Fundamentalist Secularism

This article started from my old post entitled "My Spiritual Journey" that I reposted in my FB a few days ago. A dear good friend commented jokingly, "what a spiritual snob you are..."


I responded, "I am absolutely not a spiritual snob. An intellectual snob, well, yes you can say that again!"


She replied, "Well, yes, first cognitive then affective ..."


Jokingly I asked her, "Spiritual snob is different from religious snob, isn't it? You know, in our country, there are abundant religious snobs who believe that they are 'ahlul jannah' and the rest are 'ahlun naar'."


However, since she tried to be careful -- offending people in the networking sites can be considered a crime in Indonesia recently, and no longer just a misdemeanor -- she continued discussing this topic via personal message, or more popularly known INBOX on FB. And she introduced me to a (for me) new term, "fundamentalist secular".


My curiosity on this term made me do googling. And ... here is the article I promised her to write.


Term 'fundamentalist secularism' comes from two terms, 'fundamentalism' and 'secularism'. I will start from giving definition of terms 'fundamentalism' and 'secularism.
Wikipedia encyclopedia defines 'fundamentalism' as a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life. The term has been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations.


Furthermore, Karen Armstrong defines fundamentalist movements as 'embattled forms of spirituality, which have emerged as a response to a perceived crisis" -- namely the fear that modernity will erode or even eradicate their faith and morality. This concern is shared mostly by Fundamentalist Christians, Jews, and Muslims.


Secularism, according to Wikipedia encyclopedia, is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs. In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and freedom from the government imposition of religion upon the people, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions. In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence


So, what is fundamentalist secularism?


Tobias Jones, the author of “The Dark Heart of Italy”, in http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jan/06/comment.religion stated that "Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians*". He cited an example of the hijab ban in French schools. The government doesn't give any space for their citizens to practice their religion freely. Another example cited by Jones was when the government considered the wearing of crucifix or a veil or a turban as offensive to other faiths.


It reminded me of a topic discussed when I was in college. In 1620 the early immigrants left England and sailed to North America, on the ship 'Mayflower'. In the 'newfoundland' they formed Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts. They did this because they could not practice the religions they adhered to freely in the home country. However, when they succeeded establishing a new 'country', they did the same thing: they forced the settlers to follow the religion of the chosen 'ruler'. When a group of people didn't accept the rule, they had to move to another area, or they would be hanged to death.


Does fundamentalist secularism only exist in the western countries?


I observe that this secularism thrives everywhere, including in Indonesia. Indonesian government is not a secular one. Indonesia is not a Muslim country either although it has MUI that obviously has interfered the citizens' lives by issuing some ‘useless’ fatwas, although some provincial governments have issued some 'unfriendly' (and sadly misogynist) Islamic (or other religious) bylaws. However, I guess there are abundant people (I know via internet) in Indonesia claiming themselves as secular, thinking that the government should separate itself from any religions' teachings, the government should respect citizens' freedom either to adhere a religion or not. Secular people -- I am one example -- do not mix their religious beliefs with their daily routine. They also believe that people must respect each other's religions, no judging that other people will go to hell only because -- let's say -- they are not praying five times a day (for Muslim) or not going to church (for Christians) etc.


Referring to my post "My Spiritual Journey" where the main theme is "there is no such chosen (or best) people (to go to heaven)", I recently have recognized that these secular people -- perhaps I am also included in this case -- start to ridiculously think themselves as the "best" one. They start to laugh at other people who adhere their religions rigidly, they consider people praying together to alleviate their sufferings as fool. They have lost their empathy. They no longer respect other people's faiths.


From some examples above, let me conclude the definition of ‘fundamentalist secularism’. It refers to the concept that government or other entities are separate from religion so rigidly or strictly that until a certain rank it eradicates the existence of religions, or more hostile it regards religions – and their adherents – evil.


As a secular Muslim, I want to end this article by citing one famous verse in Alquran, "lakum dinukum waliyadin" -> your religion is for you, my religion is for me. In a wider sense, it can be interpreted as “whatever faith (that I consider having broader sense than ‘religion’) you have, or even if you are agnostic, deist, nihilist, or atheist, keep remembering that difference is beautiful, respecting other people is necessary, being empathetic to other people is awesome.

