Law and Religion: Asia as Critical Ground for Rethinking Existing Frameworks and Dominant Paradigms

Abstract

The first is illustrated by Benjamin Lawrence’s article in this issue of the Journal of Law and Religion: framing the starting point of any constitutional-state relations as entangled, rather than as separated. 4 His account of Buddhist monks in Cambodia seeking exemption from universal suffrage, as supposedly befits their politically neutral status, and the extent to which this is contested on the ground by a number of monks, suggests that one could not start to understand the complex interactions of Buddhism and the state through the lens of secularism as separation, which grew out of the historical context of a powerful church in competition with a powerful state. The study of such regulations would be critical not only for understanding but also for critiquing their impact on religious practices specifically and on society and politics more generally. 5 The methods and impact of state bureaucratization of religion, a form of direct regulation, was aptly explored in the JLR symposium “The Bureaucratization of Religion in Southeast Asia,” guest-edited by JLR co-editor Mirjam Künkler. 6 A regulatory or entanglement framework could further surface the multifarious ways in which religion engages the state beyond the usual, though always important, constitutional claims premised upon equality and freedom of religion. [...]contextualization should be a primary orientation for law and religion scholarship: lived experiences and thick description enrich our understanding of law. [...]to the extent that existing scholarship has employed a Judeo-Christian framework for the study of law and religion—a perspective that tends to emphasize textual authority, voluntary inner faith, and individual rights—the viability of such scholarship requires rethinking.