Suchergebnisse

Part I. Secularity and Buddhist Philanthropy -- 1. Multiple Chinese Secularities -- 2. Welfare, Religious, and the Liminality of Philanthropy -- 3. Welfare Regimes in Chinese Societies -- 4. Buddhism and Welfare in Comparative Perspective -- Part II. Chinese Buddhist Philanthropy Beyond the PRC -- 5. The state, religious, and welfare in ancient and imperial times -- 6. Welfare insecurity and religious during the Republican period -- 7. The state and religious Philanthropy in Taiwan since 1949 -- 8. Welfare and Chinese religions in Post-Colonial contexts -- 9. The variety of Chinese welfare regimes and Buddhism -- 10. Multiple Chinese Secularities. .

1. China's social security system from 1949 to 2012 -- 2. The main social policies under XI JINPING -- 3. Religious work and philanthropy from 1949 to 2002 -- 4. Religious charity and civil society under HU and XI -- 5. The institutionalization of Buddhism since 1949 -- 6. Buddhism and the CCP since 1949 -- 7. Toward a national Buddhist Philanthropic association -- 8. The duty of serving the Public interest -- 9. A sketch of regional systems analysis -- 10. The nine regions of Han Buddhist Philanthropy -- 11. Buddhist philanthropy from the bottom up -- 12. The REN'AI charity foundation.

"The Politics of Buddhist Organizations in Taiwan looks at a relatively unexplored aspect of modern Taiwan: the influence of religion on politics. Although much has been written on the contribution of Christian churches to the debates on self-determination and democratic transition on the island, we know less about the political influence of Buddhist organizations, which claim together to attract over four million adherents." "This book offers a detailed study of three important Buddhist organizations in Taiwan: the Buddhist Association of the Republic of China (BAROC), the Buddha Light Mountain (or Foguangshan) monastic order, and the Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu Chi Association (or Ciji). It examines their contrasting approaches to three issues: state supervision of religion, the presidential election of 1996, and the establishment of the National Health Insurance." "This study analyzes the factors that explain the diverse paths the three organizations have taken in the politics of Taiwan. It reveals that despite a shared theological background, individual religious leaders interpret their tradition very differently when they believe it constrains the development of their organization and the fulfilling of its goals. Based on an in-depth examination of these organizations' structures and resources, the proposed explanation of Buddhist leaders' behavior offered in The Politics of Buddhist Organizations in Taiwan compels us to question conventional views about the allegedly passive aspect of religious tradition; deference to authority in societies influenced by Confucian culture; or the adverse legacy of authoritarian regimes."--BOOK JACKET.

This paper is part of broader research on social welfare, understood in its broadest sense as social security, education, and health care, which the state has taken over gradually from religions as it has established its authority and thereby the ontological and the teleological legitimacy of secularity as a pillar of modernity. The paper explores the Chinese Communist Party's evolving attitude towards religious affairs and philanthropy. In many societies, secularity has been the response to the problems of individual freedom, inter-religious conflict, and social differentiation for the sake of efficiency and due to industrialization. In these societies, the state, and, subsequently, medical and educational establishments, gradually wrested social welfare management away from religious institutions. This process has advanced most in highly industrialized societies, and has taken different forms based on denominational differences, political alignments, and class coalitions.1 The process still faces contestation from conservative forces that would like to see religious associations take charge of a greater array of social services. This is particularly the case in the United States. In post-colonial societies,2 there has been considerable variation in the welfare state's commitments and ideals. However, most new states have failed to match the achievements of the liberal, industrialized economies of North America, Western Europe, Oceania, and Japan. Religious institutions have remained important providers of social welfare and have even become involved in development. This reality has received increasing recognition from international organizations, and there has also been significant progress in research on this subject.3

"Religious Traditions in Politics: Buddhism" published on by Oxford University Press.

This essay argues that differences in religious ecologies, between China and the polities of Taiwan and Hong Kong are necessary but insufficient explanations for their different approaches to the reliance on religious actors for the delivery of social services. I discuss briefly two other explanations for the differences in policy outcomes: the legacies of colonial and semi-colonial rule, and the influence of ruling party ideologies, before I shift to an historical neo-institutional approach, which contrasts the path dependency of past policies of usurpation directed by the CCP at religious institutions between 1949 and 1978, and the policies of cooptation adopted in Taiwan and Hong Kong during the same period. I argue that although the Chinese government has affirmed with increasing clarity in recent years its interest in an approach that encourages the cooptation of religious institutions, the previous approach of usurpation has undermined the resources of religious institutions, left many religious actors distrustful of authorities, and continues to influence many constituencies that could oppose the approach of cooptation. To substantiate this argument, the essay proceeds as follows: it first discusses the different strategies available to states as they accumulate symbolic power, underlining the role of religious institutions in that process; then it contrasts the results achieved by religious philanthropy in Taiwan and Hong Kong in the provision of a wide array of services, on the one hand, with the difficulties faced by their counterparts in the delivery of social services in China, on the other; and finally it reviews some of the explanations for the discrepancies observed.