Religious tolerance in RI

By June Santosa

This is the first of two articles on religious tolerance in Indonesia.

JAKARTA (JP): When the news broke that Amien Rais had received an invitation to appear before U.S. Congress and testify in connection with the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act of 1997 bill, it created quite a stir.

Some considered the invitation as an affirmation of Amien's credibility in the international world. Others questioned whether he was the right person to represent the Indonesian view on such an important forum.

In light of the less-than-tolerant statements he has made in the past, many wondered why he was chosen. Perhaps, someone with less celebrity status than him but with greater understanding both of the Indonesian situation and what it means to be tolerant would have been more suitable.

Complaints were also voiced regarding the rationale of such a bill, which many Moslems considered an affront. Although the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act was formally introduced as a measure of guaranteeing freedom in the practice of any religion, it is widely known that the bill, supported by right- wing Christian organizations in the United States, was formulated in response to reports of persecution of Christian communities in countries with Moslem majorities.

In effect, most of the 78 countries included in the preliminary report, where evidence of religious persecution is said to be found, are countries with Moslem majorities. Among them, Indonesia figures prominently.

Moslem leaders in the United States as well as in Indonesia were thus concerned that a negative image of Moslems and Islam may be created as a result of the bill.

They argued that Moslem minorities have also suffered persecution in the hands of Christian majorities, such as in Bosnia and in the Philippines.

To be true, Christian nations are not absolved from crimes against religious minorities. There is ample evidence of violation of civil rights of Moslems and Jews in the U.S., and the most hideous act of persecution against a religious minority in recent history, which resulted in the death of six million members of that minority, was committed by a Christian country, Nazi Germany.

These arguments are certainly valid, and many non-Moslem Americans, as a matter of fact, have objected to the bill. The National Council of Churches in the United States, moreover, warned that a simplistic approach to the issue may aggravate the negative feelings, and may, in fact, endanger the lives of the minorities that the bill is supposed to protect.

The point, however, is not which country or which religion is the most culpable. The fact that both Christian and Moslem countries are guilty of religious persecution in no way justifies the act (Two wrongs do not make a right) nor decreases its significance (it's okay because everybody is doing it).

As for Indonesia, the proposal of the bill, whether we agree with it or not, is a painful reminder not only that the problem exists, but exists to such an extent that it has attracted international attention.

Indeed, that another country has proposed a bill to protect religious freedom and pointed at Indonesia as a major transgressor has made it doubly painful.

Despite the constant urgings for unity and integrity, Indonesians are aware that particularly in the matter of religion, such unity remains elusive.

Religious intolerance -- rather than religious persecution per se -- is a problem that has plagued the nation longer than its existence but which, thus far, the Indonesians have managed to keep an internal issue. The bill touches a sensitive wound that has refused to heal, and no one appreciates outsiders poking at their wounds.

And the pain is such that it evokes a defense mechanism among political and religious leaders in Indonesia, whereby they are unable or unwilling to acknowledge the severity of the problem.

Before he left, Amien Rais announced his plan to emphasize economic reasons for the incidents that happened in Indonesia. In other words, the destruction of churches in Indonesia is a reflection of conflict of social classes rather than true religious discord.

To some extent, and in some cases, that is true. Economic difficulties have often served as a trigger for mounting frustration that is directed against religious minorities.

Yet, to say that the destruction of places of worship -- in a country where religion plays such a critical role -- is merely a reflection of economic problems, is not only simplistic, it is self-deluding. Amien Rais knows, and any honest Indonesian would admit, that interreligious enmity runs very deep in this country.

Since the 1960s, every decade has witnessed major religious conflicts erupting nationwide, generally followed by the destruction of religious edifices.

In the early 1970s, it was provoked by the rapid growth of Christian congregations brought by the massive conversions of ex-communists; in the 1980s, with the spread of Islamic radicalism; and now, in the 1990s, in response to domestic, economic and political deterioration.

Religious persecutory acts were directed not only against Christian communities but against other religious minorities as well (for example, Buddhists and mystical groups).

Interestingly, religious conflicts have erupted more frequently under the present rather than the previous government. Perhaps the threat of communism at that time unwittingly built camaraderie among the religious communities.

A perusal of the records of religious persecution in Indonesia, therefore, shows that the causes are more varied than simply social tensions.

More often than not, they are caused by prejudice; mutual suspicion and hatred that grow out of differences in religious convictions. Negative feelings that are exacerbated by competition for influence, be it materially or nonmaterially based. Whereas religious doctrines never or seldom teach suspicion of other beliefs, religious leaders often do. And once formed, religious prejudice is almost impossible to overcome.

For a believer, religion guides his or her total existence. It deals with matters of life and death and with every part of life here and now, and in the hereafter.

Ethnic and cultural differences are difficult to accept but for the devout believers, religious differences are insurmountable. It would be far easier for them to marry a person of a different ethnic and cultural background than of a different religion.

How could it be otherwise, if one is taught since very early in life that one's religious belief is the only true one, and that one should avoid and reject other doctrines?

In this light, "religious tolerance", one may say, is a bogus concept. How can one tolerate teachings or doctrines one has been brought up to consider not only wrong, but which will bring damnation to one's soul?

Religious attachment, furthermore, is one of the most powerful forces in the universe. It is even greater than the love for one's dear ones.

Throughout the history of human civilization, brothers have turned against brothers, parents have denounced their children, and family members have killed one another in the name of religion and because of religious differences.

Religious conviction has served as the foundation, justification and legitimization for all kinds of deeds that ostracize and harm others.

It has caused people to disregard truth and to support corrupt regimes and evil causes just because the perpetrators belong to one's religious affiliation.

The writer holds a Ph.D. degree from Boston University in psychology and religious studies.