1. The Temple Ordinance was promulgated as Law No. 7 on June 3, 1911 (Meiji 44). A copy of the law can be found in Nŭnghwa, Yi, Chosǒn Pulyo T'ongsa: KŬndae P'yǒn 249 (Originally published Sinmun'gwan 1918; reprinted & trans. into Korean by Yi Pyǒngdu, Hyean 2003)Google Scholar.

2. The Temple Ordinance was issued as a seirei (Kor. cheryŏng, ), meaning it had the same effect as Japanese Diet acts in accordance with the first and second articles of the Law Concerning Laws and Regulations to Be Enforced in Korea, also known as Law 30, which was passed by the Diet in March of that year. Ordinances (seirei) required the Japanese emperor's approval, as opposed to furei (Kor., puryŏng, ), which the governor-general was empowered to enact without the need for approval. For more on this distinction, see generally Baker, Edward J., The Role of Legal Reforms in the Japanese Annexation and Rules of Korea, 1905-1919, in Studies on Korea in Transition 17 (McCann, David R.et al. eds., 1979)Google Scholar, reprinted in Korean Law in the Global Economy 75 (Song, Sang-hyun ed., 1996)Google Scholar; and Lee, Chulwoo, Modernity, Legality, and Power in Korea Under Japanese Rule, in Colonial Modernity in Korea 21 (Shin, Gi-Wook & Robinson, Michael eds., Harvard East Asian Monographs No. 184, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. See Kyǒng-su, Sǒ, Ilehe ŭi Pulgyo chŏngeh'aek: Sach'allyŏng ŭl chungsim ŭro [Japanese colonial Buddhist policies: focusing on the Temple Ordinance], in Kūndae Hanguk Pulgyosa ron [Theories of Early Modern Korean Buddhist History] 103 (Sahakhoe, Pulgyoet al. ed., Minjoksa 1988) (Korean)Google Scholar; Pak Kyŏng-hun, Kŭndae Pulyo ŭi yŏn'gu [A study of early-modern Buddhism], in id. at 15; Chŏng Kwang-ho, Ilche ŭi chonggyo ch'ŏngch 'aek kwa singminji Pulgyo [Japanese imperial religious policies and colonial Buddhism] in id. at 69; Kwang-sik, Kim, Han'guk Kŭndae Pulgyosa yǒn'gu [A Study of Early Modern Buddhist History in Korea] 13 (Minjoksa 1996)Google Scholar; Sun-sǒk, Kim, Ilche sidae chosǒn ch'ongdokbu ŭi Pulgyo chǒngch' aek kwa Pulgyogye ŭi taeŭng [Colonial period Buddhist policies of the government-general of Chosǒn and the Buddhist community's opposition] 43 (Kyǒngin Munhwasa 2003)Google Scholar; Tong-min, Han, Sach 'allyŏng ch'eje ŭi yŏksajŏk pae'gyŏng kwa ŭimi [The historical background and meaning of the Temple Ordinance structure], in Pulgyo kŭndaehwa ŭi chǒngae wa sǒngkyǒk [The character and transmission of Buddhist modernization] 93 (Yŏnguso, Taehan Pulgyo Chogyejong Kyoyugwǒn Pulhak ed., Chogyejong Ch'ulp'ansa 2006)Google Scholar; Kyŏng-hun, Pak, Buddhism in Modern Korea, 21 Korea J. 37 (08 1981)Google Scholar; Kang, Wi Jo, Religion and Politics in Korea under the Japanese Rule 45 (Mellen Press 1987)Google Scholar; Sørensen, Henrik H., Buddhism and Secular Power in Twentieth-Century Korea, in Buddhism and Politics in Twentieth-Century Asia 132 (Harris, Ian Charles ed., Pinter 1999)Google Scholar.

4. Specific examples of this view are discussed below. See Sǒ, supra note 3, at 120-23; Chǒng, supra note 3, at 88; Kang, supra note 3, at 47.

