Clarity needed on state affairs on religion

Clarity needed on state affairs on religion

A religion does not need government's recognition to exist,
says President Abdurrahman Wahid. The following is an excerpt of
an interview with Bahtiar Effendy, the deputy director of the
Indonesian Business Ethics Study and Development Institute, who
has written a book on Islam and the state.

Question: On Saturday, President Abdurrahman Wahid, or Gus
Dur, said government recognition of religions was not needed.
Could you tell us how the New Order policy originated?

Answer: The official recognition of only five religions cannot
be separated from the failed coup of the banned Indonesian
Communist Party (PKI). The military, then the main player in
mainstream politics, assumed that PKI was equal to atheism and
that ideologically there was no place for that in the country.

The five religions were considered the faiths held by the
majority of Indonesians and the policy was supported by religious
communities. Some debated whether Confucianism, for instance, was
a religion or not. I think one deciding factor (in excluding
Confucianism) was (first president) Sukarno's closeness with
China and (his rivals') desire to distance themselves ...

Q: Abdurrahman seemed to hint at the separation of religion and
state. How do you see this?

A: Abdurrahman's statements have been inconsistent. At the
opening of the Nahdlatul Ulama congress (last November), which I
attended, he said religion and state were inseparable.

What would things be like if the state was entirely separated
from religion? Would the Ministry of Religious Affairs, which
Abdurrahman's father Wahid Hasyim strived to set up, be
dissolved? Is the state ready to stop interfering in the
activities of nightspots during Ramadhan? Is it ready to manage
the excess from the public's likely unpreparedness?

Historically, we have not been able to have formal and
constitutional relations between the state and religion; that's
no problem as long as the state does not issue policies
contradicting certain faiths. We've always said Indonesia is
neither a theocracy or secular state, but that the state
facilitates the interests of religious communities.

I think Abdurrahman is just annoyed that the Ministry of
Religious Affairs has been accused of being discriminative to
certain faiths.

The concept of separating religion from state is unclear. A
secular country like the United States swears in its presidents
with their hand on the Bible, and prints "In God We Trust" on its
currency. Maybe what we don't want is religion entering the legal
area, but we would have to be very careful... we would have to
rewrite everything like the first point of the Pancasila (state
ideology), the belief in one God.

Abdurrahman's intention may be partial accommodation of areas
defined as those under state (authority) and those under
religion. His remarks and the following discourse might signal an
end to formal discrimination; not a separation of state and
religion, but a balanced freedom among religions. Therefore, we
see the lifting of the ban against the Chinese New Year
celebrations.

Q: What function should the state maintain regarding religion?

A: Facilitating the needs of religious communities. Don't blame
the government for regulating the haj (pilgrimage). There have
been many complaints against the haj arrangements by the private
sector. You can't leave such things to the market because the
religious needs mean that not all people going on the pilgrimage
can afford all (costly) facilities.

The idea of separating religion and state cannot just copy
other models... Asia is the cradle of large religions and its
history of resistance against colonialism is heavily imbued with
religiosity.

The relations of state and religion have never been discussed
thoroughly; the last attempt at (a national level of) discussions
was stopped by Sukarno. We've been forced to accept Pancasila as
the state foundation and under Soeharto it became the compulsory
basis of parties and organizations. However, this crisis has
stopped us from (advancing) such a discourse.

Q: What would be the realistic and urgent role of the state
regarding religion now?

A: The development now (of more open talks) is good but what's
urgent is equal treatment of all religions. Now we have a lot of
trouble. We have regulations saying permits must be sought for
places of worship. But there are those of certain religions who
say they are discriminated against and that they are never given
the permits, so they set up their places of worship anyway.

We have a government regulation on the freedom of special
schools on their teaching of religion, which violates the 1989
Education Law, which rules that all students must receive
religious teaching by teachers of the respective religions. So we
must discuss what is to be arranged by the state and what is not.

Q: Has this issue become more urgent in the wake of religious
conflicts?

A: Yes, religion here has not only lost its humanity but also its
basic rules. We have been raised with negative rules, such as "do
not expose your differences," while differences must be exposed
to infuse tolerance. Tolerance has indeed occurred in society but
this has happened through our daily interaction, while the
government has imposed a ban on public discourse on ethnic,
class, racial and religious differences (SARA).

The SARA policy must end or society will never mature in
resolving its conflicts. The conflicts in Ambon and other small
towns cannot only be because of social and economic gaps; there
is a factor of religion there based on state policy.

Q: What is the basic argument in your book on Islam and the
state?

A: I am saying that the relation between state and religion must
be more substantial... touching on values. It should refrain from
imposing legal and formal matters which raise objections from
religious communities. The state should be more sensitive.

Many Muslims, for instance, were hurt by the (official) social
philanthropical contribution with prizes, (the now defunct
government-sponsored lottery Sumbangan Dana Sosial Berhadiah)
SDSB, feeling that it was a form of gambling (which is forbidden
in Islam). The Muamalat Bank was banned on the grounds that all
banks must have interest (Islamic banks forbid interest). It then
gave into formality, stating it operated "with zero percent
interest". (anr)