Yonhap News

The allegations of lobbying by the Unification Church within the political sphere were not a matter of religion from the outset. It was an issue of institutional vulnerability, involving the religious group's provision of political funds and its exercise of informal influence. However, with the direct intervention of the President, the matter transformed into a constitutional issue. 

The President's remarks and responses, invoking Article 20 of the Constitution and the principle of separation of church and state, expanded the focus of the debate beyond the legal question of 'who lobbied whom' to include the President's understanding of 'how the Constitution is being interpreted.' 

While the legal issues will be clarified through investigation, the President's understanding of the law is a matter of a different dimension. 

The meaning of Article 20, Clause 2 of the Constitution, as mentioned by the President, is clear. 

“No state religion shall be recognized, and religion and politics shall be separated.” 

This provision is not a regulation for managing or pressuring religion. It is a principle of self-restraint, prohibiting state power from aligning with any particular religion, and a clause that regulates power to guarantee freedom of religion. The separation of church and state is not a regulation directed at religion, but a limitation on power.

The key to understanding this point lies in Montesquieu's philosophy of law. 

The 18th-century Enlightenment thinker Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, in his work "The Spirit of the Laws," did not view laws as mere collections of commands or sentences. For him, laws represented the inherent relationship between power and freedom within a social structure. Therefore, when interpreting laws, he always posed one question: "Does this interpretation limit power, or expand it?" For Montesquieu, the spirit of the law was not a language for persuading power, but a mechanism for stopping power.

viewed from this standard, President Lee Jae-myung's recent response to the church-state separation controversy is a typical case of constitutional misinterpretation. The foundation of the principle of separation of church and state is to make power distance itself from religion, but President Lee's remarks functioned as language of pressure, drawing lines and demanding restraint towards a specific religious group. The constitutional provision was used not as a standard for public discourse, but as a means to reinforce the message of power.

The way President Lee mentioned the separation of church and state is difficult to consider as based on discussion or constitutional interpretation. While the political format might have been a discussion, the content spoken from the position of power was essentially a warning. The moment a constitutional provision is invoked to target a specific group, it appears not as an interpretation but as an exercise of power. Suppressing religion in the name of separation of church and state is a logical contradiction. It is not separation of church and state, but state intervention in religion.

This interpretive approach is repeated in the definition of 'rebellion' concerning the 12.3 martial law. Rebellion is not a concept judged by simple conflict or chaos. It presupposes a grave legal concept that combines the purpose and execution of seizing power and subverting constitutional order. However, by defining rebellion through a separation of the word 'martial law,' troop movements, and political tension, the analysis of purpose and structure disappeared. Instead of considering the spirit of the law, only the potential for expansion of legal terminology was mobilized.

Whether it's church-state separation or rebellion, the fundamental problem is the same. It is the tendency to interpret laws not as relationships and structures, but as word effects. From Montesquieu's standard, this is not interpretation but an act of subverting the function of legal language. The moment laws that exist to regulate power are reduced to tools to legitimize power or to push opponents, the spirit of the law disappears, leaving only the language.

The President is not an individual. He is a constitutional organ and the apex of state power. Therefore, the President's interpretation of the Constitution is not a personal opinion but a standard for state operation. The moment the Constitution is read backward, the separation of church and state transforms not into a principle that limits power, but into a justification for releasing power. 

What is needed now is not a warning to religion, but a re-establishment of the President's own understanding of the Constitution.

When a president who speaks of democracy begins to read the Constitution backward, the danger is greater than overt abuse of power. Incompetent power is subject to criticism, but 'justified misinterpretation' does not check itself.