Conversion also highlighted the ongoing issue of religious discrimination and forced conversions in Korea. He stated, "Although freedom of religion is guaranteed in the Constitution, there are still victims in Korea who are suffering from religious discrimination and forced conversions even after seven years." The organization is committed to raising awareness through photo exhibitions and media outreach to eradicate forced conversions.

The Continuing Fight for Religious Freedom ⚖️

The late Ms. Gu Ji-in's story serves as a powerful reminder of the ongoing struggle for religious freedom. She was imprisoned and forced to convert twice, once in July 2016 and again in December 2017, before tragically losing her life at the age of 27. Gu Ji-in's experience highlights the need for continued efforts to protect individuals' right to religious freedom and to stand against forced conversion practices.

The Human Rights Alliance for Victims of Forced Conversion is dedicated to continuing this fight. By organizing photo exhibitions and engaging in media outreach, they aim to shed light on the issue of forced conversion and advocate for the protection of human rights. Their efforts are crucial in ensuring that the tragic events experienced by Gu Ji-in are not repeated and that religious freedom is upheld for all.

Remembering Gu Ji-in 🕊️

The memory of Gu Ji-in lives on in the hearts of those who knew her and those who continue to fight for religious freedom. Her story serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of forced conversion and the importance of standing up for human rights. As church members and activists gather to honor her memory, they renew their commitment to advocating for a society where freedom of religion is truly respected and protected.

#RememberGu #ForcedConversion #HumanRightsViolations

 

<Resolution>

Today, we strongly denounce the biased administrative oppression against a religion committed by Gyeonggi-do government and Gyeonggi Tourism Organization in violation of Article 20 of the Constitution.

Article 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea states that Korea shall be a democratic republic, that its sovereignty resides in the people, and that all state authority shall emanate from the people. Members of Shincheonji Church are citizens of the Republic of Korea. 

When a politician sides with a certain religion to make decisions that divide the people and takes hardhanded measures that harass Shincheonji Church, committing religious persecution based on favoritism, we shall fight against it and stand up for our rights.

Shincheonji Church will not succumb to external pressure at any rate. As God and Jesus have overcome, in the face of such unfairness and religious persecution, Shincheonji Church will prevail.

Therefore, we resolve as follows:

We shall employ all legal measures to ensure that the abuse of political authority fueled by religious discrimination stops immediately and systemic changes are made in the institution to prevent future cases;

We shall inform international human rights groups of the current religious oppression taking place in South Korea and bring the situation to the attention of the global community to protect our human rights;

We shall continue to fight until the demands for a sincere apology from Gyeonggi-do Governor Kim Dong-yeon and rightful repayment in damages from Gyeonggi Tourism Organization are met;

We shall continue to fight until every citizen of this nation is treated fairly and equally, without discrimination, and fully enjoys freedom of religion as stipulated in Article 20 of the Constitution.

15 November 2024

Members of Shincheonji Church of Jesus

#Biased #religiousoppression #Gyeonggi_do #Gyeonggi_Tourism_Organization

#Freedom_of_Religion #Human_Rights_Violation #ShincheonjiChurch #Rally_to_Denounce

Shincheonji Church is showing strong commitment to protecting constitutional rights and religious freedom. ✊ This resolution is not just a response to current issues but a hopeful sign for the future. 🌟 It's about ensuring that everyone’s right to their faith is respected and protected. 🙏 By supporting these efforts, we can help maintain the principles of democracy and equality as outlined in our Constitution. 📜 We can work towards a society that is free from any form of discrimination. 🌍

📢 Rally to Denounce Religious Persecution
· 15 Nov. 2024, 12 PM (GMT+9)
· Youtube Live streaming & Replay
👉🏻 https://vo.la/acGmvY

Dear my friends. Let’s talk about something pretty outrageous that recently happened in South Korea. The Gyeonggi-do Government and Gyeonggi Tourism Organization pulled a last-minute move that left a lot of people stunned and frankly, quite upset. They abruptly canceled a major event hosted by the Shincheonji Church of Jesus at Imjingak Pyeonghwa Nuri Park. Let’s dive into the details and see why this is a big deal. 🕵️‍♂️

The Well-Prepared Event That Never Was 📝❌

So, the Shincheonji Church of Jesus had everything set for their big event at Imjingak Pyeonghwa Nuri Park. They got the venue authorization back in July and paid all the fees by October 2. They even had working-level meetings with the authorities on October 16 to nail down all the details – from the event scale and floor plans to safety measures and special effects fireworks. 🚀🎇 Sounds pretty thorough, right? But then, boom! On the first day of the event, Gyeonggi Tourism Organization sends a sudden notice canceling the venue reservation. No heads up, no prior discussion. Just a flat-out cancellation. Talk about a curveball! ⚾

The Fishy Pretext for Cancellation 🐟🤔

Here’s where things get even murkier. Just days before the event, on October 16, the Gyeonggi-do government declared Paju City a danger zone, supposedly to prevent anti-North Korean flyers. When the church asked about it, they were told it was unrelated to their event. But guess what? This “danger zone” excuse was later used to cancel their reservation. 🤷‍♂️ Other events at the same location went ahead without a hitch, which makes you wonder if there were other, less noble reasons behind the cancellation. Governor Kim Dong-yeon cited the risk of provoking North Korea, but it seems more like a convenient excuse than a real concern. 🌍

