Securalism: Is it that debased?<\/p>\n
By Rahayu Ratnaningsih<\/p>\n
BOGOR (JP): Is Indonesia a religious or secular state? We are
\nalways told that Indonesia is neither. It is a Pancasila state,
\nso we are informed; it does not recognize any religion to be its
\nofficial religion nor is any particular religious law officially
\nenforced.<\/p>\n
However, the belief in one God is instilled as the first and
\nforemost foundation in the state ideology, Pancasila (Five
\nPrecepts). It has a ministry that specifically deals with
\nreligious affairs as well as the Indonesian Ulemas Council (MUI).
\nThe main function of this government sanctioned body is to issue
\nfatwas regarding matters considered haram (forbidden) or halal
\n(allowed), Islamic or non-Islamic.<\/p>\n
In the New Order era, the government ruled that there were
\nonly five sanctioned religions in Indonesia: Islam,
\nProtestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism and Buddhism. School
\ncurriculums have religion as one of the obligatory subjects,
\nalong with physical and social sciences. Teachers of the
\nPancasila subject, also a mandatory subject from elementary
\nschool right through university, would tell students that there
\nwas no place in Indonesia for those who did not believe in God,
\nor did not have religion, defined and dictated, absurdly enough,
\nby the state. (So in the process, with no apparent thought for
\nconsistency of argument, students were told that Confucianism was
\nnot a religion.) Thus, what we have are children who grow up
\ntaking this unchallenged premise for granted.<\/p>\n
Other than all the above, it is safe to say that Indonesia is
\nquite secular and tolerant regarding a secular life style,
\nespecially compared to other Muslim countries, such as Malaysia,
\nand particularly those hard-line middle eastern countries.<\/p>\n
The debate of secularism versus religion, Islam in this case,
\nhas recently been brought to the forefront by the proliferation
\nof Islamic or Islamic-oriented parties, especially during the
\ncampaigning season prior to the general election.<\/p>\n
Islam is a commodity that is in high demand these days.
\nWhether or not they use Islam as the party's foundation, all
\nIslamic-based parties have declared their allegiance to Islamic
\nprinciples. The National Awakening Party (PKB), founded by
\nNahdlatul Ulama's Abdurrahman Wahid, popularly known as Gus Dur,
\nis one of these parties which, despite their indisputably Islamic
\norientation, established inclusive nationalism and pluralism as
\nits foundation. It has gained wide support from both Muslims and
\nnon-Muslims, indigenous and nonindigenous Indonesians.<\/p>\n
Gus Dur maintains the need for a separation between religion
\nand the state, which is the philosophy of secularism, without
\nabandoning religion. He purports a version of Islam which is
\ninclusive, friendly, open-minded, protective toward minority
\ngroups and secure in its majority status. He strongly believes
\nthat true spirituality transcends religious differences and
\nshould be the personal matter of each individual citizen without
\nstate interference. He argues state interference will only result
\nin religious politicization, which in turn will only bring
\ndisaster, as can be seen in many countries adopting this system.<\/p>\n
Gus Dur believes this approach will not necessarily eradicate
\nIslamic values from people's lives. He readily admits the most
\nunfortunate fact that many Muslim groups are so narrow in their
\nstruggles and in their vision that they ostracize their non-
\nMuslim brethren. The fact that this comes from the most prominent
\nIslamic leader of the most prominent Islamic organization is
\nrefreshing. Despite his many opponents who fall short of his
\nlevel of wisdom, many regard him as the true father of the
\nnation.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, the Crescent Star Party (PBB) founded by
\nYusril Ihza Mahendra, firmly declared Islam as its foundation and
\nits antisecularism philosophy. In its view, secularism is the
\nsource of moral degradation of a nation, and thus, unacceptable
\nfor a state which is predominantly Muslim. Furthermore, PBB
\nstrives for the elimination of secularism from Indonesian
\nsociety. Though, in a common move shared by all Islamic parties,
\nit stops short of seeking to establish an Islamic state.<\/p>\n
Recently The Jakarta Post published a letter from Vleugeuls
\nwho, perhaps in a rather insensitive straightforward manner,
\nexpounded on the need for Indonesia to have a president who did
\nnot have a religion. Not surprisingly, in a society where people
\nare conditioned or indoctrinated to believe that atheists or
\npeople with no religion can do all sorts of evil, his probably
\nnot too uncommon opinion in the west has sparked emotional
\nreactions from religious Indonesians who cannot fathom what life
\nis like without religion. They accused him of being an evil
\natheist, generalized that westerners lead an immoral lifestyle,
\nor even called for his deportation from the country on the
\ngrounds that his view could corrupt the Indonesian people.<\/p>\n
It should be recognized that those who profess religious
\nbeliefs, Muslims in particular, generally have a very low opinion
\nof secularism. There is even a tendency to demonize secularism by
\nfocusing only on the perceived negative side effects, without
\ntaking into account what it really strives to achieve.
