Democracy

Economy

Education

Development

Global Issues

Research

The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority. Ralph W. Sockman

09/4/2007

On June 2007, the Interaction of Solidarity between Elements of Society (INSAN-EMAS) and the Indonesian Foundation for Legal Service (LPH YAPHI) were about to hold an one-day  seminar at the Taman Sari Restaurant in Colomadu, Solo, Central Java. INSAN-EMAS comprises of several elements of religious factions whose aims are to promote nonviolence in society and to find ways to prevent increasing attacks on places of worship. The seminar’s theme was “Strengthening the Foundation of Civil Society without Violence”.

Sounds like a noble objective, isn’t it?

But not for some people.

A few hours before the seminar, at around 11:30 PM, the event planners received an anonymous phone call who claimed that he represented the Laskar Umat Islam Surakarta (LUIS). The caller threatened them to cancel the event.  

The next morning, at 7:30 AM, the head of sector police for Colomadu, Kridho Baskara, came to the Taman Sari restaurant and asked the owner to cancel the seminar. A few moments later, the security intelligent officers of the Karanganyar police department came in and after initially refused to let the seminar begin, they finally negotiated to have the seminar finish by 11:30 AM.

During the seminar, the police came with two trucks full of officers in security gears carrying shields and batons. The head of Karanganyar Police Department stated that they were protecting the participants because they feared attacks by LUIS. But according to eyewitness, as soon as the police arrived at the place of seminar, they interrupted and ordered the participants to leave the building.^[i]

A little over a month later, an international religious gathering of the Holy Trinity group was scheduled for July 24 through 29, 2007 at Karmel Valley, in Cianjur, West Java. The retreat management already secured the permit from the authority. However, a mob of more than 1,000 Muslim radicals besieged the venue and deemed that the gathering was “illegal”.

The situation was very tense. A few police officers who came to the place were outnumbered by the protesters. The officers finally managed to calm down the radicals. But the mob not only forced the management canceled the gathering, but also vowed to force the Carmelite prayer center closed down for good.^[ii]

Far in the Eastern part of the country, the residents of Manokwari, a predominantly Christian town in Papua, rejected the Muslim migrants’ plan to build an Islamic center. The residents were worried of the “imminent Islamization” of Papua, which prompted local politicians and some religious leaders to propose the implementation of a Bible-based bylaw.

These are a few of cases indicating an increasingly more intensive, extensive and more violent religious intolerance in the country. But in most cases, the victims have been the Christians.

In less than three years, from 1996 to 1999, more than 500 churches were destroyed. Compare this to the less than five similar cases within a time span of more than a half century, from 1945 to 1996. According to the Indonesian Christian Communication Forum, from January 1999 to April 2001, 327 churches were closed or destroyed, while the Ministry of Religion reported that 254 mosques were attacked or destroyed during the same period. Most of the attacks and destruction occurred in the Moluccas. From July 2000 to May 2001, there were 108 reported incidents of destruction of churches, including 21 attacks on churches in Java; 20 in Sumatra, 10 in Lombok; 9 in South, Central, and Southeast Sulawesi; and 5 in North Sumatra (Medan).^[iii]  

Based on a Tempo magazine report, between March 1996 and August 2005, about 180 churches were destroyed, burned or closed by force.^[iv] For instance, in 2003, in Jakarta and in many parts of Java, these incidents were perpetrated by the radical Islamic organization, Islamic Defender Front (FPI), which attacked and forced the closure of more than two dozen churches in West Java; the lockout of believers from the “Sang Timur” Catholic School; the conflict between Muslim residents and members of a Christian Batak Church; and the violent attack against followers of the Muslim Ahmadiyah sect.

Since the Christmas bombing in Jakarta in 2000, almost on every Christmas Eve and Day, Christians, especially in Jakarta and other major cities, have to be extra vigilant. Singing Silent Night Holy Night and proclaiming Peace on Earth while wondering whether the radicals with bombs or stones are hanging around your church is not a pretty picture.

The Indonesian Constitution clearly stipulates that “…the state shall guarantee freedom to every resident to adhere to their respective religion and to perform their religious duties in accordance with their religion and that faith.” Yet, religious intolerance within society has become increasingly more visible as manifested in various dangerous violence.

