R

emember Johnny Castle? I'm sure the clerics from the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) think him the devil incarnate, but you probably remember him better as actor Patrick Swayze (who died in September 2009) in his role as the sexy working-class dance instructor in the 1987 film Dirty Dancing.

The story is set in 1963 in a US Catskill Mountains resort. It revolves around the hackneyed theme of girl-meets-boy-from-the-wrong-side-of-the-tracks.

Baby, the 17-year-old daughter of a well-to-do family develops a crush on Johnny, and they become lovers. He introduces her to working-class "dirty dancing": the mambo and other Latin naughtiness. When Johnny's usual dance partner gets knocked up by her boyfriend, he trains Baby to replace her.

Much of the film involves hot dancing scenes, packed with hip-thrusting, pelvis-grinding, close-body contact and other steamy moves that would horrify the clerics. The result?

The movie sizzles, and it became a massive box-office hit.

And that is a good reminder that in their time, almost all forms of American pop dance and music - from the foxtrot to tango - have scandalized the older generation, including in the United States!

Now fast forward half a century to 2010 in Bandung, where four women and two men were arrested for "dirty dancing" in a caf* on New Year's Eve.

Under the pornography law they could be imprisoned for up to 15 years.

Their crime? Wearing clothes that were too sexy and "doing *pornographic' movements . that could arouse sexual urges".

It probably isn't much consolation to the dancers, I know, but they're in good company: many of the most successful performers in history were also banned for being vulgar and immoral, including Elvis, the Beatles and Madonna.

The Bandung caf* raid is the first time that anyone has been charged under the pornography law, which was pushed through parliament in October 2008 by Muslim conservatives who seem to have appointed themselves guardians of the morality of our nation.

So, ignoring for the moment countless ugly instances of hard-liner hypocrisy such as the three sharia police officers in Aceh who recently raped a university student, let's take a deep breath and see what other creative ideas our moral protectors have come up with in their crusade to save us all.

First off, I see that the MUI's edict commission has banned rebonding. What's that? A sadomasochistic sexual practice? No, it's merely the name for hair-straightening - the opposite of a perm.

Perms are also banned, of course, as are punk dos, funky haircuts and even dreadlocks. The reason? These hairdos could "invite moral danger"! Really?

And then there are calls to ban pre-wedding photos (yes, that's right, portrait shots of engaged couples) because they are maksiat - in violation of god's law, immoral, sinful and wicked. Bizarre, maybe, but you have to give the clerics full points for imagination.

They also want to ban women from being either drivers or passengers of ojek (motorcycle taxis) because that would put them in close proximity to members of the opposite sex.

I'd give that idea three points out of 10 for imagination because the link is too obvious, whereas the rulings on hairdos and pre-wedding photos are totally wild!

I mean, who would have thought that everything that's wrong with our country could be brought home to salons and wedding photographers?

Who would have thought that coiffure reform would be the key to national salvation?

I thought only countries like Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan got so worked up about hair and hip-wriggling.

Now it seems the MUI want Indonesia to become more like these places. What a great idea, boys!

Such prosperous and happy nations, full of people with smiles on their faces because, of course, it's more important to have sharia implemented than to have full bellies, education for the kids, shelter, proper health, sanitation or water, let alone a peaceful, stable democracy enjoying economic growth (like the one we've got here in sinful, well-coiffed, dance-crazy Indonesia).

Perhaps the MUI hasn't noticed that implementing conservative visions of sharia that target women doesn't seem to be working. After all, more than half of the world's poor are Muslims - the poorest of the poor being women - as are 75 percent of refugees.

In fact, Muslim countries are among the world's poorest, weakest and illiterate, despite the fact that some are rich in resources. Although Muslims make up 22 percent of the world population, they produce less than 5 percent of global GDP.

In 2005, the combined GDP of 57 Muslim countries was less than US$2 trillion, but the United States alone - home of dirty dancing and dodgy hairdos - produced goods and services worth $10.4 trillion.

China manages $5.7 trillion, Japan $3.5 trillion, India $3 trillion and Germany $2.1 trillion. Yes, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar collectively produce goods and services (mainly oil) worth $430 billion, but the Netherlands has a higher annual GDP, while Buddhist Thailand produces goods and services worth $429 billion.

Even more worrying, Muslim countries' GDP as a percentage of global production is going down. The Arabs, it seems, are especially badly off, despite their religious conservatism and insistence on covering women's hair.

The UN Arab Development Report tells the story: "Half of Arab women cannot read; one in five Arabs live on less than $2 per day; only 1 percent of the Arab population has a personal computer, and only 0.5 percent use the Internet; 15 percent of the Arab workforce is unemployed, and this could double by 2010. Average growth rate of the per capita income in the Arab world was only 0.5 percent per annum, worse than anywhere but sub-Saharan Africa."

So Indonesia, the world's biggest Muslim-majority nation, needs to make a choice: Patrick Swayze, or our hair-brained (sic) clerics? Please tell me that's a no-brainer!