What to do about Yasukuni?

qwertyu · 24 May 2005

The part asking what can be done to "de-shrine"? That implies it being done by outside coercion, and not by convincing the offending parties to give up their offensive behavior by getting them to come around to your way of thinking.

That implies no such thing. Others can very well suggest citizens' petitions, media discussions, law suits by families, the opposition party may raise a parliamentary vote, reversion to honour the surrender treaty, a whole host of possible, completely legitimate options, some of which have been attempted, which you are trying to stop from even being raised. So much for free speech.

Just because you don't come round to another person's thinking doesn't mean that you can persist in whatever you wish to do with impunity. If you falsely accuse me of bigotry in a larger context, I can take you to court for libel, where I can make the law stop you, just an example here. You don't ever need to change your mind but I have a legitimate, just recourse to right a wrong. Is this co-ercion?

Have I said somewhere in this thread that no one is free to protest Yasukuni?

Sure, I am free to protest Yasukuni, but then you called my protest bigotry. I have posted your very comments to that effect. Do you then support bigotry? You said no, then you are not supporting my right to protest. A=B=Very Bad Thing, etc..ad nauseum.

If you don't think that infringing on the religious freedom of others is bigotry, then console yourself that you're not a bigot. I'll go on considering such behavior bigotry, though.

This is the mother of strawmen. Sure, infringing on the religious freedom of others is bigotry. But how does talk on a thread infringe on freedom of worship of ANYONE? If the Yasukuni Shrine itself infringes on the right of someone else, is that then completely permissible?

First, you declare that you are not against others' right to protest Yasukuni's politics, BUT then you call that bigotry. You can't have it both ways. Either the protest is a right of free speech and thus not bigotry, or the protest is wrong, impermissible and is bigotry.

If you have ANY evidence that other than protesting against the POLITICS of Yasukuni, I have written something that offends the Shinto religion, post it! Surely you must relish the opportunity of proving you are right that I am a bigot.

Ewok85 · 24 May 2005

mikecash said:
"You Americans"? I thought it was Mike Cash, individual, and some anonymous string of adjacent keyboard characters, individual, taking issue with each other on this.

Mike Cash is now the offical spokesperson for the United States of America! Congrats on the promotion Mike!

bossel · 24 May 2005

mikecash said:
Uh....did you read the original post? The part asking what can be done to "de-shrine"? That implies it being done by outside coercion, and not by convincing the offending parties to give up their offensive behavior by getting them to come around to your way of thinking.

Sorry, but this is not quite correct, the original post said:

DaMo said:
Also, is there any way for the war criminals to be "de-shrined" somehow?

Now, to me, that doesn't exactly sound like or even imply "How can we [foreigners] force Japan to de-shrine war criminals."

Mike Cash · 25 May 2005

Right, force need not be involved. We'll just "de-shrine" human souls from a religious institution without the consent or cooperation of the institution. This will also not interfere with their religion. It must not, because if it did we would be bigots, and we can't stand to think of ourselves as such.

And for the guy with a name that comes from raking a finger across the keyboard....that Osama question is the mother of all strawmen. And if you want to sue me, that is your perfect right. I'll not be losing a lot of sleep worrying about it.

qwertyu · 25 May 2005

Ewok, the "You Americans" context is mine:

"You Americans do not seem to mind condemning Saudi Wahhabism and cracking down on it for its "extremism". So, are you interfering in Muslim religious freedom??"

This sentence is completely factual and accurate, unless mikecash isn't American, then I would omit the "You". Since 9/11, Americans have been condemning Wahhabism, a branch of Islam to which bin Laden belong, for preaching extremism and fanaticism. Nothing objectional to this sentence, it's just mikecash knee-jerking.

Since mikecash shirks away from this challenge, I shall take it on.

It is a valid rhetorical question and an analogy. If you can't even make out the difference between a rhetorical question and a strawman, I hope you are not teaching English in Japan!

Americans condemn 9/11 as a crime, and its perpetrators as criminals. Likewise, not only the victims of WWII, but the Allied Tribunal have condemned the invasion of Asia as a crime and the men responsible for the Asian Holocaust as war criminals. Glorifying of Al Qaeda and worshipping bin Laden would be considered abhorent to most Americans. Likewise for the Asians. Objection and protest against glorifying 9/11 and enshrining bin Laden and his kamikazes is only natural for Americans, and do not constitute religious bigotry against Islam. Likewise for Asians.