Nana Podungge
-- the secular Muslim --

PBIS 12.12 190210

* (Totalitarianism = a form of government in which the state controls all phases of the people's lives. Totalitarianism allows only one party, headed by an absolute leader. He maintains his power over the party and the rest of the people by force and violence. Freedom of religion does not exist. => "The World Book Encyclopedia)

Religious ...

When reading one article in Jurnal Perempuan number 54, I remember one friction I had with a very good friend of mine. It was not about gender equality though; it was more on religious pluralism.

I was born in a very strict religious Muslim family, raised by religious parents who happen to have conventional beliefs (such as only Muslim will go to heaven, believe strongly that heaven was created by God only for Muslim, and hell was created for human beings who don’t get ‘enlightenment’ by adhering in Islam.), parents who undergo different spiritual journey from me, either because they intentionally let themselves “closed” from any other possibility (let’s say that God is not a SEVERE CREATOR THAT WILL BLOODY PUNISH GOD’S CREATURES IN A PLACE CALLED HELL AFTER THE JUDGMENT DAY, or God did plan that human beings live adhering different religions/beliefs, God indeed LETS it happen), or because my parents live in a “limited sphere” so that they never come to the ‘enlightenment’ I got.

My spiritual journey eventually made me “convert” to be a secular Muslim. However, my background—used to be in those rigidly conventional Muslim’s shoes—made me easy to understand why those people think that way. I also understand if those people need to do something “important” (according to their way of thinking) in order to “save” me from secularism. And since I am the minority in my family, my struggle is really not easy, is it? (To convince them that I don’t need to be ‘saved’ in their way.)

My good friend said that he would never understand those people—that he said like “frogs in a coconut shell”—who are strongly convinced that only Islam is their ticket to enter heaven. “They let themselves blinded by their strong belief in their religion that they worship as they worship God.” He argued. It is just like he did not understand why I relented to an “imbecile” (quoting one term used by Laksmi in her article “Addicted to Religion” somewhere at www.superkoran.info to call a religion addict) that happens to be my very own sister.

My good friend does not have the same background as me. Is that why he would never understand why I relented?

Oh, how I often feel painful and broken hearted when talking about religiosity versus secularism.

PT56 22.05 091207

My Naivete

To be raised in a very strict religious family and sent to Islamic (although only) elementary school is one of my big burdens in this life, I assume. The bigger burden is when I successfully (I suppose so) gave myself ‘enlightenment’ to get rid of the blind Islamic teachings and doctrines (you can read my post I entitled “My Spiritual Journey” in this link (in English) or in this link (in Bahasa), I still (have to) live surrounded by those people who are blindly indoctrinated. The most recent case of Al Qiyadah even showed that the majority of Muslim in Indonesia—not only those living around me—is still blindly indoctrinated.

When I involve myself in the lively discussion (especially about religion) with my cyber friends in one mailing list, I feel my burden get lighter. However when I keep in touch with people around me—with their judgmental eyes when looking at me—I always feel like thumped to a very hard rock! And since I lack masculine soul—I don’t like direct confrontation—I would rather be quiet.

Referring to Sobrino, one liberal theologian from Latin America, (cited by one member of JIL), three important aspects in enlightenment are: human agency, critical (and intellectual) thinking, and public reasoning. I somewhat doubt if people around me—and also Muslim people in Indonesia generally—will really be enlightened so that they will respect what other people believe if they keep thinking that religion is not dialectical. Their reasoning has been silenced and will always be dumb with the government (plus the media)’s strong support. When their reasoning is silenced, how can they think critically? That means their role as an agent does not function well either.

And I must say that I am really impatient to wait a miracle to come so that I will really live humanly and peacefully, without being judged unfairly.

PT56 23.50 021107

P.S. :
Read this link too :)

Al-Qiyadah

I have recently been wondering what America would be like now if it had not been ‘colonized’ (instead of ‘rediscovered’) by Columbus at the end of the fifteenth century; if the welfare of people in England had been good after that, if Puritans—and some other so-called ‘deviant’ religious sects—had been welcome well by the country so that they did not need to escape from their homeland.
Todd and Curti in their book “Rise of the American Nation” (1972: 24-25) mentioned five reasons for many English people—as well as other Europeans” to migrate to the New World:

Conflict over religion
Search for religion freedom
Search for political freedom
Widespread unemployment
Economic ferment