This situation is ironic—or may be one should call it baloney. Why?

In almost all of the violent attacks, the government has always been the incompetent guy. It reminds me of the typical Good guy-Bad Guy movie. In the movie story, the good guy fights the bad guy who usually has done terrible thing to the good guy or to his family or neighborhood. The good guy hopes the police would catch the bad one and then put him in jail but to no avail due to the police’s incompetent. Only after the good guy beat and apprehended the bad guy, police with their siren are coming to arrest the bad guy.

The problem is we don’t have the good guys who will fight the bad guys.

Certainly, violent not always need to be confronted with violent. But who is in charge of security, anyway? If it is the government, then it better shows that it is capable of doing so. Otherwise, if violence toward religious minority continues unchallenged, it would only embolden the perpetrators and potentially they could intensify and further widespread their violent attacks throughout the country.  As we have witnessed from the communal wars in the Moluccas and Poso, the pictures are really gloomy—and very deadly.

One of the main duties of the Government is to respect the dignity and the right of the people it governs irrespective of their religious beliefs. In a religious diverse nation such as Indonesia, such duty is even more imperative. It is true that the Government has attempted to promote religious tolerance.  But it is equivalently true that in many instances the government has been ambivalent on this matter.

The increasing practices of religious intolerance during the last decade are mainly due to two factors. First is the rising of radicalism. A number of radical groups such as FPI have taken the law into their hands, forcing to close down around 20 churches.

And secondly, the government’s inept action to take control of the situation. In many instances, police were reluctant to take action majority groups who harassed minority groups.  

Both on papers and acts, government has been part of the problem rather than the solution. Perhaps, of the most troublesome issue is the circulars (internal memos) from the Religious Affairs Minister and Home Affairs Minister on public order and religious services that require a proposed house of worship to receive approval from at least 60 surrounding households. Using this as a pretext, several Muslim groups not only have forced-close houses used by Christians for worship but also disturbed Christian religious services. And the minister of religious affairs declared that the closure of those churches was a non-issue, since they had no permits and therefore were not churches at all.

Let us ask a couple of fundamental questions related to the memos.

First, what is the purpose of the memos? Are they intended to protect the minority or the majority? Are they not inherently biased toward the majority? Certainly, if you live among a majority neighborhood, it should be much easier for your group to establish a place of worship. But if you are among the minority, the prospect of building a place of worship would be very difficult.

Second, what is this arbitrage number? What happens if those who want to establish a place of worship are only able to secure the approval from 55 surrounding households?

Third, what is the definition of surrounding households? Does it mean under the smallest governmental jurisdiction?

Fourth, what happens if those who want to establish a new place of worship but could not get the approvals from 60 surrounding households and yet still want to have a place of worship?

There are two challenges the government cannot run away from facts. One is it is the first duty of the government to uphold the Constitution which stipulates that “…the state shall guarantee freedom to every resident to adhere to their respective religion and to perform their religious duties in accordance with their religion and that faith.” If to embrace a religion is a human right, then to have a place of worship is also a human right. Thus to answer question number four above, if a religious congregation cannot yet establish an official house of worship, the congregation automatically has the right to use other places as long as they are not disrupting public order. Any religion-related regulations must center on the conservation of the freedom of worship of every person.

It is certainly reasonable to expect that to some degree, if a group of people want to establish a new place of worship, they should get some kind of approval from the surrounding community. But the consideration should focus on the motivation rather than on the right to have a place of worship. For example, is the new place of worship intended as an instrument for an active propagation of a religion or just as a place to worship. Secondly, will the new place of worship keep the public noise to an acceptable level?

The government also cannot continue to be ambivalent toward violence religious intolerance committed by a certain groups of people. By letting mobs get away with violent behavior the government will only undermine its own authority and credibility. It also emboldens those who are intolerant toward minorities and may further encourage them to legitimize their violence acts against others on religious grounds. As Magnis-Suseno wrote, “The transition from suppressing religious minorities to killing people in the name of God is not so difficult to make.”^[v]

Indeed, killing in the name of God is not a new phenomenon in Indonesia.

  Your comment

Back to top