\nSecularism, which came into being during the Renaissance period,
\nwas an answer to the failure of religious states that had brought
\nEurope into a dark age 500 years earlier. During that time witch
\nhunting was a sport and executions were a just desert for
\nstraying. Pre-Renaissance Europe was characterized by incessant
\nwarfare, corruption, lawlessness, obsession with strange myths
\nand an almost impenetrable mindlessness.<\/p>\n
For one thousand years European accomplishments in the realms
\nof science and exploration had been negligible. Throughout the
\nMiddle Ages, the vast majority of human intellectual energy and
\neffort was diverted to questions of doctrinal minutiae and "holy"
\nwars.<\/p>\n
Secularism does not -- and never did -- promote the total
\nabandonment of religion in people's lives, let alone hostility
\ntoward religion or its followers. Securalism seeks something
\nquite opposite: to grant every person their basic freedoms,
\nincluding freedom of belief -- or its lack thereof -- to the
\npoint that in fact in many secular countries religion, even ones
\nnot originating from those countries, blossoms and gains a large
\nfollowing over time. Houses of worship from all kinds of
\ndenominations are allowed almost unlimited growth, something that
\nironically would not be found in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.<\/p>\n
What secularism seeks to establish is that no dogma is too
\nsacred to be analytically and critically questioned and
\ninvestigated. Secularism promotes freedom of human reason and
\nhumanity in general.<\/p>\n
The revival of arts, human rights movements, science and
\ntechnology, human excellence and human dignity, other than the
\nalready mentioned religion, are thanks to secularism, for it sees
\nall citizens as equal, despite their color, gender and creed.<\/p>\n
True, all of these are not without cost since secularism is
\nnot perfect. But all in all, the benefits far surpass the costs.
\nAnd pray tell, which system is perfect or can perfectly be
\nimplemented? It would be extremely tragic to throw the baby out
\nwith the bath water.<\/p>\n
The fact that materialism abounds, crime rates, alcoholism,
\ndrug abuse, suicide rates, divorce rates and sexual crimes are
\nincreasing are perhaps some of the side effects that can be
\ncited. However, they are not exclusive problems of secular
\nstates, because even in oppressive religious states many of those
\nissues are present.<\/p>\n
In those countries with a strong religious bias, the free flow
\nof information (a free press) does not exist so people can
\neasily, and mistakenly, infer that a lack of documentation
\n(statistics) shows a lack of occurrence. Take Indonesia and the
\nPancasila state -- is it any better than secular India, for
\nexample? Is India a more corrupt state? The last time we checked,
\nin terms of corruption, Indonesia still beat India hands down.<\/p>\n
To be fair to Muslims, Nurcholish Madjid, the much quoted
\nprominent Muslim thinker, better known as Cak Nur, years ago
\naired a concept that distinguished secularization from
\nsecularism. Perhaps realizing the common negative viewpoint
\ntoward secularism among Muslims, he suggested secularization but
\nnot secularism. However, what he meant by secularization was not
\nmuch different than secularism in its essence.<\/p>\n
As for the opinion that only those who do not believe in
\nreligion or God can resort to evil deeds, it is not difficult to
\nshow how superstitious and myopic this is. As our world
\nexperience attests, time after time religion, while it has been
\nan eternal fountain of inspiration for many people and great
\nminds, doesn't always make good people. The same precept holds
\nthat people without religion can make the most admirable
\nhumanists.<\/p>\n
Theists and atheists are equally capable of good and bad
\ndeeds. Our history attests that at least 500,000 people were
\nmassacred in an anticommunist purge led by Soeharto's New Order
\nin 1965. In many other cases, religion can and has shaped the
\nmost horrendous human beings, whether or not they really adhere
\nto the true teachings of their religion. The reality still
\npersists that those people believe that what they do is in the
\nname of God, or according to their religious teachings. If
\nreligionists abhor the generalization made by nonreligionists
\nthat the opiate of religion can dupe people into insanity, they
\nshould not fall victim to their own preaching by generalizing
\nthat nonreligionists are all prone to evil.<\/p>\n
The last point is, there is a distinction between religion, as
\nan organized institution, and spirituality. People can be
\nspiritual without strict affiliation to any particular religion.
\nSo in other words, people always have "religion", though
\noutwardly they claim to not profess any belief.<\/p>\n
It is high time to be open-minded and receptive to new ideas
\nand courageous enough to challenge, evaluate and test much of the
\naccepted theory, social taboos and dogma of our time. It is the
\nonly way that guarantees progress in a society. Great minds ask
\ngreat questions. It is the time to independently question our
\nchildhood indoctrination that only those who share our belief in
\nGod are those with respectable morality.<\/p>\n
The courage to question accepted truth was the foundation of
\nthe Renaissance that gave birth to the era of enlightenment in
\nthe west. Truth is never given and "truth" that cannot stand
\nscrutiny and investigation is not worth professing.<\/p>\n
Hence, we should perhaps rephrase the question from "Is
\nsecularism that debased?" to "Is secularism debased at all?"<\/p>\n
The writer is director of the Satori Foundation, a center for
\nthe study and development of human excellence through training in
\nmind programming and meditation techniques.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/securalism-is-it-that-debased-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}