5. Yi, supra note 1, at 250.

6. Id.

7. Id.

8. The system of “main temples” (Jap., honzan) and “branches” (Jap., matsuji) first developed in Japan during the Heian period (794-1185), but it remained optional and far from universal as an organizational system up through the sixteenth century. In 1632, however, the establishment of formal organizational connections between temples within this “head-branch” framework became mandatory for all temples by order of the government. See McMullin, Neil, Buddhism and the State in Sixteenth-Century Japan, 21, 243–44 (1984)Google Scholar. For more on the changes brought about after the Meiji Restoration in 1868, particularly the way in which branches were given independent status, see generally Eishun, Ikeda, Teaching Assemblies and Lay Societies in the Formation of Modern Sectarian Buddhism, 25 Japanese J. Religious Stud. 11 (1998)Google Scholar.

9. Yi, supra note 1, at 250.

10. The Sach 'allyŏng sihaeng kyuch'ik (), Law No. 84, was promulgated on July 8, 1911. It contained additional rules and regulations needed for the implementation of the Temple Ordinance. Both the Temple Ordinance and its enforcement rules took effect on the first of September that same year. The eight articles that comprise this law can be found in Yi, supra note 1, at 251-55.

11. Id. at 251-53.

12. Id. at 252-54.

13. Sǒ, supra note 3, at 120-23.

14. Id.

15. Kim Sun-sŏk, for example, in a more recent examination of Japanese colonial policies toward the Korean Buddhist community, draws attention to the use of the term akpǒp (pernicious law) by the previous generation of scholars with respect to the Temple Ordinance, and he himself refers to the Temple Ordinance as a pernicious law (akpǒp) on at least one occasion. See Kim Sun-sǒk, supra note 3, at 44, 60.

16. Sǒ, supra note 3, at 125.

17. Chǒng, supra note 3, at 88.

18. Id. at 92.

19. Kang, supra note 3, at 47.

20. Id.

21. Kim, Kyu Hyun, Reflections on the Problems of Colonial Modernity and ‘Collaboration‘ in Modern Korean History, 11 J. Int'l. & Area Stud. 95, 96 (2004)Google Scholar.

22. Gi-Wook Shin & Michael Robinson, Introduction: Rethinking Colonial Korea, in Colonial Modernity in Korea, supra note 2, at 4,17.

23. Id. at 5.

24. Kwang-sik, Kim, Sach 'allyŏng ŭi Pulgyogye suyong kwa taeŭng [The Buddhist Community's Reception of and Opposition to the Temple Ordinance], paper presented at the Korea Buddhist Research Center conference, Tongbuk 'a samguk ŭi kŭndaehwa wa Pulgyogye ŭi taeŭng (I) 107, held at Dongguk University, Korea, 08 29, 2006, available at http://www.kbri.co.kr/bbs/view.php?id=data_2 (Korean)Google Scholar.

25. Id. 108, 113.

26. Id. at 120.

27. Id. at 121.

28. Tamanaha, Brian Z., How an Instrumental View of Law Corrodes the Rule of Law, 56 DePaul L. Rev. 469, 469 (Winter 2007)Google Scholar.

29. Id. at 478.

30. See, e.g., Chǒng, supra note 3, at 85, 88.

31. It is important to bear in mind that colonial policies and laws, especially in the area of civil law, were constantly evolving and often subject to conflicting demands and agendas. As Kyu Hyun Kim remarks:

In many Korean-language works of history, the colonial powers tend to be portrayed as if they always knew exactly what they were doing, were unwavering in their sense of direction, and never suffered from self-contradictions or self-doubts in developing and practicing their ideological programs. It seems likely that the reality was far more complex.