The Fallout: Financial and Emotional Toll 💸😔

The cancellation wasn’t just a minor inconvenience. It caused a significant financial hit and a lot of heartbreak. The church had invested tens of billions of Korean Won into this event, which was set to welcome international guests from all over the world. Graduates, religious leaders, and participants had all traveled to Korea, only to find out their plans had been derailed at the last minute. This sudden change not only wasted a lot of money but also caused a lot of embarrassment on an international scale. 🌏😢

Seeking Accountability and Justice ⚖️🗣️

Now, the Shincheonji Church of Jesus isn’t taking this lying down. They’re demanding an official explanation and an apology from the Gyeonggi-do Government and Gyeonggi Tourism Organization. They’re calling for an end to religious discrimination in administrative actions and are ready to take legal action to protect their rights. 🗯️🚨 The church is even prepared to take to the streets if necessary to ensure justice and equality for all citizens. 📢✊

The Bigger Picture: Why This Matters 🌐👥

This isn’t just about one event. It’s about the principles of fairness, transparency, and religious freedom that are supposed to be guaranteed to everyone. Public agencies have a duty to act in the best interests of all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs. This sudden cancellation, without prior notice or discussion, shows a severe lack of transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. 🏛️🔍

When public agencies act unfairly or discriminatorily, it undermines public trust and erodes confidence in government institutions. That’s why the Shincheonji Church of Jesus is calling for other religious and civil society groups to stand with them and support their fight for justice. Together, they hope to ensure that such incidents don’t happen again and that every citizen enjoys equal rights and freedoms. 🤝🌟

Moving Forward: Standing Together for Justice and Equality ✊🙏

This situation highlights the urgent need for accountability and transparency in how public agencies operate. It also underscores the importance of upholding the principles of religious freedom and equality, which are fundamental to a democratic society. As the Shincheonji Church of Jesus continues to seek justice, it’s essential that we all stand together to support these principles. 🌈🕊️

By raising awareness and holding public agencies accountable for their actions, we can ensure that every citizen enjoys the same rights and freedoms without discrimination. Together, we can build a society that respects and upholds the principles of justice, equality, and religious freedom for all. 🚀🙏

#Biased #religiousoppression #Gyeonggi_do #Gyeonggi_Tourism_Organization #Freedom_of_Religion #Human_Rights_Violation #ShincheonjiChurch #Rally_to_Denounce

The Appeal of the Victim of Coercive Conversion Program Telling the Truth

 

 

  Coercive conversion program(or Forced conversion program) is still prevalent in South Korea. It deprives a person of religious freedom and tramples his or her human rights. Why does such torture in the old age happen in S.Korea, where religious freedom is guaranteed in Korean Constitution?

 

  One is that conversion pastors(who conduct coercive conversion programs) join hands with political power, two is the pastors manipulated victims’ parents by separating themselves from the parents to avoid the law, and three is the pastors call other churches cult to draw people’s attention.

 

  Because of these, the Korean government is not cracking down on or investigating the conversion program. The number of the victims increase. The victims’ appeals show the dire situation of the conversion program.

 

  In the appeal of Kim, a victim of coercive conversion, there are also despicable behaviors of the pastors.

 

  She who believes in Shincheonji Church tried to do better to her parents who feel bad about the church. However, conversion pastors told that if their daughter fell into the cult of Shincheonji, she would offer everything to the church and give up her life so her parents felt extreme anxiety and fear. 

 

 

  What will happen when parents with children hear these words? Anyone will do everything for their children. How despicable are the conversion pastors who exploit parents’ hearts. The pastors do such acts only to make their own money. At first, they seem to be trying not to receive money, saying it is God’s will, but they take away donations from victims’ parents for various reasons. So eventually, hundreds to tens of millions Korean won are taken from their parents. What happens if someone wants to be converted and visits them directly? They don't try to convert when they think earning money cannot be or the person is annoying. These actions prove that they are not for God's will, but for their means of making money.

 

  Kim had the same experience. Her parents could not convert her before. Understanding the parents' feelings of being swayed by the conversion pastor, she tried to talk a lot and spend a lot of time with her mother.

  

  But after her mother went to a church in Gumi, Korea(where the conversion pastor is), she said to her, “Get out from my house, demon, I do not need a daughter like you,” and protested in front of Shincheonji Church by saying, “Give me my daughter!” In fact, Kim tried to mend fences with her mother at home.  

 

  When she went to a church in Gumi with her parents and told the pastor to convert to herself, the pastor told them that she should live a life of isolation from the world, saying that she should not only go to academies for a few months while in education, but also get rid of her cell phone. It's the conversion pastor who makes people quit their studies.

 

  When she asked why she should be cut off from the world and why she should be educated in a compulsory environment, the pastor simply handed over all responsibility to her parents, saying, "I tried to conduct education in such a free environment," and "It was parents who created such an environment."

 

  But in fact, when she took last coercive conversion program, windows were sealed, she lived in a container box with a bad environment, a sunless and an unseen environment, sitting still in a dark room, always depressed and unable to breathe properly, and trapped enough to lose both her parents' and children's health.

 

 

  Conversion pastors don't want to take any responsibility for themselves and put everything on victims’ parents. They convert people to make money, not for faith, while avoiding the law. Such entities should be widely known and the coercive conversion program should be eliminated from all over the world.