Religious tolerance key to nationhood

Religious tolerance key to nationhood

By Sayidiman Suryohadiprojo

JAKARTA (JP): After the age of the enlightenment Western
intellectual thinking was dominated by reason. With regard to
religion many people believed strongly that there must be a
separation of church and state and that there must be a strict
neutrality by the state in relation to religion. The result was
the establishment of what is now known as the secular state.

This thinking had been strongly influenced by the destructive
war between the Protestant reformers and the Catholic Church in
Europe. The general attitude was that similar conflicts must be
prevented from reoccurring. This would only be possible if
religion remained in the personal domain, and not an extension of
the state. As soon as the state begins meddling with religious
affairs, the result is the domination by believers of the
majority religion and a lack of tolerance of other religions.

Intellectuals in the 19th Century did not realize that the
problem of state and religion is not that simple. Nobody can deny
that the Republic of the United States of America is a modern
state. The separation of state and religion is ensured by its
constitution. However, the reality is rather different.

In his book Religion in Public Life (Georgetown University
Press, Washington DC, 1996), Ronald F. Thielmann states that it
is not easy to rigorously maintain the principle of the
separation of church and state. He says that examples of the
peculiar mixing of politics and Christianity abound.

One of the first acts taken by the American House of
Representatives (May 1, 1789) was to appoint the Reverend William
Linn, a Congregational minister, as Chaplain to the House. On
Sept. 24, 1789, the House voted to recommend the First Amendment
(freedom of expression) to the states for ratification; the
following day they began debating a resolution requesting that
President Washington issue a Thanksgiving Day Proclamation.
Apparently the members of the House did not see any conflict
between their actions and the provisions of the First Amendment.

Thielmann gives examples of inconsistencies between the U.S.
Constitution and the role of religion in public life. He
describes how American presidents, emboldened by the promise of
divine assistance, have used the biblical heritage of the
Puritans to justify the Spanish-American War, the annexation of
the Philippines, and the inexorable westward expansion that
resulted in the slaughter of many native Americans and the dis
placement of others.

About forty years after the ratification of the first
amendment, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story offered the
following analysis of the place of Christianity in American
society: "It is impossible for those who believe in the truth of
Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt that is the
special duty of government to foster and encourage it among all
the citizens and subjects."

Jean Jacques Rousseau, as one of the Enlightenment's
foremost thinkers, in contrast to other eighteen-century
philosophers, did not believe that religion must be eliminated
altogether from public life. If government was to gain the true
allegiance of the populace, then it must find a way to engage the
deepest passions of the people, passions that could be turned to
peaceful civil purposes. However, he did not want sectarian
religions to fulfill that role because they could herald a risk
of religious persecution. Rousseau wanted the establishment of a
civil religion based on reason. But that could never take place,
because a real religion needs divine origin.

Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in 1952: "We
are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme
Being". These words point to an inescapable fact of American
life. Since Protestantism is the majority religion, in reality
civic piety and morality is based on the Protestant Christian
belief.

What has happened in the U.S. experience has also become a
reality among the so-called secular states in Western Europe. On
the one hand the separation of church and state is a concept
which guarantees more justice and fairness in a modern society.
On the other hand, one cannot escape from the fact that a healthy
public life must be based on morality, which is mostly provided
by religious teachings. It is therefore understandable that there
is much debate in Western societies today about the appropriate
place of religion in public life. The issues of abortion and
prayer in schools are two visible manifestations of it.

Indonesia has taken a different path. The first principle of
the Pancasila state ideology, the belief in One God, determines
that it does not follow the separation of state and religion as
in a secular state. But neither is it a religious state, because
there is no state religion and the state is not based on the
teachings of a certain religion.

It follows that public life in Indonesia cannot and may not be
separated from a Supreme Being. A strong base for morality is
therefore provided. What must become a matter of attention is the
fair treatment of all religions in Indonesia. This is basically a
matter of tolerance among the religions, in particular the
attitude of the followers of the majority religion, Islam.

It is generally acknowledged that tolerance in Indonesia is
well advanced, compared to many other countries, including the
most advanced industrial nations. The teachings of Islam lead its
followers to a tolerant attitude, if it is well understood and
rightly interpreted. If there are Moslems with a fanatical
attitude, it is mostly because they have is a distorted
interpretation of Islam.

However Islam also teaches its followers that they are right
to defend themselves against others who subjugate them and try to
annihilate them. Another reason for the tolerant attitude in
Indonesia is the basic characteristic of the people. They are
culturally moderate in their views and thinking.

Although more than 88 percent of the people in Indonesia are
Moslems, there are generally good links between all the
religions. During the colonial regime when a Western modern
power, namely the Dutch, was ruling Indonesia, there was no fair
treatment for Islam and its followers. The colonial regime even
used Islam as a means to play its game of divide and rule,
thereby very much contradicting the Netherlands' claim to be a
secular and modern state.

But after independence there was fairer treatment of all
religions, although Indonesia decided to become a non-secular and
non-religious state, in spite of the existence of a majority
religion.

However, this situation can always change if there are
negative influences from outside that cannot be neutralized
properly.

First is the spread of materialism and individualism which
basically originated from the West. The strong influence of the
development in science and technology has not only positive
effects in the increase of prosperity, but has also its negative
effects in the form of a strong increasing role of matter and
money in people's lives.

One of the main reasons why religious tolerance is rather weak
in western nations is because of their strong individualistic
attitude. If the Indonesian people become too individualistic and
materialistic, they also will become less tolerant. And religious
fairness would be put in danger.

Another problem which could change the current situation is
the imitation of the fanatical attitude of some Middle Eastern
Moslem groups. Some Indonesian Moslems might have the erroneous
perception that Middle East people are by birth and origin better
Moslems, because they grow up and live close to the Islam Holy
sites and the location of the origin of Islam.

Whatever these people do is, by some, considered the correct
interpretation and implementation of Islamic teachings. They do
not realize that Islam is a rational belief which requires
serious study to arrive at the right interpretation.

The improvement of education in Indonesia, including the
teaching of Islam, is therefore very important. We need to master
science and technology in all its facets, but we must also be
aware of its possible negative effects on society. We must
therefore also enhance morality and civil piety.

As Moslems we should pay attention to Moslem solidarity, but
we should also be critical of wrong attitudes and behavior by any
Moslem groups. And we must become not only the largest Moslem
community in the world, but also the best in understanding and
implementing Islamic teachings.

We can therefore conclude that a modern state cannot sepa
rate itself from the existence of a Supreme Being, but neither
can it be a religious state which treats minority-religion
believers without justice and fairness, The key to that solution
seems to be a broad-minded attitude of the majority religion's
followers to provide their cobelievers with a strong sense of
tolerance.

Lt. Gen. (ret) Sayidiman Suryohadiprojo, a former Governor of
the National Resilience Institute, is now Ambassador-at-Large for
the Non-Aligned Movement.

Window: The first principle of the Pancasila state ideology, the
belief in One God, determines that it does not follow the separation
of state and religion as in a secular state. But neither is it a
religious state, because there is no state religion and the state is
not based on the teachings of a certain religion.