Kim, supra note 21, at 102. Moreover, looking specifically at the legal system, Marie Kim concludes: “The picture of colonial law that emerges is less one of a systematic, collusive machination than one of a volatile, bumpy patchwork.” Kim, Marie Seong-Hak, Law and Custom under the Chosŏn Dynasty and Colonial Korea: A Comparative Perspective, 66 J. Asian Stud. 1067, 1088 (11 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32. Yi, supra note 1, at 250.

33. The word fukyō was used as early as 1874 in a set of rules for a lay society of the Nichiren sect to mean the propagation or dissemination of the group's teachings, but this was unconnected with overseas missionary efforts, which had not yet commenced. See Ikeda, supra note 8, at 24. Another common word that Japanese Buddhist organizations adopted to describe their missionary efforts was kaikyō (Kor., kaegyo ), meaning “opening the country.” For more on this term and its significance in early-modern Japanese Buddhism, see generally Ketelaar, James E., Kaikyōron, : Buddhism Confronts Modernity, 12 Zen Buddhism Today: annual Report of the Kyoto Zen Symposium 25, 30–35 (03 1996)Google Scholar.

34. The English translation used here is taken from Tikhonov, Vladimir & Miller, Owen, Selected Writings of Han Yongun: From Social Darwinism to Socialism with a Buddhist Face 74 (Global Oriental 2008)Google Scholar. The original passage can be found in Yongun, Han, Chosǒn Pulgyo yusillon [On the reformation of Korean Buddhism] 33 (Kyǒngsǒng Pulgyo Sǒ'gwan 1913)Google Scholar.

35. Tikhonov & Miller, supra note 34, at 77; Han, supra note 34, at 35.

36. Tikhonov & Miller, supra note 34, at 77; Han, supra note 34, at 35.

37. This assertion is based on my dissertation research, which looks at the role that Buddhist propagation has played in twentieth-century Korean Buddhism.

38. For more on the centrality of p'ogyo in Korean Buddhist reform efforts during the colonial period, see Park, Pori, The Modern Remakrng of Korean Buddhism: The Korean Reform Movement During Japanese Colonial Rule and Han Yongun's Buddhism (1879-1944) (1998) (UMI Dissertation Services 2001) (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles) (on file with UCLA)Google Scholar. Park's dissertation was recently published, but I was unable to consult the book in the preparation of this article. Park, Pori, Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms: Korean Buddhism under Japanese Colonial Rule (Inst. E. Asian Studies 2009)Google Scholar. See also Park, Pori, Korean Buddhist Reforms and Problems in the Adoption of Modernity during the Colonial Period, 45 Korea J. 87 (Spring 2005)Google Scholar [hereinafter, Park, Korean Buddhist Reforms].

39. See, e.g., Yŏng-hae, Yun, Han 'guk Pulgyo ŭi tosim p'ogyo wa taejunghwa yŏn'gu [A Study of the urban propagation and popularization of Korean Buddhism] 26 Pulgyo Yǒn'gu 176 (02 2007)Google Scholar (looks at Buddhist propagation over the course of the entire twentieth century rather than just the colonial period, arguing for the importance of urban propagation temples in the popularization of Buddhism over the last century) (Korean).

40. See Sa, Chogyejong: Kǔn Hyǒndae P'yǒn [History of the Chogye Order: Early-Modern and Modern] 35 (Taehan Pulgyo Chogyejong Kyoyug'wŏn 2001) (Korean)Google Scholar. For more information on the marginalization of Buddhism during the Choson dynasty and what looks to be an amelioration of the conditions faced by the monastic community in the late nineteenth century, see generally Lancaster, Lewis, The Buddhist Tradition in Late Chosŏn: A Reappraisal, 1 Rev. of Korean Stud. 111 (1998)Google Scholar; Cho, Eunsu, Re-Thinking Late 19^th Century Chosŏn Buddhist Society, 6 Acta Koreana 87 (07 2003)Google Scholar.