I have no interest in you, far less to dispense any further attention. I am using the libel example to illustrate yet another fallacy that you propagate, that you need to bring people round to your POV or it's coercion. One cannot always count on people to do the right, honourable thing, to take the high road or to empathise with their victims, to change their gut opinions or prejudices, as you have admirably illustrated, but one can seek protection from the law and resort to other legal, legitimate means to prevent harm [eg. lies, tawdry accusation, slander, smear] from being done to oneself. This isn't coercion, this is called justice.

On the internet, it is amply sufficient for me to defend myself against your accusations of bigotry by proving how groundless they are.

Mike Cash · 25 May 2005

You'd probably also have trouble proving how I had libelled somebody named "Qwertyu". Unless, of course, that is the name you go by in real life.

And I do wish you people would let me know when I am going to be called upon to be the official representative of all Americans so I can comb my hair and borrow a necktie from somebody first.

Assuming that I am somehow involved in oppressing some group of Muslims just because I am American makes just about as much sense as me assuming that the Chinese in this thread drove tanks over people in Tiananmen Square.

qwertyu · 25 May 2005

It really doesn't make a difference to me if you are American. I am only debating the points. I have very fond feelings for the US, having spent a significant formative part of my life there, and it pains me terribly to witness what has happened to it, from 9/11 to an illegal, brutal invasion, the corruption, the Abu Ghraibs. This is a seriously wrong trajectory and not the America that others looked up to.

I do not assume any such thing about you. I am simply drawing a parallel to illustrate how groundless it is of you to accuse me of bigotry and oppressing Shintoism.

Auf Wiedersehen!

bossel · 25 May 2005

mikecash said:
Right, force need not be involved. We'll just "de-shrine" human souls from a religious institution without the consent or cooperation of the institution. This will also not interfere with their religion. It must not, because if it did we would be bigots, and we can't stand to think of ourselves as such.

Damo was asking a question, he did not demand forceful removal of their names (I'd consider removing them without consent of the involved religious institution as forceful).

Since these "human souls" have been put there rather late after WWII, what happened to them before? Free floating somewhere?
& if so, why not let them float free again? Can't be that bad.

Anyway, to me that's not the issue of Yasukuni. Let religious people adore whatever they want: pink elephants, the potato of life or dead humans.
The issue is the Japanese political elite & their stance regarding Yasukuni & the enshrined war criminals. Perhaps we should focus on that instead of the shrine itself.

Mike Cash · 25 May 2005

As I said, I think the politicians visiting Yasukuni is ill-advised, and I am phrasing that just as mildly as I know how. To be more blunt, I think it's <expurgated> stupid.

As to where the souls were all those years, I'll be damned if I know.

qwertyu · 25 May 2005

Now, I'm not much into the God business, but I can see myself adoring pink elephants.... where are those, bossel?

shiroma · 1 Jun 2005

报怨以德

House of Representatives 162th Session, Budget Committee Log (May 16th)

そういう中で、日中間の問題におきましても、靖国の問題がお話出ましたが、これは私がかねがね申し上げておりますように、どの国でも戦没者に対する追悼を行う気持ちを持っているはずであります。どのような追悼の仕方がいいかということを他の国が干渉すべきではないと私は思っております。
今日の日本の繁栄は、あの六十年前、過酷な戦争で日本国民も大きな犠牲を受けた、そして、当時、家族を持ちながら、戦場には行きたくなかった方も心ならずも国家のために戦場に赴いて命を落とさなければならなかった、そういう方の犠牲の上に今日の日本の平和と繁栄があるのではないか。そういう戦没者に対して心からの追悼の誠をささげるというのがなぜいけないのか、私は理解できません。そして、日本は二度と戦争をしてはいけないという気持ちでお参りをする。現に、六十年間日本は、二度と戦争にも巻き込まれず、戦争もしていないんです。そういうことに対して、靖国参拝してはいけない、この理由が私はわからないんです。
民主党の中にも、靖国参拝すべしという議員がおられます。国民の中でも、すべきである、しない方がいい、した方がいいといろいろな議論があります。しかも、中国が、胡錦濤国家主席との間でも、あるいは温家宝首相との会談でも、靖国の問題が出ました。靖国参拝はすべきでないというお話もありました。しかし、今のような理由を私は申し上げました。現に東条英機氏のＡ級戦犯の問題がたびたび国会の場でも論ぜられますが、そもそも、罪を憎んで人を憎まずというのは中国の孔子の言葉なんです。
私は、日本の感情として、一個人のために靖国を参拝しているのではありません。心ならずも戦場に赴いて命を犠牲にした方々、こういう犠牲を今日の平和な時代にあっても決して忘れてはならないんだ、そういうとうとい犠牲の上に日本の今日があるんだということは、我々常に考えておくべきではないか。現在の日本というのは、現在生きている人だけで成り立っているものではないんだ、過去のそういう積み重ねによって、反省の上から今日があるわけでありますので、戦没者全般に対しまして敬意と感謝の誠をささげるのが、これはけしからぬというのはいまだに理由がわかりません。
いつ行くか、適切に判断いたします。

