State’s Identity Card Concession Doesn’t Fix Problem With Its Stance on Religion

So, why do we need the "religion" column in our ID cards?

-----
State’s Identity Card Concession Doesn’t Fix Problem With Its Stance on Religion
Yohanes Sulaiman & Phillip Turnbull | February 23, 2012

'The purpose of the state is to protect the well-being of its citizens, not tell them what to believe'

In a move likely to stir up controversy and opposition from hard-line militant religious groups, the Home Affairs Ministry is floating the idea that those Indonesians who do not subscribe to one of the six officially recognized religions but belong to another may leave the religion column on their identity cards blank.

For many years, the religion column has caused much controversy. Ever since 1965, when President Sukarno decreed that there were only six recognized religions in Indonesia, minority religions have been under pressure to conform.

Clearly some in the government have recognized the problem with this situation and want to do something about it. This is to be welcomed. However, one must ask whether they have clearly identified the problem.

On one hand, the move is meant to further develop and implement the founding principles of Pancasila, which guarantees religious freedom and tolerance, and to include those minority religions in the community that do not fall under the broad ambit of the six recognized monotheistic world religions acknowledged as legal here.

This is obviously a good development for adherents of minority religions, who have seen more than their fair share of repression. As late as 1978, the office regulating “minority religions” was transferred from the Ministry of Religious Affairs to the Ministry of Education, a move that insinuated that these were less than true religions.

As a result, and because the New Order regime had decided that Confucianism would no longer be recognized as a religion, the minorities were forced to pick one of the remaining five “real” religions.

Now, even if minorities are allowed to leave the religion column on their ID cards blank, they still might become the victims of discrimination, not to mention the fact that beliefs still won’t be considered a religion by the state.

Basically, adherents of minority religions would be lumped together with those whose belief in God is suspended and those for whom God simply does not exist. And these people were all discriminated against and treated with contempt due to the legacy of the bloody struggle against communism.

A central tenet of the communist creed is atheism. During the tumultuous years of the Sukarno era, the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) was popular among poor villagers thanks to its poverty alleviation programs, ranging from the redistribution of land (often forcibly) to low-interest loans for struggling farmers.

In order to curb the PKI’s growth, religious parties and organizations and even the secular nationalist parties that were also threatened by the rise of the PKI used the issue of “communists as atheists” as a stick to beat the party.

When the communists were found to be involved in the failed 1965 September 30 coup against Sukarno (often known by its official acronym, G30S/PKI), the PKI’s atheism was used to convince people that only atheists were capable of torturing and murdering six Army generals. While the accusation of torture was later refuted, the damage was done. People were led to believe that all atheists were capable of heinous acts, and the bloody suppression of communists was justified.

The victors subsequently associated communism with everything unpatriotic and whatever might pose a danger to the country. Belief in God hence became tantamount to being a patriot. Besides, to forge a national unifying identity, the young country needed a symbol of oppression to fight and guard against and “communism” — a very broad term applied to anyone who opposed Suharto’s New Order regime from the latter half of the 1960s — was at hand as a convenient bogeyman. And that included atheism.

Minority religions were caught in the vise. Most of their adherents were poor villagers, people who were naturally inclined to support the PKI due to its poverty alleviation programs. As a result, they were accused of being closet atheists and suffered greatly in the aftermath of the failed coup.

Now times have changed. Communism is no longer a credible threat to Indonesia. But for their own purposes, Indonesian politicians and religious leaders like to keep up the pretense that the “communist” bogeyman is hiding behind a tree and the country will disintegrate if they acknowledge there are people here who do not believe in God — and a state-sanctioned one at that.

What this state mentality has created is confusion and contradiction. While people have a right to express their religious beliefs publicly and privately, by so forcefully regulating religion in the public sphere, Indonesia got into something that it should have stayed out of. Like continental Europe in the 16th century after years of social and religious upheaval, Indonesia attempted its own form of cuius regio, eius religio , whereby European rulers attempted to create national harmony and conformity by regulating that citizens of a particular region adopt the religion of the ruler or move on.

In Indonesia’s case, this was applied to the whole country. All citizens were required to adopt one of the six official religions. But those who don’t adhere to one of the six state faiths are still here. They exist and thus they cannot be ignored. Nor can they be forced to exist in a way that conforms to an arbitrary system of identification that clearly needs to be reconsidered in the light of history and changing attitudes in society. Even if someone should claim that all people must have a religion and those who do not or adhere to minority religions are in error, it has to be pointed out that even those who err have rights.