41. The regulations consisted of thirty-six articles in all, a copy of which can be found in Hanguk Pulgyo ch'oegŭn paengnyǒn sa p'yǒnnyǒn [A Chronicle of the History of the most recent one hundred years of Korean Buddhism] 431–37 (Kwangho, Chŏng ed., 1999) (the regulations were composed in classical Chinese)Google Scholar. For a detailed discussion of the contents of this law in Korean, see Chogyejong Sa, supra note 40, at 39; Kim Sun-sǒk, supra note 3, at 29.

42. Here p'ogyo is paired not with chŏnbŏp (), meaning Dharma transmission, as was the case in the Temple Ordinance, but rather with chŏndo (), which is a term that was used to describe missionary work and is used today almost exclusively in connection with Protestant proselytizing in Korea.

43. Chogyejong Sa, supra note 40, at 35.

44. Id. at 38.

45. Id. at 39.

46. See Auerback, Micah L., Japanese Buddhism in an Age of Empire: Mission and Reform in Colonial Korea, 1877-1931, at 207–08 (09 2007) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University) (on file with Princeton University)Google Scholar.

47. Law No. 45 was promulgated on November 17, 1906, and went into effect on the first of December that year. See Kyŏng-Jip, Kim, Han'guk kǔndae Pulgyosa [A History of Early-Modern Buddhism in Korea] 239 (Kyŏngsŏwǒn 1998)Google Scholar (contains a copy of the law, translated into Korean, followed by a discussion of its contents). The word fukyō/p 'ogyo () does not appear in the title of this law; rather, a synonym, senpu/sŏnp 'o (), typically translated as promulgation, is used to indicate the type of religious activity covered under the law. In the main body of the law, however, the former term is used, rather than the latter, to designate the activities, spaces, and religious vocation (viz., propagator) being regulated. The word sempu was famously used in the Meiji government's efforts to inculcate among the Japanese people certain moral values and state-sanctioned doctrines that were derived mainly from a reconfigured Shinto worldview. For more on the Great Promulgation Campaign (taikyō senpu undō), which lasted from 1870 to 1884, see Hardacre, Helen, Shintō and the State, 1868-1988, at 42–43 (Princeton Univ. Press 1989)Google Scholar.

48. Kim, supra note 47, at 239.

49. Id.

50. Id.

51. Id. at 239-40.

52. The emphasis on the impact of Article 4 on Korean monasteries and temples goes all the way back to Takahashi Tōrn, writing in the late 1920s, in his recounting of the events of the first decade of the twentieth century. See Tōru, Takahashi, Richō Bukkyō 918 (Kukhak Charyowŏn 1980) (1929) (Japanese)Google Scholar.

53. Han, supra note 3, at 115-16.

54. Law No. 83 was promulgated on August 16, 1915. It consisted of nineteen articles. A copy of the entire law is included in Yi, supra note 1, at 300-06. An English translation of the law was provided in one of the missionary magazines of the time. See Chosen Government-General Ordinance No. 83, 1 The Korea Magazine 350–54 (08 1917)Google Scholar. For an analysis of this law and comparisons with the 1906 Religious Promulgation Regulations, see Kim Sun-sŏk, supra note 3, at 63. See also Sǒn-ja, Yun, 1915-nyŏn <P'ogyo kyuch'ik> kongp'o ihu chonggyo kigwan sŏllip hyŏnhaeng [The situation of establishing religious facilities after the promulgation of the 1915 law “Propagation Regulations”], 8 Han'guk Kidokkyo wa Yǒksa [Korean Christianity and History] 111 (1998) kongp'o ihu chonggyo kigwan sŏllip hyŏnhaeng [The situation of establishing religious facilities after the promulgation of the 1915 law “Propagation Regulations”]' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=1915-ny%C5%8Fn+%3CP'ogyo+kyuch'ik%3E+kongp'o+ihu+chonggyo+kigwan+s%C5%8Fllip+hy%C5%8Fnhaeng+%5BThe+situation+of+establishing+religious+facilities+after+the+promulgation+of+the+1915+law+%E2%80%9CPropagation+Regulations%E2%80%9D%5D&author=S%C7%92n-ja+Yun&publication+year=1998&journal=Han'guk+Kidokkyo+wa+Y%C7%92ksa+%5BKorean+Christianity+and+History%5D&volume=8>Google Scholar.

