 |
|
| The Impossibility of a Buddhist State | ||
| 作者 | Schonthal, Benjamin (著) |
|---|---|
| 出處題名 | Asian Journal of Law and Society |
| 卷期 | v.3 n.1 Summer |
| 出版日期 | 2016.05 |
| 頁次 | 29 - 48 |
| 出版者 | Cambridge University Press |
| 出版者網址 | https://www.cambridge.org/ |
| 出版地 | Cambridge, UK [劍橋, 英國] |
| 資料類型 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
| 使用語言 | 英文=English |
| 附註項 | Author Affilaitions: Senior Lecturer in Buddhism, Religion Programme, University of Otago; Author of "Buddhism, Politics and the Limits of Law: The Pyrrhic Constitutionalism of Sri Lanka", Cambridge University Press, 2016. |
| 關鍵詞 | Buddhism; law; Sri Lanka; secularism; Constitution |
| 摘要 | This article considers the effects of special constitutional prerogatives for Buddhism in Sri Lanka. It argues that, contrary to the expectations of both supporters and opponents, these clauses have not done what they claim to do: they have not enhanced the dominance of Buddhism on the island. Through a detailed analysis of recent legal action, this article demonstrates how special constitutional protections for Buddhism, in fact, aggravate and authorize splits among Buddhists. In making this argument, this article points towards a larger thesis: constitutional provisions designed to ensure the inter-religious dominance of one tradition may, under certain circumstances, actually amplify intra-religious conflicts over the nature, boundaries, and doctrines of that tradition. This work therefore encourages scholars to rethink the assumed polarity between secular-liberal constitutions and religiously preferential ones. Although opposed in their expressive dimensions, religiously neutral and religiously preferential constitutions may in fact generate similar church-state conundrums. The case of Sri Lanka suggests that, in the same way as perfect religious neutrality is impossible, so too is perfect religious supremacy. |
| 目次 | Abstract 29 Keywords 29 1. INTRODUCTION 29 2. THE CASE OF VEN. WIMALAWANSA 31 3. WHOSE RULES? WHICH BUDDHISM? 32 4. BUDDHISM #1: VEN. WIMALAWANSA’S PRAGMATIC BUDDHISM 35 5. BUDDHISM #2: OPPONENTS’ TRADITIONALIST BUDDHISM 37 6. CITIZEN OR BHIKKHU? 40 7. THE COURT’S DECISION 42 8. CONCLUSION: THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF PROTECTING BUDDHISM 44 REFERENCES 47 |
| ISSN | 20529015 (P); 20529023 (E) |
| DOI | 10.1017/als.2016.4 |
| 點閱次數 | 39 |
| 建檔日期 | 2024.09.09 |
| 更新日期 | 2024.09.09 |
建議您使用 Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) 瀏覽器能獲得較好的檢索效果，IE不支援本檢索系統。
