It's so difficult to comment objectively on minority treatment. It has become so ubiquitous that speaking of a particular case would seem hypocritical.
Most newspapers comment about the hurdles and exclusion that Christian communities face in Indonesia, which isn't hard to do considering that they're a minority in most places. Furthermore, high-profile hardliner groups like FPI has become more prominent in many places, while some states and cities with Muslim majorities openly denounce other faiths.
Of course, in a country where more than 97% of the population are Muslim, it's not hard to point out the numerous cases just because of the sheer numbers.
But let's look at the other side: in southeastern Indonesian cities such as Kupang, where the majority of the population is Christian, the Muslim population are also facing hurdles.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
How can we fight for equality if we only fight for one side? It's very easy to say that the other party is at fault merely because being a minority gives you the impression that you are being abused exclusively. It's easy to observe Christian advocates and hardliners condemning the Muslim hardliners' actions in banning churches, and who could blame them? It's not as if it isn't true.
However, before preaching for equality in such a way, would it not be wise to advocate for them to advocate for the Muslim communities facing difficulties in building mosques as well? The sheer scale of published cases of churches being banned raises questions as to whether Christian communities banning mosques are being persecuted as well.
It's true that it's unfair for churches to be banned, however, would they have allowed mosques to be built had they been the majority instead of the minority? We cannot simply condemn injustice that we practice ourselves.
It's also true that the communities are completely unrelated (geographically) to each other. The Christian whose churches are being banned in Bogor and Aceh aren't the same Christians who prevented mosques from being built in Kupang. One is a minority and one is the majority. The same way we can say that the Muslims who banned churches aren't the same community of Muslims whose mosques were banned.
Articles advocating their "brothers'" fight against injustice seem so hypocritical just because every majority always practice exclusion of the minority. It is unfair to say that Christians are being treated unfairly when they're treating Muslims unfairly and vice versa.
Brothers of the same faith? Anyone putting that before the good of everyone in their community (objectively) is violating the very principle our nation was built upon. Why bring the name of God into the conflict of men?
Subjectivity is disgusting, as much as it is inevitable. While most major newspapers reported the fact that GKI Yasmin in Bogor had initially received consent to be built (as well as receiving consent from the Supreme Court when its case was taken to court), a Muslim newspaper did not mention this fact at all. On the other hand, they spotlighted the fact that the mayor and his administration was against the church being built and that the church was violating the mayor's rules. They also mentioned that they were concerned that there might be 200 churches built in Bogor while the majority of the population wasn't Christian.
On the case of the mosque being banned in Batuplat, both the Jakarta Post and the VOA Islam mentioned the fact that the mosque had received consent from the local government, however the Jakarta Post raised the argument that the Christian community felt cheated that their opinion was never taken into account before the signing of the consent. Furthermore, they also highlighted an abduction incident and murder threats against a church member.
VOA Islam hailed the mayor of Kupang, a Christian, as a great figure who even gave land for the building of mosques. This comes from the same newspaper who condemned the building of churches consented by the supreme court. I would have to agree with the tolerant mayor, but must we only highlight things that are supportive of our argument? Must we only focus on the violence of others and turn a blind eye towards our own violence?
To each their own plight.
It's very difficult to achieve peace if we keep on portraying each other as invaders and terrorists. It's very difficult if each community insists on being completely partial. Arguably, it may be too much to ask religious writers to be impartial towards their own religion as it seems to defeat their cause. But is not the cause of every man his compassion?
How can we condemn others and save ourselves? How can we protest the banning of our house of worship and hail the banning of other houses of worship? Are we not free to choose our own faith as much as others are free to choose theirs?
Are we not all entitled to our own opinions as long as they do not bring physical harm to others? Are we so insecure of our beliefs that we have come to fear other beliefs?
It's the same as the Lady Gaga case. Are we so weak in our belief that we could be so easily swayed from our faith? Because that's what is implied in the Religious Minister's argument. To be able to claim that Lady Gaga is a "satanists" who will sway the faith of Indonesia's youth simply projects the belief that their fear outweighs their belief.
Not only the religious minister, various churches all over Indonesia also condemn Lady Gaga as a minion of Satan. The bride of Satan or something of the sort. If your faith in your God is so weak that your idea of Satan could overpower it, you are faithless.
Is your faith in kindness and compassion overpowered by your fear of others?
A few months ago I read an article calling Indonesia a fascist country and I couldn't resist the urge to email the journalist involved with the article to point out that we are (and should be) a democracy. (I emailed him partially because I felt his data were too old to base a report on, some of the main issues he argued for have been dealt with and were used only to support his argument.)
A few days ago news reported a book-burning incident incited by protests by the FPI, who claimed that the book, which allegedly called the Prophet Muhammad a pirate, was defacing the name of Islam and was thus against the law. The FPI did not burn the books, the publisher did.
Book-burning. In this day and age. No wonder they call us fascists.
A nun who had written about contemporary interpretations of love and hetero/homosexuality in the bible was also condemned by the Catholic church as misrepresentative of the religion. She contended that her book was not meant to align with the views of the church, but as an alternative view of religion and love.
Has tolerance been limited by didacticism? Has our love of humanity been overshadowed by our fear of differences?
Persecution of minority remains at large today. Protests against a mosque in New York. Protests against Christians in Egypt. For a world who condemns the practices of the medieval ages, we haven't progressed very far.
No comments:
Post a Comment