Undoubtedly, ours is a diverse society, and while this diversity can be, or ought to be, a source of vibrancy it also has its problems. The only way we can maintain a civil society is to develop a high degree of tolerance for differences, especially religious differences.

Put it simply, religious tolerance is a must.

No society can survive long where religious intolerance is permitted to thrive. Without it, we cannot be a united as a nation; it will be impossible to build a basis for a common interest, common ideals and common destiny. Simply, without religious tolerance, Indonesia will be ceased as a nation.

That’s why, in the spirit of unity, we must pay close attention to the ongoing development in Indonesia: the drafting of religious tolerance Bill. Many have raised their concern that the Bill, instead of promoting tolerance, will create intolerance. As reported in the Strait Times Bid for religious curbs in Indonesia, “Although the proposed Bill on Religious Tolerance is ostensibly for maintaining religious harmony, analysts here see it as the latest bid by conservatives in the government to put an Islamic stamp on Indonesia by legislative means.” And according to the Times, “mainstream moderate Muslim bodies such as the Nahdlatul Ulama and the Muhammadiyah reject the move as retrogressive and a source of potential religious tension.” The newspaper also quoted a Muslim scholar Ahmad Baso of Desantara, an independent think-tank, “This Bill only creates more division between religious worshippers.”

Understanding religious tolerance

What does religious tolerance mean? Let’s explain it by what it means and what it does not mean. Religious tolerance means that one acknowledges and respects the right and the freedom of others to embrace and practice their religious beliefs, even though one disagrees with their beliefs and practices. The key words of religious tolerance are: disagree yet respect. 

David Little, Dermot Professor of the Practice of Religion, Ethnicity and International Conflict at Harvard Divinity School provides an excellent definition of religious tolerance.  It is “a response to a set of beliefs that are originally thought to be objectionable, with disapproval but without using force or coercion [to change them].” According to David Little, tolerance not only does not use coercion or force against an opponent, but a tolerant person respects the other’s viewpoint. “It is natural for us to punish people we do not agree with. To repress that impulse is tolerant.”[i]

The eleventh Webster college dictionary gives the definition of tolerance as “sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own”. Again, the emphasis is on sympathy and differences.

 Religious tolerance is the absolute foundation for a mutual cooperation among religions.  The purpose of religious tolerance is to avoid antagonism and conflict, to respect and to live peacefully coexist with all other religions. The pluralism of people and religions “is acknowledged not only as a historical fact but also as a religious fact willed exactly by God Himself so that people from different faiths could compete with one another in doing good.”[ii] So intolerance towards others of different religious beliefs is contrary to the real spirit of religion.

Religious tolerance, however, does not mean accepting a notion that all religious beliefs are essentially the same and they are all can be reduced into a single religion. Proclaiming that all religions are one is only ignoring the reality of the differences among them. Proposing a ‘common idea of God’ to be shared by all religions is an over-simplification of differences, leading to a dangerous religious reductionism and relativism. In fact, all religious teachings are built upon a specific ‘faith context’, and introduced by their own founders or teachers. And only through this perspective can religions be properly understood. For instance, there is no Christianity without Christ, no Buddhism without Buddha, and no Islam without Mohammed. A generalization that all religions are the same will lead to intense bitterness rather than harmony.

Differences cannot be eliminated either by ignoring them or by pretending that they do not exist. Tolerance based on ignored differences is like a time bomb. It will eventually explode when the reality of the differences is discovered. For instance, under the infamous ideology of SARA (ethnicity, religion and race) during the New Order regime of Suharto, the religious discourse was dominated by a tightly controlled discourse of nationalism, sidelining or marginalizing the role of religion in the identity formation of the Indonesian people. By playing down the role of religion in their identity formation and by imposing that Indonesian identity should only be defined by the Pancasila ideology, the Suharto regime had created a vacuum in public discourse on religion. After having been banned for more than thirty years under Suharto, the discourse of religious identity came out like a flood and religious differences seemed to take its revenge after having been suppressed in public discourses for a long time. The indirect results: the conflicts in Moluccas, Poso and Lombok.

On the other hand, exclusivist and inclusivist paradigms do not seem in tune with the new perception, emerging from the present situation of religious pluralism. In reality, there are very real and important differences among the various religions and these ought to be acknowledged and respected without becoming points of violence and tragic conflict.  Religious tolerance is all about allowing different religious beliefs to exist even if one may not agree with them and may oppose them intellectually. It recognizes and respects religious pluralism. It is not about perceiving other religions as a threat or an opponent, but welcomed them as a partner on a common journey of faith.  Just like the clash of ideas in science or philosophy, the clash of ideas in the pursuit of Spiritual Truth does not have to become a factor of social conflict, nor do we have to try to suppress it is order to maintain social harmony.

Therefore, religious tolerance is not in the absence of criticism of religion. This is not to promote everyone to forcefully criticize the religious of other people. Critical attitude toward religion is necessary because it can prevent the suppression of Truth under the pretext of not offending anyone's religious belief. One’s motivation to embrace particular religion is essentially part of one’s quest for Truth. And in one’s journey to find the Truth, one should be able to question the beliefs of others rationally and sincerely. What cannot be tolerated is violence used to promote a particular belief, which destroys all tolerance.  What also must not be tolerated is provocation used to trigger violence and conflict toward people of different religious beliefs.

