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.