The first and second reasons can be categorized into one similar problem, and so can the fourth and fifth reasons; while the third reason shows the hostility of the citizens toward the government. King James I (1603-1625) and King Charles (1625-1640) ruled without Parliament because they believed in “the divine right of kings”. (1972:25)
The recent condition in Indonesia reminds me of the not conducive situation in England during the sixteenth and seventeenth century. The somewhat chaotic situation in adhering religion in Indonesia lately—due to the most contemporary so-called deviant Al Qiyadah Al Islamiyah and some other sects such as Ahmadiyah before—in fact is not far cry from the ugly condition in England several centuries ago. This is also accompanied by the rising poverty line due to widespread unemployment and the soaring prices of anything. The difference is it (still) happens in Indonesia in this “modern” time while “modern countries” are supposed to support tolerance and freedom to choose which religion to adhere. It shows that Indonesia fails to fulfill one of the tenets to be a modern country.
Lately, some newspapers (I read) have headlined Al Qiyadah—that is categorized deviant sect unfairly by the government. The way the newspapers write the news and even in the editorial—the dictions, the tone, etc—shows that they also take side to the government and Al Qiyadah becomes the culprit. That means the government is strongly supported by the media (forgive my limited reading because I don’t read a lot of newspapers published in Indonesia) to dictate the majority of Indonesian citizens’ attitude.
Coincidently not long ago one mailing list I join—RumahKitaBersama—talked about adhering a religion and practicing its teachings blindly—one of its longest thread if I am not mistaken. One of its discussion is about the arrogance of Muslims’ claim that Islam is the most perfect religion, the last one that complete its two ‘older siblings’—Jewish and Christian. I threw a question, “When Christian was believed by its adherents to complete Jewish, this upset the Jewish. When Islam is believed by its adherents to perfect Christian (and Jewish)’ teachings, this offended both religions. Will one day a new religion emerges, and it is said to complete the previous three Abrahamic faiths, will Muslim get angry?” The answer was: “the new religion perhaps will not have time to grow since it will easily and quickly be labeled ‘deviant’ and killed afterwards.”
And there it was: out of the blue Al Qiyadah emerged and its prophet Abussalam alias Ahmad Moshadded became a new celebrity.
When Professor Kenneth Hall—my guest lecturer when I was studying at American Studies Gadjah Mada University—said that the social life of Indonesia was left behind America around 50 years, can we say that Indonesia is left behind England several centuries in the not conducive situation in adhering religions?
PT56 11.11 021107

Teaching religions to kids = an abusive act?

 

Wednesday October 3, 2007 was the first day of this term at my workplace. At 15.00-17.00 I got a quite high level, High Intermediate 2 (there are four levels for High Intermediate). One common thing that happens in a quite high level on the first day of a term is the small number of students coming to class. Out of four students on the attendance list, there were only two students coming, both of them were male; one is a senior high school student, in the second grade, while the other one is a college student, in his fifth semester.

Since not many students came, and it was the first meeting, we had free topic to talk. I started asking where they studied. The senior high school student—let’s call him ‘Ale’—is studying at SMA Kolese Loyola, one very well-known private high school for the good quality in Semarang. He also told me that he graduated from Bernardus elementary school and Domenico Savio junior high school, both are Catholic schools and both are oftentimes favorite schools for Chinese descendants. Referring to his school and his (ex) schools, I easily made a conclusion that he is Catholic. He is Javanese though, not Chinese.

I got surprised when I asked him whether there were some Muslims studying at SMA Loyola because he told me that he was a Muslim. “Loyola is a Catholic school Ma’am but perhaps there are around 30 percents of the students who are not Catholic. They are Muslim, like me, or Buddhist, Christian, or Hindu.”

His ‘consistency’ in studying in Catholic schools (elementary – junior high – senior high schools) reminded me of one family in my neighborhood whose parents sent most of their children to Catholic schools. In fact that made the children convert to Catholic. (I wrote about this family in one of my posts. You can check it at http://afeministblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/absolute-truth.html) Therefore, I asked whether his parents already anticipated the possibility of his to convert to Catholic. He said, “My parents forced me to study at that Catholic elementary school for the good quality of education although I remember at the very beginning I protested. However, they strongly warned me not to convert. That’s why they also obliged me to learn to recite Alquran, to pray five times a day, and since I am a boy, they encouraged me to pray Maghrib and Isya in the mosque close to my house.”
“Will you tell me whether you have ever been marginalized at school since you belong to the minority group?” I asked Ale. I remember one visitor in my blog who wrote that it was indeed unfavorable condition to belong to the marginalized—whether due to religion adhered or ethnic group—in Indonesia. I have never experienced it since I belong to the majority.