Every person in Indonesia is an unsolved puzzle trying to make some sense of life. Some will say God is the key to understanding that puzzle and many in Indonesia would agree with that.

However, the fact remains that the state has no right to make distinctions between believers of different traditions, favoring one group above another, nor of making distinctions between believers and nonbelievers. To do so is an infringement on the fundamental rights of human beings.

The purpose of the state is to protect and foster the well-being of its citizens, not tell them what to think and believe. That is the right of the individual. The state’s role is to create peace so individuals may seek answers according to the dictates of their consciences.

This proposal of the Home Affairs Ministry is to be welcomed as a first step in a wider discussion. Let’s just hope there is no shouting.
------

trueblue

5:28pm Feb 23, 2012

@Sulaiman/Turnbull

To avoid any misunderstanding allow me to nail my colours to the mast! In principle and practice I advocate a secular Constitution e.g., France. The concept of "one nation under God", just simply does not work for me. And it is proven that it doesn't work anywhere! It is impossible to forcibly via a constitution frog march an individual to select from a six pack of faith.

That's as curious as Freemasons who have to believe in the Great Architect, a catch all requisition whereby belief in Superman, The Tooth Fairy or Mickey Mouse as the nominated "Great Architect" suffices.

Although I make no apologies for being a person of religious faith, I am emphatic that faith and belief cannot be legislated.

padt

6:42pm Feb 23, 2012

trueblue - I think the last four paragraphs of this article - diplomatically couched in measured language - would indicate that the authors of the article agree with your view that it is not the role of the State to legislate for faith and belief. The second last paragraph in particular says this in so many words. That's how I read it.

The role of the State is to provide a peaceful climate for those who wish to pursue their beliefs - in private and in public - with freedom from oppression from any source and without State interference - so long as the secular law of the land is upheld. The role of the State is also to provide a peaceful climate for those of no religious beliefs to live according to the dicates of the conscience in freedom and security, with all the benefits that living in society affords to all citizns.

The last paragraph is a call for a wider discussion of this matter than is currently taking place.

The wives of Freemasons frighten the hell out of me, by the way.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

7:15pm Feb 23, 2012

Of course, the best government is the government that interfere least to individual's personal choice, notably in religion. The problem, however, even today we still have all these unfinished debate on the role of state and it relations with religion. In Indonesia, the ministry of religion is created as a compromise with the political Muslims as far back as in 1945, especially after Bung Hatta (God bless his soul) decided to get rid of the requirement to do shariah from the Pancasila in order to maintain the unity of the nation.

In France, to ensure equality, the country adopt secular constitution. In Indonesia, however, the current status quo is seen as a compromise, and thus you keep hearing so many Islamists complaining that they got the short end of the stick and wanting to put the shariah back in the constitution.

Thus, you are right that faith and belief cannot be legislated, but at the same time, this is the card that we are being dealt with at this moment.

nonredneck

8:32pm Feb 23, 2012

padt: "The wives of Freemasons frighten the hell out of me, by the way." Any difference from any other wives ?

principe

7:27am Feb 24, 2012

Rules, regulations and laws are based on a communities' norms and values. These norms and values often derive from a communities' history and tradition. Often they are thought of as "for the sake of the community" they derive from. For the common good so to speak. And also very often they derive from the deities and rituals they (used to) worship and practice. Legislation therefore can't escape those roots. Also an Atheist will have an opinion about right and wrong on. He or she may wonder where that feeling or opinion originates from. Surely it is not genetically motivated, so that leaves us with how, by whom and why we were taught these values. So, are sense of righteousness has its origins somewhere. If we dig long enough we may arrive to those origin's origin where we may end up with some belief in the evolution of Godly beliefs giving structure to what we know and accept as our sense of right and wrong, our sense of justice. can religion really be disconnected from that ?

wasnotis

7:49am Feb 24, 2012

The absurdity with the idea of choosing one of "six officially recognized monotheistic religions" is that three of the given choices are not actually monotheistic. A little knowledge about religious history would be useful in this debate.

imaji

9:10am Feb 24, 2012

People's personal belief should not be the concerns of others, let alone the state. Erase religion from ID cards!

DrDez

9:26am Feb 24, 2012

nrn... oh yes there is a difference

trueblue

9:45am Feb 24, 2012

@wasnotis

Your point is correct. Theologically the Abrahamic religions would be monotheistic. On that basis alone another would need to be added.