With regard to “competition for the best paper in analytic theology of an underrepresented religious or theological tradition,” there are a number of religious traditions for which the term “analytic theology” is not appropriate, Buddhism and Daoism most obviously, arguably in the case of Jainism (one here can become, as it were ‘god-like’) as well as several “orthodox” philosophical traditions in Hinduism as well: Sāmkhya and Pūrva Mīmāmsā (with perhaps an exception or two later in the latter school), and, I would argue, so too Yoga (there is a deity of sorts but … ). The late and great Ninian Smart suggested we speak of Buddhology for Buddhist philosophy of religion! Indeed, we might be content with philosophy of religion simpliciter and simply jettison the term “analytic theology” (hence, the best paper in ‘non-Christian philosophy of religion’). The would-be contestant could be confused if only because of the following: “Analytic theology is an interdisciplinary subfield that explores traditional theological topics and questions (in diverse religious traditions) in conversation and methodological continuity with the analytic-philosophical tradition.” In other words, one may not be able to explore “traditional theological topics” in an analytic mode if these are utterly lacking in one of the aforementioned religious traditions.