Surprisingly, he said that he never got mocked or marginalized at school. He learned Catholic as one compulsory subject to take at school as knowledge, not different from other subjects, such as Math, Geography, Biology, Physics, etc. It means this ‘knowledge’ about another religion would not threaten his faith is Islam, the religion he has adhered since he was born, not because of choice, but because his parents asked him to follow them. One wise thing he learned from his Catholic teacher was, “There are many ways to get close to God. We are free to choose which way it is, no way is wrong.” That impressed me very much since I remember when I was at elementary school, my teacher said, “Islam is absolutely the only right way to get close to God, to enter heaven later. Other religions—or faiths—will make you go to hell.”

In fact, one (not really—for me) surprising thing was when he was even mocked in his reciting Alquran class. His teacher intimidated him—a little boy who just wanted to obey what his parents asked him to—to study at Catholic school. Sometimes, in the mosque that he visited everyday to pray Maghrib and Isya together with other Muslims, he was also cornered by other kids, “Hey, you are Catholic, aren’t you? So why do you pray here?” Oftentimes mocked by his reciting Alquran teacher and his friends at that class, Ale just kept quiet, didn’t respond. He was split into two, his parents who forced him to study at Catholic schools and his surrounding who did not want to understand his situation. And he was just a little and helpless kid at that time.

****

Coincidentally not long time ago, I read one discussion in one mailing list I join about the possibility of adhering (or teaching) a religion for kids is an abusive act (referring to Dawkins’ accusation). The way parents or teachers teach little children about religion is not much different from the fact that the existence of God is analogous with “Big brother is watching you”. In order to make a kid obey the religion’s teachings, parents or teachers use doctrines, such as “Don’t steal. God is watching you.” “Don’t commit sin because God will always know that. Consequently, you will go to hell—a special place God has prepared for sinful people.” You can name many other DON’TS that are related to “Big brother is watching you.”

Meanwhile, in another mailing list I join, some time ago there was a discussion about adhering a religion and practicing its teachings blindly. Lots of people believe that religion is not dialectical. Therefore, they just swallow any doctrines stuffed into their brain, without questioning because their logic has been silenced during their childhood. They don’t dare to think that those doctrines they learn from ulemas (expert in Islam) are possibly the result of those ulemas’ own interpretation that they daringly say, “These are what God says…”

I will not draw any conclusion in this writing of mine. I invite anybody to share their opinion for this topic: teaching religion to kids is an abusive act that will kill their logic. This will create people who practice their religious rituals blindly if they don’t develop their horizon. (Is there anybody or anything to blame? I assume we had better stop looking for scapegoat, though.)


PT56 23.00 171007

MAMAH DAN AA

MAMAH DAN AA

This morning (Friday June 15, 2007) when I was ironing some clothes, my mom was watching a television program called (if I am not mistaken) MAMAH DAN AA. This is a religious program, aired at Indosiar, every Friday from 5am till 6am.

Frankly speaking, after recognizing myself as a secular and having my own interpretation about the religion I have adhered since I was born, I didn’t really like watching such programs. I realize I sound arrogant for my own interpretation. However, in my opinion I often found many ulemas in such religious programs on television very patriarchal and wise guys when interpreting Alquran. As a feminist, I often feel annoyed with what is stated by those patriarchal ulemas (both men and women). As a secular and believing that people from different religions must support religious plurality all over the world, I often feel upset when some (narrow-minded) ulemas talk bad things about other religions, only to attract people’s attention to Islam or to convince the viewers/audience that Islam is the only absolute truth.

That’s why at first I felt disturbed with the sound of the television. While ironing, I was listening to some songs from my cutie notebook. However, when one caller asked the hostess, called as MAMAH, I was intrigued by the question. A married woman asked whether it was okay for a man to have affairs. She has got married for more than twenty-five years, and has four children. Unfortunately her husband was not a loyal one because she already found out three other women in her husband’s life. She asked, “What is the regulation for a married man to have affairs out of the marriage?”