Tonysoong · 4 Jun 2005

Really farcical for us to waste time and energy here debating over whether a third party needs to mend his way. It's his own business.

To put it in an impartial way, no culture is free from its barbaric traits. Like in China, they have what they call communism, which is (at least once was) no less brutal than militarism in a way. So if we can't expect China to develop a better conscience so as to reject communism, can we still be well-composed here advising Japan to develop any better conscience?

Some may ask, what else could be there to be called Japan if those war-ghosts were de-shrined? Yes, it IS a question. Japan IS Japan as Japan itself may know better.

shiroma · 23 Jun 2006

Tonysoong said:
Really farcical for us to waste time and energy here debating over whether a third party needs to mend his way. It's his own business.

NHK news

Top Court Refuses Yasukuni Appeal

Japan's Supreme Court has rejected compensation claims over Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's visit to Yasukuni Shrine in 2001, upholding rulings by lower courts.

The plaintiffs sued for compensation over Mr Koizumi's 2001 visit to the Shinto shrine, arguing that it violated the constitutional separation between the state and religion.

Presiding justice Isao Imai said no compensation was due, given that shrine visits by any officials of other parties do not infringe upon their rights.

He said a visit by the prime minister is no different.

Friday's decision marks the only time the Supreme Court has ruled on issues related to Mr Koizumi's visits to the Shinto shrine.

Yasukuni Shrine honors Japan's military war dead, as well as former Japanese leaders convicted of war crimes after World War Two.

The top court made no determination as to whether the prime minister's visits are constitutional nor whether they constitute official acts of state.

Hachiro · 22 Jul 2006

Taken from the Japan Times Hirohito visits to Yasukuni stopped over war criminals

An interesting debate is starting up with the upcoming annual Obon season. Koizumi is still planning to visit Yasukuni Shrine on August 15th while other politicans are wavering.

If the Emperor stopped visiting the shrine I would think that out of respect of that decision the PM should as well and I agree that a secular shrine should be built by Japan to honor the dead as well.

