Government told not to meddle in religious affairs

Government told not to meddle in religious affairs

By Febiola Desy Unidjaja and Ahmad Junaidi

JAKARTA (JP): Religious groups, observers and legislators
supported calls to limit the role of the state in religious
affairs to that of a facilitator to curb radical sects which
could disrupt social harmony.

Both the Indonesia Ulemas Council (MUI) and the Indonesian
Communion of Churches (PGI) concurred that the existence of a
particular religion in the country should not be dependent upon
the state's consent.

MUI acting chairman Amidhan told The Jakarta Post on Monday
the state should not have the power to officially recognize or
ban any major religion.

He added that the government should not interfere in the
theological teachings of a religion.

"Religion should be the concern of the people that hold the
belief. Religion is the right of every man and should not be
restricted by others," Amidhan said.

Similarly, PGI secretary-general J.E. Pattiasina asserted that
all major beliefs should be free to exist in the country.

"Religions should grow not because of the state's prompting
but due to the people that hold those beliefs," he told the Post.

Debate about the state's role in religion came to the fore
when President Abdurrahman Wahid, during a gathering last week to
celebrate the Chinese New Year, said it was not the state's
business to interfere in religion.

He said the existence of any belief or religion was not based
on whether it was recognized by the government. "It is actually a
mistake for the state to recognize a particular religion .... If
the government does so, it means the government has made a
mistake."

Article 29 of the 1945 Constitution guarantees religious
freedom and the first principle of the state ideology Pancasila
specifies the belief in one God.

However, the government only recognizes five religions: Islam,
Hinduism, Buddhism, Catholicism and Protestantism. Each citizen
is required to acknowledge one of the five as their religion.

Government Regulation No.4/1978 also stipulates tolerance for
animistic beliefs.

Faiths like Confucianism are not officially recognized by the
government, although their practice is often tolerated as long as
they are kept out of the public eye.

The case of Confucianism was aggravated further by the Chinese
phobia brought about by the 1965 abortive communist coup.

Presidential Instruction No.14/1967 limited the practice of
Chinese traditions and faiths. This instruction was annulled on
Jan. 17 by Abdurrahman through Presidential Decree No.6/2000.

Damage

Taufiqurrahman Saleh, deputy chairman of the National
Awakening Party (PKB), said the state should no longer "regulate"
religion.

"As long as religions do not harm each other, the state should
not interfere in religious affairs," Taufiqurrahman said on
Monday.

He believes the past practice of prohibiting certain religions
is no longer relevant.

Golkar Party legislator Ferry Mursyidan Baldan also voiced
support for the President's comments, saying they were in
accordance with the principle of freedom of religion.

"But freedom of religion should not cause conflict among the
faiths. This is where the law plays an important role," Ferry, a
former chairman of the Indonesian Muslim Students Association,
said.

Social observer Azyumardi Azra noted that the very essence of
religious faith was the freedom of belief, and thus it was
contradictory for the state to interfere with and ban faiths.

"The state should have no right to determine whether one
religion is legitimate or not," he told the Post.

Despite the convergence of views, most of those questioned
agreed some administrative intervention was still required from
the government.

"For example, the state could be the facilitator in
interreligious dialogs to avoid social clashes, or assist in
giving permits to build houses of worship," Amidhan said.

But Azyumardi warned the government's withdrawal from
religious affairs could lead to the growth of sects with the
potential for sparking religious disharmony.

One important role the government would have to retain,
Azyumardi said, was issuing licenses to construct houses of
worship.

He said this issue would remain a highly sensitive subject and
therefore the government should maintain its authority in the
matter.

Another question is whether all faiths should be allowed to
persist without any limitations, particularly sects whose
teachings are contradictory to mainstream religions.

Most agreed in the end that the government should have a role
in limiting such sects. However, the government's control should
not be in the sects' theological teachings, but in curbing any
sociopolitical impact on social harmony.

"The government could ban sects if they were contradictory to
the nation's ideology and became a source of unrest among the
community," Amidhan said, adding that any prohibitions should not
be based on the objections of the five mainstream religions.

"For example, one of Islam's sects is Al-Arqam. This sect is
clearly in conflict with (state) ideology. So in this case, the
government should ban it," he remarked.

Those questioned said other "sociopolitical factors" which
would warrant a sect's banning include the advocacy of violence
or the rejection of the state.

Azyumardi said "social conflict" should be the primary reason
for banning a faith.

"New religions should be allowed to form as long as they don't
ignite social contradictions in the country," he said.

Meanwhile, Taufiqurrahman simply said religions and faiths
should be tolerated "as long as they don't violate the law".

But some concern was voiced by Pattiasina, who underlined the
need to consider the views of the five mainstream religions.

"For example, PGI would not accept the government asking us to
review our rejection of the Children of God sect, because its
teachings clearly contradict ours."