Religious freedom: Quo vadis?

Religious freedom: Quo vadis?

Franz Magnis-Suseno SJ
Jakarta

2005 has been a bad year for religious freedom in Indonesia.
More regencies introduced regulations based on religious law,
thereby disregarding the legislation that stipulates that
religious matters are the exclusive prerogative of the central
government. The Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) declared the
Ahmadiyah organization as a dissenting Islamic movement in July.
As a consequence, armed mobs forcefully closed Ahmadiyah's
compound with police mostly only looking on.

In the mean time, the closing down of "illegal" places of
Christian worship by local Muslim groups, often backed by white-
garbed members of the Islam Defenders Front (FPI), has escalated.
The Alliance of Anti-Apostasy Movements (AGAP), threatened that
they would shut down thousands more churches lacking proper
permits.

Most disturbing is the attitude of the government of President
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. On the imposition of religious law it
keeps its mouth shut. On the attack on the Bogor headquarters of
Ahmadiyah the President commented, that anyway Ahmadiyah had
already been outlawed long ago. Thus the violence against their
properties was their own mistake? Other minorities found no
consolation in this cavalier attitude.

In a similar vein, the minister of religious affairs declared
that the closure of those churches was a nonissue, since they had
no permits and therefore were not churches at all. Later on the
government agreed to revise the infamous decree from 1969 which
had made the building of churches almost impossible. This decree
is the reason why so many congregations have to worship in
improvised places. But first drafts of the new decree gives the
impression that getting the necessary permits will become even
more difficult.

There are two challenges the government cannot endlessly run
away from facing: The first is its duty to uphold the law. The
second is the protection of one of the central elements of
freedom of religion, freedom of worship.

No self-respecting government can indefinitely allow mobs to
take the law into their own hands. But this government is doing
just this. It has long been recognized that the precondition for
the general recovery of Indonesia is the restoration of the
sovereignty of the law. But our government does not seem to have
the guts to do it. The violence against peaceful Ahmadiyah has
brought shame on our present government.

By letting mobs get away with violent behavior the government
will only undermine its own authority, weaken the function of the
police force and corrupt the judicial order. It also encourages
people to become even more intolerant toward minorities. What is
the use of cracking down on terrorism, but letting one's own
minorities become more and more terrorized?

Freedom of religion features prominently in Indonesia's
Constitution. Article 28 states unequivocally that "every person
is free to embrace a religion and to worship according to his or
her religion...", while Article 29 declares that "the state
guarantees the freedom of every individual... to worship
according to his or her religion and belief."

These stipulations leave no room for maneuver. Ahmadiyah may
deviate from orthodox Islamic teachings, and MUI has the right to
say so, but the government has the constitutional duty to
guarantee their right to worship.

The same holds for all religious minorities. It is the first
duty of the government to uphold the Constitution, thus, in this
case, their right to worship. This duty implies the task of
educating the people to become tolerant of minority rights. It
also implies that in case an official house of worship cannot yet
be used, a religious congregation automatically has the right to
use other places, of course in a way that is not disruptive to
public order. Any new regulation must proceed from the goal of
safe-guarding the freedom of worship of every person.

There are wider ramifications. Religious freedom is still
respected in today's Indonesia, if not without limitations. Most
Indonesians still hold on to the tradition of religious
tolerance. All the mainstream religious organizations in
Indonesia, including MUI, have repeatedly declared that they do
accept the existence of other religions.

But for how long? By appeasing intolerance and sectarianism
the government undermines its own authority. It also endangers
the ongoing healing process in regions of religious conflict that
have been successfully pacified.

Besides, the latest spree of violence raises the question
whether what we are facing is purely local. There could be groups
that are testing how far they can go in imposing their own law
upon society.

The destruction of mosques of Ahmadiyah congregations and the
threatening of Christians who have done nothing other than hold a
religious service once a week should, of course, not be connected
with terrorism. It should be stressed, however, that
geographically, the most widespread terrorist outrages up to now
in Indonesia were the Christmas bombings in 2000, where, the
police failed miserably to persecute the perpetrators.

But there is a subcutaneous connection between violent
intolerance and terrorism. Using violence to enforce religious
views upon others creates precisely that climate of an intolerant
majority that breeds a mind-set that legitimizes violence against
others on religious grounds. The transition from suppressing
religious minorities to killing people in the name of God is not
so difficult to make.

A government that does not have the courage to enforce the
Constitution, that allows mob violence to dictate the law in the
streets, indirectly supports the spread of attitudes that, in the
end, will create a mind-set that falls more easily prey to
terrorist ideologies.

Thus what will be the future of religious freedom in
Indonesia? Will the government find the courage to oppose street
intimidation as resolutely as it now suppresses terrorism? It is
high time the government makes clear that Indonesia is and will
stay a country based on Pancasila where the freedom of worship is
guaranteed as one of the most sacred fundamental rights.

The writer, a Jesuit priest, is a professor at Driyarkara
School of Philosophy in Jakarta.