Friday, July 21, 2006

Hirohito visits to Yasukuni stopped over war criminals
Emperor Hirohito expressed strong displeasure in 1988 over Yasukuni Shrine's decision in the late 1970s to include Class-A war criminals on the list of people honored there, sources said Thursday, citing a memorandum by a former Imperial Household Agency official.
"That's why I have not visited the shrine since," the Emperor, known posthumously as Showa, told former Imperial Household Agency Grand Steward Tomohiko Tomita, according to a memorandum written by Tomita that was obtained by the Nihon Keizai Shimbun.
The sources said the Emperor was referring to his decision not to visit after the shrine decided in 1978 to honor the 14 Class-A war criminals, confirming Thursday's Nikkei article.
The memorandum confirms speculation by historians that the reason Emperor Hirohito refrained from visiting the shrine was because of its decision to honor the war criminals. He visited the shrine eight times after World War II, the last time in November 1975.
Asked about the report, Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said the Imperial Household Agency did not have details on the matter, as the media report was based on a personal memo, adding, "I believe that the Imperial Household Agency handled Emperor Showa's visits to Yasukuni Shrine after careful consideration of the circumstances, such as the social conditions of the time."
Asked if the government will reconsider how to commemorate the war dead, Abe said the government will not comment on whether the Class-A war criminals should be enshrined elsewhere, and stressed that the state's position on the issue "remains unchanged."
"As for Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's visits, that's for him to decide," said Abe, who supports Koizumi's contentious visits to Yasukuni. Abe added there is no change in his own stance of paying respect to those who have fought and sacrificed themselves for the country.
Yasukuni Shrine declined comment on the Nihon Keizai Shimbun report.
Tomita, who died in 2003, recorded conversations with the Emperor in his diaries, dating from 1975 through 1986, and journals, from 1986 to 1997, the sources said.
The entry about Yasukuni Shrine was dated April 28, 1988, they said.
"At some point, Class-A criminals became enshrined, including Matsuoka and Shiratori. I heard Tsukuba acted cautiously," the Emperor was quoted as saying in reference to wartime Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka and Toshio Shiratori, who became Japan's ambassador to Italy in 1938.
Tsukuba is believed to be Fujimaro Tsukuba, a former chief priest at Yasukuni who declined to honor the war criminals even after he received a list containing their names from the government in 1966.
"What's on the mind of Matsudaira's son, who is the current head priest?" the Emperor was also quoted as saying, noting the priest appeared to have quickly made the decision to honor the war criminals without giving the matter much thought.
"Matsudaira had a strong wish for peace, but the child didn't know the parent's heart. That's why I have not visited the shrine since. This is my heart," Tomita quoted the Emperor as saying.
Emperor Hirohito was apparently referring to Yoshitami Matsudaira, who was Imperial Household minister immediately following the end of World War II, and his son, Nagayoshi, the Yasukuni head priest who decided to enshrine the war criminals in 1978. The criminals were honored at the shrine in October 1978

caster51 · 23 Jul 2006

If the Emperor stopped visiting the shrine I would think that out of respect of that decision the PM should as well and I agree that a secular shrine should be built by Japan to honor the dead as well

.

I dont think so.
the ppl who want to go should go...

caster51 · 23 Jul 2006

Quote:Friday, July 21, 2006

Hirohito visits to Yasukuni stopped over war criminals
Emperor Hirohito expressed strong displeasure in 1988 over Yasukuni Shrine's decision in the late 1970s to include Class-A war criminals on the list of people honored there, sources said Thursday, citing a memorandum by a former Imperial Household Agency official.
"That's why I have not visited the shrine since," the Emperor, known posthumously as Showa, told former Imperial Household Agency Grand Steward Tomohiko Tomita, according to a memorandum written by Tomita that was obtained by the Nihon Keizai Shimbun.
The sources said the Emperor was referring to his decision not to visit after the shrine decided in 1978 to honor the 14 Class-A war criminals, confirming Thursday's Nikkei article.
The memorandum confirms speculation by historians that the reason Emperor Hirohito refrained from visiting the shrine was because of its decision to honor the war criminals. He visited the shrine eight times after World War II, the last time in November 1975.
Asked about the report, Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said the Imperial Household Agency did not have details on the matter, as the media report was based on a personal memo, adding, "I believe that the Imperial Household Agency handled Emperor Showa's visits to Yasukuni Shrine after careful consideration of the circumstances, such as the social conditions of the time."
Asked if the government will reconsider how to commemorate the war dead, Abe said the government will not comment on whether the Class-A war criminals should be enshrined elsewhere, and stressed that the state's position on the issue "remains unchanged."
"As for Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's visits, that's for him to decide," said Abe, who supports Koizumi's contentious visits to Yasukuni. Abe added there is no change in his own stance of paying respect to those who have fought and sacrificed themselves for the country.
Yasukuni Shrine declined comment on the Nihon Keizai Shimbun report.
Tomita, who died in 2003, recorded conversations with the Emperor in his diaries, dating from 1975 through 1986, and journals, from 1986 to 1997, the sources said.
The entry about Yasukuni Shrine was dated April 28, 1988, they said.
"At some point, Class-A criminals became enshrined, including Matsuoka and Shiratori. I heard Tsukuba acted cautiously," the Emperor was quoted as saying in reference to wartime Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka and Toshio Shiratori, who became Japan's ambassador to Italy in 1938.
Tsukuba is believed to be Fujimaro Tsukuba, a former chief priest at Yasukuni who declined to honor the war criminals even after he received a list containing their names from the government in 1966.
"What's on the mind of Matsudaira's son, who is the current head priest?" the Emperor was also quoted as saying, noting the priest appeared to have quickly made the decision to honor the war criminals without giving the matter much thought.
"Matsudaira had a strong wish for peace, but the child didn't know the parent's heart. That's why I have not visited the shrine since. This is my heart," Tomita quoted the Emperor as saying.
Emperor Hirohito was apparently referring to Yoshitami Matsudaira, who was Imperial Household minister immediately following the end of World War II, and his son, Nagayoshi, the Yasukuni head priest who decided to enshrine the war criminals in 1978. The criminals were honored at the shrine in October 1978

some mass media announced this memo migit be faked.