55. Yi, supra note 1, at 300, 303.

56. Id. at 302, 306.

57. Id. at 302, 305.

58. The law was amended in connection with the general relaxing of some cultural constraints in the wake of the March First Movement in 1919, a time when Koreans from all walks of life peacefully protested colonial rule and called for independence. A summary of other amendments to this law and changes to other laws affecting religions around this time can be found in Kim, supra note 47, at 321-22.

59. Another law not yet mentioned lends further weight to this argument. The Shrine and Temple Regulations (Jap., Jinja jiin kisoku ), which were established in 1915 and pertained only to Japanese Shintō shrines and Buddhist temples, appear to contain nearly identical language as the previously discussed Article 2 of the Temple Ordinance, limiting the range of lawful activities that could take place at those sites to only a few categories of supposedly legitimate religious practices, and that included propagation. See Han, supra note 3, at 99.

60. It is important to remember—precisely because it is so easy to forget—that the word “religion” () was a relatively new conceptual construct. This neologism was first coined in Japan and then spread to the rest of Asia. It appears to have been used in Korea for the first time in 1883 in an article published in a late-Chosŏn government publication, Hansŏng sunbo. See Sǒngman, Chang, Kaehanggi Han'guk sahoe ŭi ‘chonggyo’ kaenyǒm e kwanhan yǒn'gu [A study on the concept of “religion” in Korean society during the open ports period] 40–41 (1992) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Seoul National University) (on file with Seoul National University)Google Scholar. For an insightful and linguistically exhaustive comparison of this term to corresponding words used in early medieval China, and thus by extension the rest of Asia, see Robert Ford Company, On the Very Idea of Religions (in the Modern West and in Early Medieval China), 42 History of Religions 287 (05 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61. See, e.g., Dennett, Tyler, Americans in Eastern Asia: A Critical Study of United States' Policy in the Far East in the Nineteenth Century 555–77 (photo, reprint, Barnes & Noble, Inc. 1963) (1922)Google Scholar.

62. See infra pp. 120-23 (concerning the treatment of religion in the treaties that Korea signed with Western nations in the 1880s).

63. By the end of 1897, there were nine separate missions representing four different denominations, Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, and Presbyterian, working to propagate Christianity in Korea. See Paik, L. George, The History of Protestant Missions in Korea, 1832-1910, at 198 (2nd ed., Yonsei Univ. Press 1971) (1927)Google Scholar.

64. See Eckert, Carter J., et. al., Korea Old and New: A History 204–05 (Ilchokak 1990)Google Scholar.

65. Grayson, James Huntley, Korea: A Religious History 178–79 (Oxford Univ. Press 1989)Google Scholar.

66. Id. at 181-84.

67. Paik, supra note 63, at 134.

68. Wells, Kenneth M., New God, New Nation: Protestants and Self-Reconstruction Nationalism in Korea, 1896-1937, at 26 (Univ. Haw. Press 1990)Google Scholar.

69. In the beginning Li Hung-chang was by all accounts leading the treaty negotiations with the Americans almost single-handedly in the beginning. For more on the role of the Chinese diplomats, especially Li Hung-chang, in this process, as well as a brief description of the contents of the treaty, see Deuchler, Martina, Confucian Gentlemen and Barbarian Envoys: The Opening of Korea, 1875-1885, at 114–22 (Univ. Wash. Press 1977)Google Scholar. Deuchler gives a brief description of all fourteen articles on pp. 121-22, but a copy of the entire text of the treaty can be found in Korean Treaties 197–204 (comp. by Henry Chung, 1919)Google Scholar.

