The State's Version of Religion

In this modern age, all religions grow within the confines of a state. The relationship between the two, however, has not always been harmonious, and sometimes is rife with serious problems. Often contestation occurs between religious and state leaders in garnering public support.

That religious institutions feel rivaled by the presence of states is fully understandable considering that religions have been around longer. Furthermore, many believe that religions are blueprints from God as the creator of the universe whereas states, of which there are hundreds, are mere historical evolutions and products of consensus between people.

How is religion conceptualized according to states? Such conceptualizations are diverse and all are very dynamic. Experiences in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Indonesia are vastly different from one another and they influence each other. In the US, for example, the state chooses to take a neutral and separative stance on the basis of secularism. Religion is deemed a personal matter and must be separated from state matters. However, the state fully protects each citizen's right and freedom to believe in whatever he or she wants to believe in, including to have no religious belief.

For Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, a US-based thinker on Islam and statehood hailing originally from Sudan, religious sincerity is more possible in secular states. The reason is that faith and religiousness are determined more by awareness and freedom, instead of compulsion or other sociopolitical motives. Because of this, An-Na'im argues that Muslims need secular countries; not to make them more modernized or liberalized, but to make them better Muslims. Apart from being able to believe in and practice their faith and do good deeds solely because of Allah, their rights and freedom in religious life are also better protected and defended by the state (An-Na'im, 2007).

According to him, the US model of secularism is not anti-religion. Instead, it highly values and protects individual freedom to choose a religion while still adhering to principles of state laws. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1926), the third president of the US, contributed in creating the foundations of an inclusive deistic attitude that provides religious freedom for the American people. A theory states that he changed the basis of state from In Jesus I Trust to In God We Trust, taken from the US national anthem "The Star Spangled Banner" - the lyrics of which were written by amateur poet Francis Scott Key (1814).

Despite defending secularism, it is hard to imagine the emergence of an American president with a Muslim background - or any background other than Protestantism, for that matter. A Catholic was once elected as US president (its 35th), John F Kennedy, who was assassinated on November 22, 1963 at the age of 46, leaving behind a mystery.

In serving and protecting its people, the US government does not discriminate. Therefore, in the US thousands of religious sects grow in relative peace.

In Europe, the separation of church and state is also the norm, however with special attention from the state toward certain religious symbols and cultural heritage. In the UK, for example, Queen Elizabeth also serves as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. A blasphemy law is in place that states that blasphemy against the queen is blasphemy against the church and is liable to criminal charges. In Europe, some religious-based political parties are deemed civil society organizations eligible for state assistance. Different from in the US and the UK, France's secularism culture tends to be anti-religion. This is perhaps due to past trauma of inter-faith battles and bitter collective memories on the relationship between the church and the state.

The Indonesian experience

In Indonesia, the state acknowledges the existence and roles of major religions, namely Islam, Christianity, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhism and Confucianism. This six are officially recognized as religions by the state and have sociocultural support as long as they do not disrupt the existence of the state. This special treatment is sometimes deemed unfair to local beliefs that have existed for generations and enrich national culture. The state, therefore, provides protection for local beliefs to maintain a balanced sense of fairness.

In state-religion relations, Indonesia does not take a separative-secularistic or a theocratic stance, but rather a largely supportive, accommodative one toward religion. This accommodation of religions sometimes results in ambivalence on the part of the people. For example, the public may attempt to urge the implementation of sharia using the basis of Pancasila's first principle: Belief in One God. However, others can reject this on the grounds of the third principle: Unity in Indonesia.

This may seem ambivalent, but in fact the two can strengthen each other. This is to say that it is valid to promote religious values in the public arena, as long as it follows the principles of democracy using arguments of public interest and the greater good. In this case, sharia can be promoted so long as the public interest argument is convincing. One example is the sharia banking system that serves anyone regardless of religion as it has clear public benefit.

Despite not adhering to secularism, Indonesia applies principles of statehood and governance usually found in secular countries. One example is the legislative function carried out by the House of Representatives. Judiciary function is carried out by the justice system. The executive function is carried out by the ruling government. The president and the vice president as leaders of state are elected in a free and confidential election. Human rights is implemented relatively well.

All citizens, including Muslims, are equal before the law. It is only that Muslims, the majority, sometimes demand more from the government. This is understandable, considering the historical and democratic reasons. History shows that Muslims played a major role in the birth of the Republic of Indonesia. They never doubted supporting the nation's independence. They can even be said to have initiated the idea of independence and many died struggling for freedom from colonialists. However, since independence until now, many Muslims feel that they have only enjoyed a trickle of the massive national economic resources. One reason may be that Islamic educational institutions have weak capacity in developing science and economic education. The emphasized agenda from the Religious Affairs Ministry has always been nothing more than religious education and outreach.

In this context of imbalance, we often see disappointment within the Muslim community, expressed in various ways. Some use soft, conceptual-intellectual approaches while others are harder, even though Islam in itself condemns violence. Moreover, violence in the name of religion is not in line with Islamic teachings, except when oppression and unfair treatment is involved. Just read about the historical events leading back to colonial times, from the Diponegoro War up to the Tanjung Priok incident during the New Order era, and even the Darul Islam insurgency, all of which were protests against injustice.

Why then is religion used? Because it is one of the resources the people have that can inspire them to collectively protest against the state. So, instead of abusing religion as often claimed, these people use religion as a resource to express their social discontent.

In the future, the aspect of fairness must be taken into consideration in order to maintain harmonious relations between the state and religion, no matter which one. The state and the government will surely keep supporting the development of religious adherents, even more so if it aims to improve the nation's welfare and strengthen national character and identity to anticipate regional and global competition.

Principles of justice and kindness

The phenomenon that always surfaces is the friction in relations between the state and religions when religions are used as instruments for political mobility and struggle in the fight for legislative and executive chairs. Religious sentiments and aspirations continually resurface during every general and regional election. This all shows the strong role religions have in the political arena and mechanisms in Indonesia, while the state at the same time also uses religious sentiments to gain support for the government's legitimacy.

However, negotiations between the state and religions have not always been smooth. Even more so when religious schools of thought and movements appear that refuse to acknowledge the existence of state above the institution of religion. Rival statehood ideologies emerge and are controlled by groups of religious leaders connected to transnational movements.

In theocracies, religious authorities are given political roles and have executive power within government, like in the Vatican and the Islamic Republic of Iran, even though the heads of government are elected through democratic elections. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy that just happens to be ruled by a Muslim family that takes care of Islamic interests and which goes as far as naming itself the caretaker of two of Islam's most holy cities: Mecca and Medina (khadimul kharamain). An unpleasant story is that of Pakistan, which separates itself from India for religious reasons. However, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has always had violent and bloody incidents that are not in line with Islamic values.

In Islam, leaders are asked to prioritize the principle of justice before implementing the principle of kindness. To be just is to give things to those entitled to them while to be kind is to give something to help others. Thus, just leaders will always fulfill and protect their citizens' rights: no matter if they belong to the majority or minority, friend or foe.

by Komaruddin Hidayat

source Kompas, Friday, May 13, 2016