If I read the question between the lines, because the caller emphasized on “a married man”, I concluded that behind the question, it was stated that “It is not okay for a married woman to have affairs, but it is okay for a married man to do that.” I remember around a year ago I happened to find a blog belonging to a Muslim (narrow-minded, misogynist) man who wrote that polygamy can be legally carried out without the consent of the first (or earlier) wife. He wrote (sorry, I didn’t note the blogsite, so I don’t remember it now) that a man is naturally polygamous so that it must be understandable if a man wants to have more than one wife. And to understand that nature, a man doesn’t need the consent of the other wife, and doesn’t need any reason either, such as what is written in the Compilation of Islamic Law in Indonesia (e.g. the first wife is infertile so that she cannot get pregnant, she suffers from a serious disease that will hamper her to serve the husband, she leaves and ignores her husband and children).

The question that can be interpreted as what I wrote above made me turn down the volume of the cutie notebook, and I tried listening to Mamah’s answer. She said, “It is absolutely not okay for married men and married women to have affairs. Allah stated in Alquran, “Don’t get close to adultery”. Only to get close to it is prohibited, moreover to do it. So, to answer your question, of course it is a big sin for your husband to have affairs, moreover to do adultery.”

The answer was quite soothing to my ears because the hostess mentioned that the law to stay away from adultery is for both men and women. It means she wanted to tell the audience/viewers not just to question, “Is it okay for a man to have affairs?” The question must be, “Is it okay for married couple—both men and women—to have affairs?”

The following gender-biased question came from one audience in the studio. “What does the Islamic law say about a woman who opens her husband’s mobile phone to read the messages and his mailbox to read the emails secretly?”

Referring to the consensus in patriarchal culture that a wife belongs to her husband, just like any other properties the husband has, many men think that they have full rights to know anything his wife keeps. On the contrary, since he is THE BOSS, THE PROPRIETOR, the wife doesn’t have any right to know anything the husband keeps.

The same as the first case, I also read the question like this, “It is okay for a husband to check his wife’s mobile phone and mailbox because he owns her. But not on the other way around.”

Different from what other people say that I often hear, husband and wife are supposed not to keep any secret, (once they got married, they already become one, one body, one thinking, one idea, and since it is somewhat impossible to do it, mostly the husband’s way of thinking will represent both of them, and the wife must bury her idea if she happens to have different way of thinking), the hostess said, “If you don’t want your husband to know your private life, I believe that although already married, each of us sometimes still wants to have some part of our life that is private, don’t get nosy to find out what secrets your husband has. It also applies on the other way around. A husband must respect his wife’s privacy too. What is needed between a couple is trust. Don’t bother yourself with unimportant suspicion.

The last question came from a caller living somewhere in Central Java area. A woman complained about her husband’s not pious behavior. He very rarely does the ritual ceremony of the religion, such as praying five times a day. She asked whether it is okay for her to file a divorce.

The hostess said that if the woman really found a dead end to encourage her husband to be a pious Muslim, she could file a divorce.

“Will God be angry with me?” the caller asked.

The hostess said that the reason is quite strong for her to file a divorce. It is much better to live single—or marry another man who is pious—rather than to have a husband whose behavior is annoying and disturbing the peaceful life of the family.

Well, I must say that I felt quite satisfied with the answers and suggestion given by the hostess of the program. Perhaps I took this conclusion very quickly since I have never watched it before. However, I think it is really high time for us to have such religious programs that are really friendly to women. I also opine that it is high time to have religious programs where the hosts/hostesses come from various different religions in Indonesia to create peaceful religious plurality. The most important thing in hablum minannaas (relationship among human beings) is to do good to others, no matter what religion our neighbors/friends have, and not imposing someone’s faith to others. The most important thing in hablum minallah (relationship between human beings with their God) is everybody’s personal affair.

PT56 150607

Absolute Truth?

 

In the first chapter of his book, Hendar Riyadi illustrated three stories illustrating the beauty of living in a plural community. I mean the people illustrated have different kinds of religion. The first example is the story of Ahmad Wahib, a Muslim that was born in Sampang Madura. He spent his childhood with two Catholic priests. The two priests took care of him very well during his childhood. When meeting the two priests again in his adulthood, he asked himself whether he had to be hostile to both of the Catholic priests only because they had different religions from him; whether God had a heart to put the two good people in jail, only because they were not Muslim.

