Questioning the regulation on houses of worship

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).