Questioning the regulation on houses of worship

Hairus Salim, Jakarta

A number of houses of worship in West Java were reported to have been forcibly closed several weeks ago by a group of hard- liners. This incident promptly triggered protests by those whose religious freedoms had been infringed. They blamed the government for allowing -- and thus apparently justifying -- the pressure against and eventual shutdown of their temporary churches.

The group of people who enforced the shutdowns argued that the houses of worship had been built and were being used without following the proper licensing procedures. They referred to the Joint Decree of the Minister of Religious Affairs and the Minister of Home Affairs (SKB) No.1/1969, regulating the building of houses of worship. To get a church, temple or mosque built one requires government licenses, the consent of locals and the requisite congregation base.

Hard-line Muslim groups acting to shut down temporary Christian churches; it is an act we have seen a lot of recently.

Residents' demands for Christians to end their praying is usually "gently" expressed, but occasionally it is accompanied by violence like acts of vandalism and arson. The starting point of tension over places of worship is again the regulation SKB No.1/1969. One side strongly demands that the rule is consistently applied and used as a reference. The other argues that it is their constitutional right to worship, and there are growing demands, especially from non-Muslims, to revoke the law.

So far, the government has been seemingly ambivalent about this issue. While apparently striving to enforce the regulation, it also has acknowledged the seeds of anger and frustration its enforcement is sowing among the members of minority religions affected by the rule. For a critical analysis of the decree, it is important to review the history leading to its creation.

With the collapse of the New Order, a series of sectarian incidents took place in Indonesia. Strained relations began with the circulation of religious pamphlets and books full of missionary zeal; and physical clashes, including attacks on and the destruction of churches and mosques were widespread.

However, in the early period of the New Order, particularly from 1967 to the early 1970s, religious frictions in the country were just as frequent.

Five religions were officially recognized at the beginning of the New Order. This in part was a reaction to the role of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) in the previous order, which explicitly ignored religion. As a consequence of this recognition, religious propagation and study were intensified, affecting interfaith ties.

A contest between religions for new followers was inevitable. Targets of such recruitment were nominal believers and non- Javanese ethnic groups. Problems arose if those targeted were seen as already "professing" a religion.

This happened at the same time as religion was becoming more global than it ever had before; the internationalization of faiths and missionary movements.

All major religions in Indonesia are indeed of foreign origins. However, during the period of parliamentary democracy, and especially during the period of guided democracy, religious propagation with foreign assistance was considerably restricted. Starting 1966, in line with the re-incorporation of Indonesia into the world, there was an influx of aid for the development of all faiths.

Following the ban on communism, the process of religious propagation got even more intense. Embracing a religion was often as much motivated by "political security", so that one would not be branded as a communist and killed, as it was about real faith. This was reflected by a rapid expansion in the building of houses of worship. These new buildings were often erected in places where the new creed was a minority and had never been seen before, which often sparked envy or anger among other groups.

Several violent incidents involving different regions were connected with this development; which of course worried our leaders. The government was then in dire need of stability to ensure its development programs would work -- and this meant interfaith stability and harmony. For the prevention of further sectarian conflict, the government finally created some rules, including the one on houses of worship.

This background is important when one reexamines the relevance of the decree. From this historical scrutiny, it is obvious that the regulation was made first of all to prevent conflicts that had begun to heat up between the faiths because of allegations of religious conversions and church building. The regulation was, in fact, a provisional move meant to calm the tensions between the groups over the short term.

The situation was an emergency in political and religious terms and it is interesting to note that the rule remains valid and has never been revoked, making it one of the standards with which we now appraise interfaith relations.

Unsurprisingly, then, the rule's continued interpretation has meant that religious groups have been attacked because their churches are considered to be unlicensed. While in the short term the regulation might have prevented conflicts, over the longer period it is actually helping to provoke the clashes it was originally designed to stifle.

Naturally, the regulation's provisions are not applied in all areas in Indonesia. In certain regions, many communities are not bothered at all about the building of mosques, churches or temples of different faiths. But it is clear that after such a long time, this decree -- along with many other rules governing religions here -- has constructed the ways believers of different faiths communicate with each other. It has become the main source of reference instead of ideas like mutual respect and tolerance.

What the history shows is that it is indeed necessary to review or even annul this regulation. The political situation that emphasized public and private security at the time of its creation has significantly changed. The basic reason, of course, is that the decree goes against notions of human rights, which protect religious freedoms. In practice, forcing compliance with the rule is often only directed at the minority in a region and is more or less ignored by the majority.

Perhaps we no longer need this kind of regulation. The rules about building of houses of worship could be made identical to those governing general construction -- licenses and requirements for building height, safety, the environment and so forth. If any development of a house of worship is considered a "nuisance", it should be dealt with according to the existing laws.

The writer is from the Institute for Islamic and Social Studies (LKiS).