The second story is about Farid Esack, a Muslim who was born in Bonteheuwel, Café Flats, South Africa, in a very poor family. He owed a lot to his Jewish and Christian neighbors, especially when he was still very young. He wrote:

“The fact that my family’s sufferings became a shared burden with my Jewish and Christian neighbors made me suspect that the idea of an absolute truth of one religion is a logical one.”

The third story is about a woman who was born in a Muslim family. She converted to Christian when she was in junior high school because she studied in a Christian school. Her parents allowed her to do that under one condition that she would be a good Christian. The freedom to choose what religion to adhere from her parents made her give freedom to her children to choose which religion to adhere.

The third story reminded me of one neighbor of mine. The husband and wife who are Muslim have six children. Both of them (un)luckily are type of people who do not the teachings of Islam very well. Hoping to give the children the best education, they sent the children to Catholic elementary school. They thought that there was no good state or Islamic school around the neighborhood at that time. Five children continued to Catholic junior high school. Since then on they converted to Catholic. The same as Wiwik’s parents, they just asked the children to be good Catholic. The fourth child, however, stayed Muslim because she continued her study to state junior and senior high school. From a distance I saw this family were quite happy family. Apparently they didn’t have any significant friction due to the different religion.

Until one day the mother learned to recite Alquran from a neighbor. It was the time when most of the children already grew up, and the mother had much spare time so that she could come to her neighbor’s house to learn to recite Alquran, and also to learn some other Islamic teachings. The neighbor that got strong indoctrination about absolute truth in Islam told the mother of six children that she had (mis)led her children to hellish path. “Only Muslims will be welcome in heaven later. You are very responsible for your children’s well being later on because you already misled them.”

The mother felt very unhappy and guilty and sinful. But what could she do? Her six children all have grown up. Will they listen to her if she asks her to convert to Islam?

As far as I know, her youngest child eventually converted to Islam, I don’t know what triggered him to do that. Was it because of the mother’s plea? Or anything else?

When reading the chapter one of Hendar Riyadi’s book, I also remember an old friend of Angie’s dad. When we were all in our twenties, he was a secular person, praying and fasting during Ramadhan month if he wanted, consuming alcohol anytime he wanted. After some years I didn’t keep in touch with him, one day, around 10 years ago, he came into my house, telling Angie’s dad that he already got ‘enlightenment’ from God. He joined some missions to spread Islam to some remote areas. His ‘enlightenment’, however, out of the blue made him a very annoying patriarchal man. He pissed me off only because I don’t wear Muslim clothes. He never looked into my face when talking to me coz perhaps in his eyes I became like a temptress Eve who beguiled Adam. When I went to his house four years ago to have Angie’s school uniform made (apart from his missions to spread Islam, he is a tailor.) When I arrived to his house, quickly he said, without looking into my face, “Go the back of the house. A woman is not supposed to sit together with man in the living room.”

An enlightenment, huh?

Reading the book also reminded me of one ex workmate, a Christian who married a Muslim man. She told me when she visited her in-laws living out of town, she often felt oppressed because her in-laws asked her to pray five times a day, to fast during Ramadhan month, and they also encouraged her to wear Muslim clothes. As far as I know, when living in Semarang, she still goes to church that means she is still a Christian. I conclude that she still goes on with her religion, while her Muslim husband still keeps his Islam. She used to complain to me, “I am wondering why my Muslim in-laws are so arrogant, thinking that Islam is the only absolute truth. I am a Christian, I don’t consider this religion as an absolute truth. I respect my in-laws. Am I too much if I expect my in-laws to respect me too? I still keep my being Christian now because this has been my religion since I was born. I have no idea to convert to Islam yet. Even if that happens, I want it to happen naturally, without any oppression. I will let my daughter choose which religion she feels comfortable with.”

 
She and I dream to have a conducive atmosphere where people respect one another’s religion. So people will live peacefully.

LL 17.24 190507

Going Beyond Pluralism

Is it possible to create a country where there is no prejudice among people who adhere various different religions?

Two days ago I visited a book fair held in my hometown. I bought a book entitled “Melampaui Pluralisme, Etika Alquran tentang Keragaman Agama” (Going Beyond Pluralism: Ethics in Alquran on Varieties of Religion) by a young writer, Hendar Riyadi. The main goal of Hendar Riyadi to write such a book is to offer a new interpretation of Alquran in viewing relationships among religions in Indonesia to reach a more conducive situation in Indonesia.

