This is regarding the letters discussing the Bogor Church and the decision of the Supreme Court (The Jakarta Post, Jan 19).
After five and-a-half years in this country, I am continually astounded and dismayed by discussions of religion, freedom of speech, and the tyranny of the majority. In countries that protect freedom of speech, people are allowed to express their opinions and convince others of their way of thinking.
It does not matter whether someone is trying to tell me that one political party is superior to another, or whether their faith is one I should adopt.
I may not appreciate the effort to convince me to change (and, in fact I don’t), but neither can I — nor would — I deny other people their right to express their thoughts.
Here, however, these principles get amalgamated into one confusing and ultimately harmful practice: Indonesians may only worship publicly when their neighbors permit them to.
The majority (whether Muslim in Bogor or Hindu in Bali) has the right to deny others’ freedom of worship. And why? Because the construction of a religious building is equated with the desire of one religion to impose itself on neighboring religions.
In other words, even if a Christian wanted to convert non-Christians (which in principle should be allowed under the freedom of speech concept), Christians are preemptively forbidden from even establishing their presence among Muslims to avoid that eventuality.
But Muslims are allowed not only to build mosques, but to broadcast the adhan and sermons by their imams at full volume, irrespective of whether their Muslim neighbors want to hear them. This is both unjust and intolerant.
Logically then, why not ban the building of political party headquarters in areas that have a majority from another party — especially religious parties? Why not ban the selling of papers that advocate certain points of view in areas where a different view is held by the majority of residents?
The tyranny of the majority and the accompanying denial of free speech and thought is the rot that eats away at the fundamental health of any society, including Indonesia.
It may not be expressed in these terms here — yet — but, ultimately, this is what we are witnessing. The Supreme Court must uphold rather than limit the right of Indonesians to think and say what ever they wish to.
All Indonesians have the right to reject ideas they do not agree with, but not to prevent them from being expressed.
Eran Fraenkel
Bogor, West Java