70. There appears to be some confusion about whether the idea originated from the Korean side or from their Chinese counterparts, who had taken charge of the deliberations with the man leading the negotiations for the Americans, Shufeldt. L. George Paik suggests that Li Hung-chang had proposed such a clause, whereas Chongko Choi states that Li had convinced the Korean negotiators to abandon the plan. See Paik, supra note 63, at 69; Choi, Chongko, Law and Justice in Korea: South and North 210 (Seoul Nat'l Univ. Press 2005)Google Scholar. A record of the conversations between the Koreans and Chinese can be found in Ch'ǒngguk mundap [Conversations [on the 1882 US-Korean Treaty] between Qing envoys [and Korean delegates]], 22 Yǒksa Hakpo 121 (01 1964)Google Scholar. See especially pp. 126-27, which seem to support Choi's contention. Either way, the incident shows that the Koreans were well aware at the time and fearful that Western governments wanted their citizens to have the freedom to conduct religious propagation among the Korean people.

71. The relevant language was contained in Article 4 of each treaty and stated: “They [foreign nationals] shall be allowed the free exercise of their religion.” See Korean Treaties, supra note 69, at 110, 136.

72. See Grayson, supra note 65, at 184; Grayson, James Huntley, A Quarter-Millenium of Christianity in Korea, in Christianity in Korea. 10–11 (Buswell, Robert E. Jr. & Lee, Timothy S. eds., Univ. Haw. Press 2006)Google Scholar (contains a more concise overview of the nineteenth-century persecutions that led to the martyrdom of nine French priests and thousands of Korean converts).

73. See Korean Treaties, supra note 69, at 89 (French).

74. Choi, supra note 70, at 211. Note that Choi incorrectly cites this as Article 11. A record of the discussions that took place concerning the inclusion of this language between the Korean and French negotiators in 1886 can be found in Sǒk-u, Ch'oe, Han-Pul choyak kwa sin 'gyo chayu [The Korean-French treaty and religious freedom], 21 Sahak yǒn'gu 222 (09 1969) (Korean)Google Scholar.

75. Choi, supra note 70, at 211.

76. See Korean Treaties, supra note 69, at 206. Although nothing in the treaty provisions pertained to religion, presumably because Korean law did not proscribe the practice of Buddhism in the same way as Christianity, representatives of Japanese Buddhist organizations were apparently not prohibited from propagating their religion.

77. The Treaty of Kanghwa did not mention freedom of movement, but the Supplementary Treaty and Trade Regulations between Korea and Japan, signed on August 24, 1876, specified (Article 4) the limits within which Japanese subjects could freely move. See Korean Treaties, supra note 69, at 210.

78. For background information on Okumura and a description of the circumstances under which he was sent to Korea, see Auerback, supra note 46, at 68-71.

79. Kawawata, Yuiken, Religious Organizations in Japanese Law, in Japanese Religion: A Survey by the Agency for Cultural Affairs 161, 162 (Hon, Ichiroet al. eds., Kodansha Int'l U.S.A., Ltd. 1972)Google Scholar.

80. Id. at 163.

81. Ikeda, supra note 8, at 15.

82. Id. at 13.

83. Id. at 28.

84. See, e.g., Hur, Nam-lin, The Sōtō Sect and Japanese Military Imperialism in Korea, 26 Japanese J. Religious Stud. 107 (1999)Google Scholar.

85. On the growth of the Japanese Buddhist missions following the two wars, see Park, Korean Buddhist Reforms, supra note 38, at 92-93. For more information on the early contact between Japanese Buddhist missionaries and Korean monks, see Auerback, supra note 46, at 90-102.

86. Walraven, Boudewijn, Religion and the City: Seoul in the Nineteenth Century, Rev. Korean Stud. 178, 188–89 (07 2000)Google Scholar.