He realizes that some clashes that have happened among religious communities in Indonesia are mostly caused by shallow interpretation of some verses in Alquran. He also realizes that as the majority in Indonesia, many Muslims arrogantly accuse other religions as wrong religions because they believe that Islam is the only right religion, the only gate to go to heaven. (They have been indoctrinated such a way since they were very young. And their being ignorant or not enough reading other kinds of books has made them believe in such indoctrination without being critical after they grow up.)

The question is: is such an arrogant treatment toward other religions only done by Muslims? People with other religions do not show such a childish treatment to Islam or any other religions?

The answer is of course NOT. We know that in many other parts of the world, people with other religions also do discriminative things to other people with different religions. However, it seems that there is a kind of natural law that the majority controls the minority. In Indonesia, with more than 80% of Indonesian people as Muslim, Muslim people take control.

When women (viewed as the weaker sex) struggle to create a more equalitarian world, it is very understandable if then the minority groups in Indonesia start to show their guts to oppose the arrogance shown by Muslim as the majority: to create a more conducive situation.

In this case I really appreciate Hendar Riyadi’s effort to create a bridge between the majority and the minority. He offered a new way to interpret some verses in Alquran that will create a more conducive atmosphere among people with different religions: there is no absolute truth of one religion.

If you are curious to know what theories Hendar Riyadi used in interpreting Alquran, buy the book and read it by yourself.

(NOTE: Believe me, I don’t know Hendar Riyadi personally, he doesn’t know me either. LOL.)

I am hoping that with Muslim people softening their hostility to people adhering other religions, this latter party will welcome it whole-heartedly and peacefully.

Let us create a better Indonesia in the future hand in hand, no matter what ethnic groups, religions, social classes, etc we have.

PT56 13.20 190507

The Dangers of Monotheism in the Age of Globalization

http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=5211

Thursday, March 30, 2006

The Dangers of Monotheism in the Age of Globalization

By Jean-Pierre Lehmann

Is there a link between monetheistic religions and intolerance and hostility ?? As Jean-Pierre Lehmann argues, monotheistic religions have caused much turmoil throughout history — and continue to do so today. What is needed is a new global ethical and spiritual role model, and in his opinion, the best candidate to fill that spot is India.

Many in the West and elsewhere were shocked that an Afghan man, Abdul Rahman, was facing possible execution for having converted to Christianity. This is a crime, we were told, punishable by death according to Shariah law, which is the law of the land in Afghanistan, as well as in a good number of other Muslim countries. And even now that Mr. Rahman has safely arrived in Italy, where he was granted asylum, the episode is a telling example of the intolerance that is often the result of strict monotheism. To be sure, Christianity was even worse in its own heyday, not only because “heathens” were exterminated in all sorts of diverse forms, but also those whose Christianity (for example, the Albigensians in the 12th and 13th centuries) was deemed to be “heterodox.” Also, the Spanish conquistadores in Latin America, in collusion with the Church authorities, burned a good number of infidel American Indians. Declining hostility Generally speaking, however,

over the course of the last couple of centuries or so, as the political clout and influence of the Christian churches has waned, the execution, torture and imprisonment of infidels and heretics has greatly decreased. Today, there are a good number of converts to Islam living in Christian countries — and they have encountered relatively little hostility. Religious collusion The idea that Christian civilization (a fairly loose term) renounced religious persecution simply because the power of the churches declined is, of course, belied by the Holocaust. Despite being carried out by secular authorities, the Holocaust took place in Christian countries — and with the silent connivance of the established Christian churches.

A quite vivid illustration is that of the fascist Ustaše movement in Croatia, which was in close cahoots with the Catholic Church. The Jews who were brought to the concentration camps were far worse off than Abdul Rahman, who — before he found refuge in Italy — had been told he would not be executed if he converts back to Islam. The Jews at Auschwitz were not given a similar option. Violent records Although both Christianity and Islam each have their strong points, without doubt, on balance their historical record would show more liabilities, more warfare, more intolerance, more persecution, than truly positive assets. The number of people killed in the name of these two religions must be far greater than the numbers killed for any other cause. Furthermore, in this first decade of the 21st century, religion plays a far more prominent role than it used to. Hijacking the faith In the case of the three monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam have all been hijacked by their respective fundamentalists. I am a great believer that the progress of civilization requires the gradual eradication of all forms of established religion.

