Paras Indonesia, September, 22 2005 @ 12:01 pm
Freedom Of Religion And Freedom Of Worship
Do the expressions "freedom of religion" and "freedom of worship" convey identical in
meaning?
Not, as far as I know of. "Freedom of worship" is, in my understanding, freedom in
express-ing one's devotion to the Deity of the Divine as defined in one's religion.
According to Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947), "The worship of God is not a rule of
safety – it is an ad-venture of the spirit, a flight after the unattainable." And according
to Voltaire (1694-1778), "God prefers bad verses recited with a pure heart, to the finest
verses possible chanted by the wicked."
On the basis of these two statements I have come to the conclusion that that
worship, genuine worship, can come only from a pure heart, and that a meaningful
worship must be done in a way that touches the deepest layer of one's heart.
Sometimes it has to be done in a way to do it in a way that differs from the prescribed
convention, and this requires courage.
Do we really need freedom of worship? Is freedom of religion not enough?
I am not sure. Most people feel that freedom of religion is all we need. But there are
people who feel that religious worship is a personal experience, and that it should
therefore be done in a way that expresses one's personal feelings and true being.
Such people feel that perform-ing worship in a manner they do not really understand
does not give them peace of mind. They feel that true worship can come only from a
heart filled with love and devotion, and not from a heart filled with fear for severe
punishment.
How does "freedom of worship" differ from "freedom of religion"? According to the
Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, compiled by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and
James Trefil, 'freedom of religion' is "the right to choose a religion (or no religion)
without interference by the government." This is, of course, a definition that is valid
only in American and many other European cultures. Within Indonesia, freedom of
religion does not include the right not to choose religion. Every Indonesian must
choose a religion. And in most cases in Indonesia, religion is not a personal matter,
but one that affects the whole family. Only in very rare occasions that an Indonesian
family comprises members who embrace different religions.
Why do I bring up this matter? Because lately there have been disturbing events in
our society that in my opinion can destroy the basis and texture of our society and
our culture. The violent ransacking of the Ahmadiyah compound in Bogor, West Java,
the closure of churches by force in a number of places in Indonesia, the "prosecution"
of intellectuals pursuing liberal thinking in Islam, and the issuance of an edict
prohibiting pluralism and liberalization within Indonesian society.
If my understanding of this situation is correct, then we are really heading towards a
catastrophic situation. If this trend is allowed to continue we are heading toward the
abolition of religious freedom and freedom of worship in Indonesia. We are heading
toward a theocratic totalitarianism. We are heading toward the destruction of
Pancasila as our state ideology.
I hope I am wrong and that I am just exaggerating things. But I am alarmed because
in these events I see the seeds of a wicked desire, i.e. to change the nature and the
basis of our nation, our society, and our state by force. It is really a soothing
experience to read Solahuddin Wahid's article in this psychologically turbulent time
that the meaning of Pancasila as an ideology must be first clarified, before one jumps
to the conclusion that Pancasila is secular and therefore anti-religion. Those groups
advocating violent actions to impose their views and their will on groups outside their
own started from the central idea that their religion is being surrounded, eroded, and
attacked, and that what they have been doing is no more than ideological
self-defense.
Mr Wahid argues that the word 'secular' has been used in a confusing way within
Indonesian society. Some people think that 'secular' means anti-religion, while other
people think that this word denotes neutrality in religious matters. It is neither for nor
against religion. Accord-ing to one dictionary 'secular' means "worldly rather than
spiritual". It is also defined as "not specifically relating to religion or religious body."
Seen in this way being secular is in no way being against religion, and as such
cannot be construed as attacking or offending religious groups. To me, the word
'secular' is not at all dirty.
Is Pancasila a secular ideology, in the sense of being neutral towards religion? In my
understanding, it is not. It provides ample room for religious life, but it limits the space
for religious experience not bound by religions recognized by the State.
In this kind of climate the claim that the Government of the State is advancing
"religious freedom" should at least mean that the Government protects groups that
seek for more liberal formats of religious worship. It is not responsible of the
Government to assume an indifferent attitude toward those groups trying to impose
their views and their will upon others in a violent manner. In this sense freedom of
worship is the more important idea in present day Indonesia compared to the idea of
freedom of religion.
Copyright (c) 2005 - PT Laksamana Global International. All rights reserved
|
