Naoko Ohno, a Japanese citizen, obtained a $1.2 million tort judgment against the Saints of Glory Church, a California corporation, and its pastor Yuko Yasuma, a California resident, in Tokyo District Court. The basis for the judgment was a transfer of money by Ohno to the church allegedly as a result of undue pressure. The judgment was affirmed on appeal by the Tokyo High Court. Ohno then initiated an action seeking recognition and enforcement of the judgment under California's Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act. The church and Yasuma objected to recognition and contended that the judgment imposed liability for its religious teachings in violation of its constitutional right to free exercise of religion. As a result, the church and Yasuma argued that the Japanese judgment was not entitled to recognition or enforcement under California law as it was repugnant to public policy. The district court granted judgment in Ohno's favor, and the church and Yasuma appealed. How should the court of appeals decide this case? Is recognition of the Japanese judgment "repugnant"? Do judgments resulting from cases concerning religious disputes violate public policy such that the results should not be recognized and enforced? Why or why not?