Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In the course of history religion has often been used by governments as an effective tool of control.In fact, institutionalized religion has more often than not served the interest of the ruling class, and it has readily accepted the role as "spiritual policeman" in society at large.While this model is commonly encountered in the Christian history of Europe, i.e., in the relationship between the Roman Church and the governments in the countries dominated by Catholicism, it can be seen as a fixed pattern in East Asia, where religion at the practical level was designed to safeguard the interests of the state.Confucianism, which has dominated the structures of societies of East Asia for millenia, is perhaps the best example of this.While on the one hand it provided the ideological and practical structure for a distinctly ranked, but ordered society, in which the nation allegedly would flourish, it also was the safeguard of the privileges of the ruling classes, and in a sense guaranteed that society basically remained static in terms of social mobility.With its primary focus on patriarchal lineage, a close-knit family structure, and a rigid social moral-codex, its influence remained indisputed on the every-day level of the commoners, while it essentially constituted the entire super-structure of government.From the Han dynasty (B.C. 206 -A.D. 220) and onwards Confucianism as a state ideology has been intimately linked with Legalist ideals of punishments and rewards, in accordance with which the government decrees were implemented.As such Confucianism has been, and to a certain extent still is, the perfect instrument for controlling the populations in East Asia.Although a number of other religions, including Buddhism, Daoism, and of late Henrik H . S m e n s e n Christianity, gained a great influence in the East Asian societies, and at times even have eclipsed Confucianism in terms of practical religious importance and influence, they have nevertheless always been forced to incorporate basic Confucian values in order to gain optimal popularity.Thus, when we speak about religion in East Asia, we are always dealing with some form of Confucianism, whether directly or indirectly.When the Western colonial powers were dividing the world into "zones of interest", Christianity was a servile ally towards this end.Christian missionaries were among the first colonizers on the shores of the "new lands", and they generally did not spare themselves in serving the colonial cause because they saw it as being identical with the divine cause as decreed by Christ to his followers in Matt.28:26-20: "Go therefore and make all the nations my disciples."In the case of Korea, missionaries were employed by all the colonial powers trying to gain a foothold in the kingdom, including the United States, France, England, and last but not least Japan.While the Western powers with considerable success used the various brands of Christianity as a means of gaining influence in Korea, the Japanese used Buddhism, a religion which had a fifteen hundred years old history in both countries, and with which they felt comfortable.The purpose of this paper is to throw light on the relationship between the Japanese colonial government and the major religious groups in Korea with special emphasis on Buddhism, Christianity, and indigeneous, syncretic religions in the initial period from 1910 to 1919.Special attention will be given to the mechanisms employed by the Japanese in trying to make the religions in Korea actively co-operate with the imperial cause, and if that did not work, to control or otherwise suppress them into submission.The strategies employed by the Japanese towards this end were manifold and, as discussed below, encompassed a full set of methods ranging from encouragement, education, economic support, media manipulation, coercion, swindle, infiltration, and as a last measure, to violence. 50Copenhagen Papers 8 .9 3The Attitude of the Japanese Colonial Government Towards Religion in Korea (1910 -1919)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Henrik H. Sørensen (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: