'No need for law on religious tolerance'

By Y.B. Mangunwijaya

YOGYAKARTA (JP): The National Commission on Human Rights and respected religious leaders have correctly stated that the Tasikmalaya riots last month were not motivated by religious considerations or racist sentiments.

Rather, we should support analysts, including those from military circles, who cite a "run amok" phenomenon as well as economic and political reasons. Religious fanaticism may occasionally be involved but we should not to be so naive as to blame religion for all social unrest.

It was regrettable when Minister of Religious Affairs Tarmizi Taher reacted to the violence in Tasikmalaya and Situbondo by proposing a law on religious tolerance. The proposal is strange because the areas targeted were mostly factories and business centers. Only two churches were badly damaged in Tasikmalaya, but 12,000 people once working at the factories and shops are now out of work.

I share the opinion of Minister/State Secretary Moerdiono, who said recently that religious attitudes cannot be regulated by the state. The realm of religion is within man's deepest feelings and convictions, and cannot be directed by any worldly power. It would be futile and even dangerous to try to control religious attitudes.

The history of mankind has shown how disastrous a "marriage" between religion and state can be. The state has an obligation to regulate certain social and political elements so its citizens may live peacefully and with a respect for each other, religion included. But this is not the same as regulating internal religious affairs. The state may exert its power in a sociopolitical context, but not within the realm of religion.

Whether motivated by religious fanaticism or political maneuvering, the destruction of things -- buildings, for example -- is simply a criminal act, and one that should be punished.

I appeal to the minister of religious affairs to abandon his proposal. I know that his intentions are noble, but it would not work. Not everything that goes wrong here can be reduced to a matter of religion.

The Tasikmalaya explosion was socioeconomic and sociopolitical in nature. As with other incidents in Jakarta over the years, the violent brawling involved angry and frustrated students carrying sharp weapons and attacking cars and buses. We should not complicate the issue by mixing in alien things.

It is interesting to note that the word "amok," used also by the English, German, French and Dutch, comes from the Javanese word amuk. Other countries apparently could not find an adequate term in their own languages for a peculiar phenomenon that is common throughout Indonesia.

Amok describes the phenomenon when men (and occasionally women) get angry and attack people whom they dislike or regard as enemies, not excluding their own spouses and children. The results can often be fatal.

Very often these men are kind and gentle and not the type of people thought capable of such horrible actions. But like the Galunggung volcano, which had been dormant for centuries until the last decade, a sudden eruption can take place. They lose their senses and only killing can cool down their emotions. After the outburst, they generally break down crying and pray to God to punish them for their sins.

It may be an Indonesian way of reacting, but certainly the same phenomenon occurs elsewhere. It comes from stress that stems from feelings of hopelessness and often ends in suicide. Rational characters do not run amok. Instead, they turn to alcohol, drugs, prostitution and occasionally take their lives by more dignified means of hara-kiri, seppuku and the like.

Most amok sufferers come from the lower echelons of society and are uneducated. Most are very emotional and introverted types who don't talk much. Few have a significant rank in society. In small, traditional societies, these people have few difficulties. They know their place and understand their role within that limited social structure.

But when their familiar life structures undergo profound changes -- through a shift toward a more individualistic way of life, for example -- they will experience disorientation. They will feel as though their lives have lost meaning and subsequently lose their self-esteem. They will feel vulnerable in this merciless modern jungle and many simply self destruct.

Extroverts can compensate, even though some may do so by turning to criminal acts. But the more introverted types, who cannot communicate their confusion -- to friends, for example -- may explode and run amok.

Economic hardships, legal insecurity and confused morality may accelerate the process. Religion may be of some help, but if it is viewed as imposing more rules, it becomes of little use.

Religion has long been misused as an instrument to legitimize all kinds of power systems. Confused men and women cannot see religion as an appropriate answer to their most profound questions. In fact, religion for them is often not regarded as help or consolation, but as another disintegrating power that seeks to displace them and relegate them to an unbearable way of life without meaning.

When too many people are too often subjected to injustices, they will begin to feel like nobodies with no social role and no future. In the absence of justice, sensitive people with an inability to use their rational faculties (to a large degree a result of a school system that fails to provide a true education that encourages exploration, thinking and creativity) can easily run amok.

It is not a naive law on religion tolerance that we need. Such tolerance has been widely practiced in Indonesia since our independence more than 50 years ago. What we need is an atmosphere that is ruled by law, supported by an economic strategy and based on growth and employment. And all of this must be accompanied by genuine guarantees of political participation or all of the common people.

The writer is a Catholic priest, novelist and social worker.