The notion of religious tolerance is closely related to religious freedom. Recognizing and respecting the fact that there are major differences between religions will not lead to religious tolerance unless there is a freedom for human religious inquiry. This may be best described by the meaning of religious intolerance as “emotional, psychological, philosophical, and religious attitudes that may prompt acts of discrimination or other violations of religious freedom, as well as manifestations of hate and persecutions against persons or groups of a different religion or belief”.[iii] 

True tolerance is based upon respect for freedom, not the assumption that everything must be tolerated for the sake of harmony. It is based on the fundamental nature that all Men are created equal and possess innate human dignity as a birthright, and consequently each person must be treated with dignity and each person’s freedom must be respected.

Last but not least, true tolerance is built not through laws and regulations. As Benjamin Disraeli once wrote “When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken”, drafting laws should not be the first priority in building religious tolerance. It is the teachings and the commitments of religious leaders to promote religious tolerance that have to be the main priority. 

The foundation of religious tolerance is religious freedom, not laws and regulations.

Religious freedom

No doubt, religion has a profound influence on individuals. It expresses the deepest aspirations of individuals with regard to their search for meaning in life, it shapes people's vision of the world and affects their relationships with others.  In other words, religion plays a key role in personal and social identity formation. Religion, therefore, cannot be separated from people’s conscience, and people are obliged to follow their conscience in all circumstances and cannot be forced to act against it.  Precisely for this reason, no one should be forced to accept a particular religion, whatever the circumstances or motives are. It violates the principle of religious freedom, and it violates human rights. 

Religious freedom constitutes the very heart of human rights and it “cuts across a wide range of human rights”.[iv] It refers to freedom for particular individual religious practices; it refers to the freedoms of particular bodies, houses of worship, humanitarian organizations, educational institutions, and etc.; it refers to freedom of speech; and it refers to the freedom of association.[v]  It will be a violation of freedom of religion, then, if a group of people are allowed to practice their religious belief, but cannot or severely restricted to build their house of worship, to carry out their humanitarian missions, and to establish their religious-based educational institution.

A comparison of ratings for religious freedom with ratings for political rights and civil liberties for thirty seven countries shows that in general freedom of religion correlates very closely with civil liberties. The score for religious freedom is identical to the score of civil liberties.[vi]

It is fundamentally crucial to understand that the freedom of religion is not the product of social contracts. Nor is it a product of human laws or ideologies. Social contracts and laws are merely agreements between people. Freedoms granted by social contracts and laws may not be fully trusted because they may be not only violated but also used to establish superiority of one group over another. They may last for now but become a history tomorrow.

The Right and freedom to have a religious belief have much deeper roots.  They have their origin in the nature of relationship between the Creator and the creation (human beings).  It has been with the human beings ever since they are created. The Rights of Man “do not come from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."[vii]  Since the creation, the Creator has given us the Right, the power, and the freedom to choose, between light and darkness, good or evil, love or hate. With this Right and freedom, we have liberty to choose our own way, find our own destiny, and not have others – community, society, or the government, choose them for us. That means before the Creator human beings have freedom and liberty, even the freedom to reject the Creator which comes with consequence. As Ulil Abshar-Abdalla wrote, “Worship toward God has no meaning if it is not positioned in the frame of human as the free subject...”[viii]

That is why, as religion teaches, the Creator has provided Heaven to those who follow and Hell to those who reject the Creator’s way. Thus the concept of Heaven and Hell are not separated from the concept of religious freedom. Any attempt to suppress religious freedom is essentially denying the concept of Hell and Heaven and thus denying the existence of the Creator. Since it is the Creator that has granted the Rights and freedoms, they are inalienably and unquestionably held as truth for all-time. Neither any groups nor government can take them away. Unfortunately, many religious leaders have misunderstood this fundamental concept. As a result, millions of religious followers have been misled to believe that the establishment of a uniform religious belief, often by any means which is conflicting with the freedom of religion, is perceived as a main duty of religious followers.

Every person shall have the right to freely choose any religion or faith, either individually or with others, in public or in private. This freedom allows the individual to determine his or her religious practice without hindrance by the government or other social or religious establishments.  It is the freedom necessary to enable people to make correct judgments concerning religion, based on an honest comparison and analysis of the claims made by various religions.  No person may coerce another person or be subject to coercion to adopt or profess any religion or faith. A person's freedom to profess and propagate his or her religion or faith may be subject to limitations only when such restrictions are necessary to protect the safety of society, public order, a person's health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. And, “the liberty to implement the teachings of one’s religion is tempered by the rights of the people from other religions.” [ix]

Ultimately, religious freedom protects the right of religions to exist without government interference.  The government is established not to validate religious doctrine. Nor does it ignore discriminatory acts based on religious differences that might arise in the society. The government is operating on the basis of political and policy consensus guided by the national ideology and Constitution. Religions, on the other hand, are operating on the basis of morality and theology inspired by Divine promises and guided by Divine authority. Each has its own domain and philosophy. But those differences do not have to lead them into conflict or competition over the influence on people’s lives.  As Abdurrahman Wahid once said, “…acknowledgment of the different ‘spheres of influence’ between religion and national ideology ensures the liberty for people of all religions to respect and follow the teachings of their respective faiths.” [x]

Without allowing religious freedom to flourish, religious tolerance is an illusion and any effort to build a better Indonesia will forever be unsuccessful.