caster51 · 23 Jul 2006

Arthur Waldron
http://suzuroku.iza.ne.jp/news/newsarticle/column/other/10482/

Han Chan · 25 Jul 2006

It seems that the public in Japan has been influenced by the late Showa Emperor's point of view regarding the Yasukuni Shrine. Now 54% are against the PM visiting!

I made a new thread about this:

Poll: Majority of Japanese opposed to PM's Yasukuni visits

ricecake · 25 Jul 2006

The one million dollar question is,do traditionally conformist-minded Japanese population influence policies in Japan ?

Japan often superficially presents itself as a modern democracy,but limping like a " 4th Worlder handicap " in terms of democratic practices in my book.

shiroma · 27 Jul 2006

caster51 said:
some mass media announced this memo migit be faked.

This year's trend is to use emperor to bash class A war criminals. Yet another one here:

Hirohito Cited Tojo in U.S. Strike

The emperor replied that it had never been his intention for the declaration of war to be issued to American officials hours after Japanese aircraft bombed Pearl Harbor. He said that decision was made by Tojo, a Class-A war criminal who was later hanged.

Although that might have been Japan's official stance at that time, it is known to be untrue now: MOFA admitted its incompetence in 1994, as mentioned in the past post.

Whoever wrote the article in Asahi and the one who approved it are either
窶｢ clueless about the topic and didn't even know the 1994 MOFA document
or
窶｢ knowingly smear Tojo with a false accusation to fool readers.

It is after all red Asahi.

MajideSaiaku · 27 Jul 2006

What to do about Yasukuni?

Ignore it and get on with our lives.

gs001 · 28 Jul 2006

nurizeko said:
Ignore it and get on with our lives.

If German government build a war death memorial and move
statues of Hitler and his complice in, and German chancellor visit there every year, will European Ignore it and get on with your lives?

Hachiro · 28 Jul 2006

gs001 said:
If German government build a war death memorial and move
statues of Hitler and his complice in, and German chancellor visit there every year, will European Ignore it and get on with your lives?

It's a good point perhaps, but they didn't and Japan did.

Another thing I have recently become curious about is why the relatively sudden dispute about Yaskuni?

Haven't the PM's of Japan been going to Yasukuni since the end of the occupation by the USA or at least since the 60's?

Why weren't other countries protesting before, at least about the internment of the Class A war criminals, when the memories were much more "fresh", rather than now 60 years after the war?

leonmarino · 28 Jul 2006

Hachiro said:
Haven't the PM's of Japan been going to Yasukuni since the end of the occupation by the USA or at least since the 60's?

Well, many PM's have visited the shrine, but not all of them and Koizumi is the first one to visit it five years in a row, making it almost an official annual visit. When being asked if he visits the shrine as a private person or as the PM of Japan, he hasn't given a straight answer, which might be contradicting with the division of state and religion.

Hachiro · 28 Jul 2006

leonmarino said:
Well, many PM's have visited the shrine, but not all of them and Koizumi is the first one to visit it five years in a row, making it almost an official annual visit. When being asked if he visits the shrine as a private person or as the PM of Japan, he hasn't given a straight answer, which might be contradicting with the division of state and religion.

Well this year will be his last one, so hopefully things will settle down.

I am aware of the division of church and state issues as well as the "private" person statements that he makes.

That only gives a partial answer to my question. Where were the protests before Koizumi? It almost seems hypocritical to have people that had no experience with the Japanese during WWII to be protesting the visits now.

What to do about Yasukuni?

Underdogs Unite!

先輩

後輩

骨も命も皆此の土地に埋めよう

Underdogs Unite!

骨も命も皆此の土地に埋めよう

Underdogs Unite!

後輩

骨も命も皆此の土地に埋めよう

Underdogs Unite!

先輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

後輩

後輩

後輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

tsuyaku o tsukete kudasai

先輩

先輩

Back

先輩

Similar threads