Criminal Code bill puts religious harmony at risk

The Jakarta Post ,  Jakarta   |  Fri, 09/08/2006 7:41 AM  |  Opinion

Mohamad Abdun Nasir, Mataram

Conflicts between religious groups have plagued Indonesia of late, disturbing the peace and harmony of the country. The violence not only has destroyed belongings, but also has claimed many lives and left behind traumatized citizens.

The government has now prepared a draft bill to revise the Criminal Code. The bill is seen as replacing the old Criminal Code, which was inherited from the Dutch colonialists. What makes it interesting is that the bill criminalizes blasphemy and violence against religion and religious life. The bill is intended to protect religions, their followers, rites and practices, symbols, places, holy books, messengers and other sacred things from intimidation, insult and expulsion. There are eight chapters, 341 to 348, focused on this issue. The authors hope the bill can be a panacea for religious harmony and pluralism.

Despite its good intentions, I still have some fundamental questions about the bill. Will it be effective in anticipating and stopping religious-based conflict? My skepticism follows some ambiguities I found in the bill. For example, Chapter 341 says: ""Every one who publicly declares his/her resentment or does something that insults a religion adhered to by people in Indonesia can face a maximum sentence of two years in jail."" This chapter is confusing because there is no clear-cut definition of ""religion"" or what constitutes an insult to a religion. What does religion mean here? In which way and how can one be accused of insulting a religion? These words are too abstract to understand, and therefore can spark confusion and multiple interpretations.

If the meaning of religion here only refers to the formal and legal religions recognized by the state, such as Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism, then it will be only in favor of such ""formal"" religions. It will only be able to protect them. How about ""unregistered"" local, personal and communal beliefs? If the definition of religion does not cover these beliefs, then it does nothing to protect their existence.

Subsequently, the bill could be misused as a tool for negating and dismissing other religions and beliefs. The bill could serve as a source of conflict itself, rather than offering conflict resolution. The possible negative impacts are clear. The followers of Ahmadiyah, for instance, would have to convert to ""Islam"" if they want any protection. This, of course, is an impossible choice since they are already Muslim. The bill is therefore oppressive instead of being protective of pluralism. The bill will not give people enough opportunity to freely express their beliefs.

Meanwhile, our Constitution clearly guarantees freedom of religion, as stipulated in chapters 28 and 29. So there is a difference between the Constitution and the bill. According to the Indonesian legal system, lower codes like statutes, presidential decrees and ministerial decrees cannot run counter to the Constitution. In addition, freedom of religion is also guaranteed in the 1999 Human Rights Law. The state has no authority to limit the number of religions and beliefs. What the state should do is arrange and manage the mutual relations among (followers of) religions.

The other ambiguity in this chapter of the bill concerns the word ""insults"". What does insult here mean? Can one be penalized because one holds different views from the mainstream? Can one be charged as insulting a religion simply for holding a different view? If so, then the bill impedes religious creative thinking. In fact, religion should be constantly interpreted in order to find out its truest meaning, so that it is always in line with the spirit of justice and equity.

If different views and interpretations are classified as ""insults"", then the bill forces people into blind imitation in observing their religion. Accordingly, religion could lose its substantial meaning. These are just two examples of ambiguities in this chapter alone. Therefore, the bill must be publicly discussed and amended before being endorsed, for it concerns the lives of everyone in the country.

My other criticism concerns the way the government thinks when facing religious conflicts. The government seems to apply a monolithic perspective when analyzing this problem. It assumes the conflicts are chiefly caused by a lack of statutes relating to this matter. Therefore, a legal approach is adopted in order to find a solution.

The draft bill on the revised Criminal Code fails to tackle this problem. Religious conflict is a multidimensional problem. It can be caused by political, economical or cultural factors, or it could be exclusively caused by religious problems. Therefore we cannot rely solely on a legal approach. The government should take a comprehensive approach, with the first step being to introduce a new model of religious teaching that is more inclusive and prioritizes dialog. So far religious teaching has created a closed religious and logical system. This mode of thought leads to religious exclusivism and radicalism.

We should change the method and approach of religious teaching, from an exclusive-hegemonic-apologetic to an inclusive-tolerant-dialogic model based on the principle of pluralism. Pluralism is not a sort of syncretism which may lead to conversion, as many fear. Pluralism here simply means acknowledging the existence of others who adhere to different faiths, subscribe to other schools of thought and uphold specific traditions and beliefs. This acknowledgment must be implemented into reality. We have to be aware that our religious freedom is limited by the freedom of religious expression of others as well. Religious harmony can only be achieved if we realize the paradigm of pluralism.

The writer holds a master's degree in Islamic studies from Leiden University and is a lecturer and researcher at the Mediation Center of the State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) in Mataram, West Nusa Tenggara. He can be reached at sier1975@yahoo.com.

Comments (0)  |   Post comment
A  |   A  |   A  |   Mail to a friend  |  Printer Friendly Version |  Digg it!  |  Add to Del.icio.us!  |  Add to Reddit!  |  Stumble it!

What's On

more
Not available.
Not available.