Not by force, I hasten to add, but by the evidence of history, the rationality of man and the persuasion of humanist secularism. In Western Europe, where the vast majority of the population is no longer Christian in anything but name, sadly humanism has not taken hold. Filling the void An addiction to money, or psychoanalysis or drugs — or a combination of the three — tends to prevail. Whatever has the upper hand, it is definitely not humanism. So it would seem people have a natural desire for religion or something that can be substituted for it — if not god, then mammon. Polytheistic acceptance In recognizing this reality, therefore, it would seem that perhaps rather than eradicating religion per se, we should instead eradicate monotheistic religion in favor of polytheistic religion. If you have only one god, and you believe that god is all powerful and omniscient, and you come across someone who does not agree, then you may feel it is your duty to kill him.

If, on the other hand, you believe there are hundreds, indeed thousands of gods, and that none can be totally almighty or omniscient, then you are likely to be far more tolerant. Intolerant tendencies The great pre-Christian civilizations of Greece and Rome had no religious wars and had a far healthier view of their frolicking gods and goddesses than the intolerant monotheistic Christianity that later came to dominate Europe. Polytheistic religions also tend to have a far more positive and healthier attitude to sex, which is seen as a good thing, than do the monotheistic faiths, where there is a much stronger tendency to equate sex with sin. Militant Christianity As concerns the United States, militant Christianity is clearly in ascendance, indeed it has one of its own in the White House. According to a recent Pew survey, 15, 14 and 20% of the U.S. population said they would have reasons not to vote for a presidential candidate who was Catholic, Jewish or Evangelical Christian.

However, when that candidate was an atheist, the percentage, at 41%, was substantially higher. This is extremely worrying and does not portend well for the future. While it would seem that religious Americans are more tolerant as concerns their respective religions, they remain brazenly intolerant of atheists. Perhaps the most encouraging development in this early 21st century is the emergence of India as an increasingly global force, economically, politically and culturally. Managing multiculturalism There are many anomalies, problems and injustices in Indian society — and some of these, such as the caste system, have been perpetrated by religion. But India is a microcosmic reflection of how globalization can work, especially in its generally remarkable ability to have managed multiculturalism to such a brilliant extent. Diverse Unity India’s one billion plus population is the most heterogeneous in the world.

There are far more ethnic, linguistic and religious groups than in, say, the European Union. Yet, a far greater degree of unity has been achieved among India’s disparate ethnicities than among the tribes of Western Europe. Thus, though Fareed Zakaria in "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy" has rightly pointed out that democracy can more often than not be the problem rather than the solution in inter-communal relations — witness Iraq! Perhaps the greatest achievement of India is to have maintained a very robust democracy in an extremely multi-ethnic environment. Contrast that with Egypt, for example, which used to have a highly multi-ethnic make-up, but which has now been mostly dissipated. Hardly Utopia Of course India is not Utopia. No place is — and no human is perfect. Against the remarkably inspirational preaching of non-violence of Mahatma Gandhi, India has opted to become a nuclear power.

Nehru’s alleged egalitarianism notwithstanding, India has the dubious distinction of having the world’s greatest number of illiterates, especially among women. So, yes, there are failings galore and there are also, alas, Hindu fundamentalists. A global ethical role model? But in a global environment desperate for ideas, philosophy and religion, India is the most prolific birthplace of all three — because of the great synergy of democracy and diversity, and the much greater degree of self-confidence that Indians now feel. Indians and members of the enormous Indian Diaspora — over which the sun never sets — are the thought leaders in economics, business, philosophy, political science, religion and literature. The planet needs quite desperately a sense of moral order, spirituality and an ethical compass. The Indian religious and philosophical traditions can provide a great deal of all three. It was in a recent conversation with an Indian religious guru that I was also pleased to discover I could adhere to his religious tenets, while maintaining my secular convictions. No imam or priest would allow me that. More than a global economic force The planet also needs an alternative geopolitical force to the American Christian fundamentalist brand of hegemonic thinking that the Bush Administration has generated — and that is not likely to evaporate even after his departure from office. Europe is an inward-looking and, in many ways, spent force. China is a dictatorship. The Islamic world is going through an awkward moment — to put it mildly. Hence the importance of the role India must play in this respect — both because of its innate qualities and because there is no other serious contender. The 21st century better become the century inspired by the virtues of Indian polytheism — or else we are headed for disaster.