Many Americans, who have been outraged at Obama for defending the construction of an Islamic center near the Ground Zero site in New York City, will love Yudhoyono, who most likely would have refrained from making any comment that would upset the majority opinion if he was in Obama’s position.

Many Indonesians, on the other hand, who feel that Yudhoyono has failed to protect the rights of religious minorities, would welcome someone like Obama to stand firmly by his principle of defending freedom of religion. On Sunday, around 1,200 followers of the HKBP Pondok Timur Indah church in Bekasi held a prayer vigil a few 100 meters from the Presidential Palace in protest against Yudho-
yono’s failings. They were supported by groups concerned about the lack of protection for religious
minorities.

Putting aside the huge gap in economic prosperity between Indonesians and Americans, the two countries cannot be all that different in many respects if a comparison on how their leaders responded (or not) to the fundamental issue of religious freedom this weekend becomes irresistible.

The world’s third and fourth most populous countries both have multiracial, multi-ethnic and multi-religion societies. They have also been described as the second and third largest democracies, though Indonesia is an emerging one, and Americans have played this game for more than two centuries.

Although the US was founded upon the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is a secular state whose constitution guarantees religious freedom for all its citizens. Since the country was built by European migrants escaping the religious persecutions in the Old World, religious freedom is a fundamental right that today is extended to all faiths.

Indonesia is a predominantly Muslim nation but its constitution provides guarantees for religious freedom and for its citizens to practice their faiths accordingly. Although Indonesia is not exactly a thoroughly secular state, it is not a theocratic state either. In the Constitution and in theory at least, all religions are accorded the same rights.

Regarding religious freedom, both countries have had the same challenge in recent years, albeit the positions of the two religions are transposed.

In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, Muslims in the US (and not only in New York, according to a recent report in the New York Times) face opposition and harassment in building or running mosques, with accusations that these places were being used foment Islamic radicalism and anti-American sentiments.

In Indonesia, in recent years, religious minorities including Christians and followers of small sects such as the Ahmadiyah, have also been harassed. Their places of worship became targets for attacks and vandalism. Opponents of churches in their neighborhoods fear that they are being used to convert Muslims to Christianity.

The similarities as far as religious freedom are concerned end here. The way their leaders have responded to the challenge could not be starker.

Obama during a breaking of the fast with Muslim leaders at the White House on Friday defended the right of Muslims to build mosques. A week earlier, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the son of a Jewish immigrant, also came in defense of the plan and, backed by the City Council, gave the green light for the construction to start.

Obama’s speech apparently went against the majority opinion and many Americans believed the choice of the site near Ground Zero was an insult to the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The timing of his speech could not have been more unfortunate for his fellow Democrats who are facing mid-term elections for the Congress and Senate in November. Most analysts already predict that the Democrats will lose control of both houses.

But the White House has since made it clear that Obama was defending the religious freedom of all American citizens, and that he did not specifically say he supported the construction of the mosque.

That would have been good enough for many Indonesians if only Yudhoyono had made a similar stand in defending religious freedom as a constitutional right. Instead, last week when he had the chance to comment on the spate of attacks on churches, he referred the issue to the police, telling them to deal firmly with “religious violence”.

Obama could have refrained from making any statement, directly or indirectly, to the mosque controversy and help his Democrat congressmen face the November election. But he did what any decent democratically elected leader and statesman would do, which is to uphold the constitution and  defend the right of minority Muslims.

Yudhoyono, though was elected to defend the Constitution, is pandering to popular Muslim sentiments by avoiding the issue and reducing the spate of attacks against Christian churches and harassment of religious minorities to a criminal issue rather than one related to the constitutional right of religious minorities in this country.

If history is any lesson, remember that Adolf Hitler was pandering to populist sentiments when he launched the persecution of Jews in Europe. Indonesia is no way near that situation that Nazi Germany was in, but it is worth just keeping that in mind.

Trading Yudhoyono for Obama would not be all that difficult. Obama spent four years of his childhood in Indonesia, so he already has an emotional connection with this country. As for sending Yudhoyono to Washington, wasn’t he the one who once said “America is my second country”?

Let’s make the exchange.

Popular

Great Barrier Reef hit by record bleaching

Govt to undo latest curbs on personal imports

Middle East on edge as Israel and Iran trade threats