Religious tolerance in RI

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.