'No need for law on religious tolerance'

'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.