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.

中文翻译：

---

佛教国家的不可能性

本文探讨了特殊宪法特权对斯里兰卡佛教的影响。它认为，与支持者和反对者的预期相反，这些条款并没有做到他们声称要做的事情：它们没有增强佛教在岛上的统治地位。通过对近期法律行动的详细分析，本文展示了对佛教的特殊宪法保护实际上如何加剧和授权佛教徒之间的分裂。在提出这一论点时，本文指向一个更大的论点：旨在确保间- 一种传统的宗教统治，在某些情况下，实际上可能会扩大内部- 关于该传统的性质、界限和教义的宗教冲突。因此，这项工作鼓励学者们重新思考世俗自由宪法与宗教优先宪法之间假定的对立。尽管在表达层面上是对立的，但宗教中立和宗教优先的宪法实际上可能会产生类似的政教难题。斯里兰卡的案例表明，与完美的宗教中立是不可能的一样，完美的宗教至高无上也是如此。