87. Yi Nŭng-hwa described the circumstances under which the ban was lifted and recorded what purports to be an eyewitness account of reactions to a religious event held the following year in Seoul to commemorate it, which was attended by both Japanese Buddhist clergy and Korean Buddhist monks. See Yi, supra note 1, at 75-76. A discussion of Yi's account, including translations of some relevant passages into English, can be found in two places: see Auerback, supra note 46, at 149; Cho, supra note 40, at 90-91.

88. The text of the memorial can be found in Takahashi, supra note 52, at 894-96. For background information on Sano, see Auerback, supra note 46, at 146-49.

89. See Yi, supra note 1, at 75. An earlier proposal for lifting the ban, which preceded Sano's arrival in Korea, had been raised in December of the previous year during the first round of Kabo reforms, but the matter was dropped before any action was taken. See Auerback, supra note 46, at 148-49; Chogyejong Sa, supra note 40, at 27-28 (Korean).

90. For Sano's arguments concerning p 'ogyo and its relationship to the freedom of religion (), see Takahashi, supra note 52, at 895-96.

91. Baker, Don, World Religions and National States: Competing Claims in East Asia, in Transnational Religion and Fading States 144 (Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber & Piscatori, James eds., 1997)Google Scholar.

92. Id. at 148.

93. Id. at 157.

94. Han, supra note 3, at 132-33 (Korean).

95. See Durham, W. Cole Jr., Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief through Religious Association Laws, in Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief: A Deskbook 321, 322–24 (Lindholm, Tore, Durham, W. Cole Jr. & Tahzib-Lie, Bahia G. eds., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2004) [hereinafter Durham, Facilitating Freedom of Religion]Google Scholar; Durham, W. Cole Jr., Freedom of Religion or Belief: Laws Affecting the Structuring of Religious Communities, ODLHR Background Paper for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Review Conference (09 1999), http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3e283bd01.html (last visited Jan. 12, 2010)Google Scholar.

96. Goossaert, Vincent, 1898: The Beginning of the End of Chinese Religion?, 65 J. Asian Stud. 307, 310 (05 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

97. Id.

98. Id. at 311-12. As evidence of this, the Korean government actually began to negotiate directly with the Catholic Church and to recognize through legal agreements the Church's right to conduct religious propagation. In 1899 an official from the Home Ministry signed a twelve-article treaty with a Catholic bishop, the French priest Mutel, followed by another agreement between the Korean government's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Catholic Church in 1901. Choi, supra note 70, at 211-12 (provides an English translation of the first seven articles of the 1899 treaty, which he says contained twelve articles in all).

99. Don Baker has called the change to congregational styles of religion that occurred around this time, which is predicated on the idea that lay people are members of the religious organization, a “revolution” in the understanding and practice of religion in Korea. Baker, Don, The Religious Revolution in Modern Korean History: From Ethics to Theology and from Ritual Hegemony to Religious Freedom, 9Rev. Korean Stud. 272 (09 2006)Google Scholar.

100. Sullivan, Winnifred Fallers, Religion, Law and the Construction of Identities: Introduction, 43 Numen 128, 129 (05 1996)Google Scholar.

101. Id. at 130.

102. Id. at 132.

103. Id. at 130.

104. Berger, Peter, “Religion in a Globalizing World,” talk delivered to the Pew Forum's Faith Angle Conference on Religion, Politics and Public Life, Key West, Fla., 12 4, 2006, http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=136 (last visited Jan. 11, 2010)Google Scholar.

105. Berger, Peter, Pluralism, Protestantization, and the Voluntary Principle, Democracy and the New Religious Pluralism 19, 21 (Banchoff, Thomas ed., Oxford Univ. Press 2007)Google Scholar.

106. Id. at 24.

107. Scherer, Ross P., Organization Theory and Religious Organization, in Encyclopedia of Religion and Society 345 (Swatos, William H. Jr. & Kivisto, Peter eds., AltaMira Press 1998)Google Scholar.

108. Durham, Facilitating Freedom of Religion, supra note 95.