Religion and politics an uneasy combination<\/p>\n
By Th. Sumartana<\/p>\n
SALATIGA, Central Java (JP): Each time people speak about
\nreligion in relation to politics, many people instantaneously
\nbegin to feel uneasy. Why? What is so wrong with the combination
\nof the two? Isn't religion a universal concept? Why, then, does
\nreligion, which represents humanity, lose its universality the
\nmoment it is used as a political ideology?<\/p>\n
It is undeniable that each time a political ideology is formed
\nin the interest of a particular religion, it becomes a very
\npowerful political machine. However, its very nature as a
\nmessenger of absolute truth becomes the biggest constraint in
\ncarrying out its political mission. The reason is, political
\nreality is a complex phenomenon and necessitates certain
\ncompromises. Usually, religion does not compromise.<\/p>\n
However, in many cases coalition between religion and politics
\ncannot be avoided. Their combination is the meeting point of the
\ntranscendental side while it is reality that must be changed and
\nimproved. The new reality is not always the ideal. Worse still,
\nit can bring about confusing realities that destroy ideals.<\/p>\n
Political recruitment by religious-based movements is very
\neasy, particularly during times when religion is viewed as a
\npowerful integrative force in society. However, as individual
\nreligions challenge each other with differing political ideas and
\nobjectives, we begin to lose the common ground for constructing a
\nshared community. In its worst form, this can turn into a real
\ndisintegrative force within society.<\/p>\n
The transcendental values of religion often lose their
\nsupernatural characteristics and can even become vulgar when used
\nas a mechanism of political struggle. The history of Christian
\nEurope demonstrates how politics and religion can turn a
\nreligious party into a force that shuns truth and justice.<\/p>\n
Politics should be more firmly based on humanity. As long as
\nhumanity is included in a particular religion, then it can be
\nused as the basis for political thinking and practice. On the
\nother hand, the moment a political force rides on the absolutism
\nof religion, it creates only suffering. Politics becomes absolute
\nand religion relative.<\/p>\n
This certainly creates a dilemma for both. Only through open
\ndiscussion between proponents of various beliefs can we arrive at
\na political form that is based on morals and ethics. However, its
\nmanifestation should be a true consensus based on an open
\npolitical discourse.<\/p>\n
Julius Nyerere, a former president of Tanzania, once talked
\nabout the relation between religion and the society. He made
\nthree important points: First, the only objective of development
\nwas the people and their need to earn a decent living. Anything
\nthat stood in the way should become the enemy of every religion;
\nSecond, all religions should position their political praxis on
\nan equal level, particularly when facing common problems; Third,
\nall religions should work towards development for everybody.<\/p>\n
He underscored the fact that no single religion on earth had a
\nmonopoly on virtue, although everybody had to fight for the
\nideals that they believe to be the truth. Truth doesn't change
\nsimply because somebody belonging to a different religion
\nquestions it. Nyerere said, \"What right have we to presume the
\nGod Almighty takes no notice of those who give dedicated service
\nto those millions of His children who hunger and thirst after
\njustice, just because they do not do it in His name?\"<\/p>\n
The proliferation of religious-based organizations in the last
\nfew years has revealed the need for us to mull over this issue
\nsince, as we all know, the issues surrounding the relation
\nbetween religion and politics can in fact become an agenda for
\nproductive discussions among these intellectuals. On the other
\nhand, these organizations can be counter-productive as they move
\ninto the political world in an effort to find justification for
\ntheir respective roles, which they program without any prior
\ndialog with other organizations.<\/p>\n
These groups have turned into parties -- groups that seek to
\ndifferentiate themselves from each other more than anything else.
\nThe stories about religious-based political parties during
\nIndonesian political history will repeat themselves in exactly
\nthe same pattern. The difficulty of learning from past failures
\nwas obvious during the meeting between intellectual organizations
\nsome time ago. Stalemates occurred simply because religious words
\nand terminology were used that were perceived as carrying
\npolitical connotations, while political jargon was, perceived as
\nfurthering religious concepts, was flung around. The meeting was
\ninitiated on suspicion and ended in disappointment.<\/p>\n
Going back to the issue of religion and politics, perhaps we
\nshould remind ourselves once more of Julius Nyerere's wise words;
\nwhat matters most in (political) development is human beings as
\nhuman beings. The question should be, in what way can religion
\ncontribute to the creation of a conducive atmosphere so that all
\npeople can live a decent life? The role of a particular religion
\nin development will be reflected by the quality of its
\ncontribution -- both in thought and practice -- to help human
\nbeings be human beings. The only way to achieve this is through
\ndialog and cooperation among existing religions.<\/p>\n
The writer teaches in the postgraduate studies department at
\nthe Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/religion-and-politics-an-uneasy-combination-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}