freedom of religion in the midst of indonesia's plural society [PDF]

FREEDOM OF RELIGION IN THE MIDST OF INDONESIA'S PLURAL SOCIETY

By Hamid Chalid1

The issue of religious freedom is invariably a complex one, and remains an unresolved issue in many countries, both developing and developed (Grim and Finke 2010). Issues related to religious freedom and violations of such freedom do not only arise in communities with low educational levels in developing countries, but also among highly educated people in developed countries. Consequently, the issue of religious freedom continues to be the subject of discourse and endeavors by governments in many countries. Naturally, the dynamics and levels of success of such discourses and endeavors vary from one country to another. The overarching objective of such discourses and endeavors is none other than to promote peace and harmony among religious believers in each country. At the global level, these efforts, which are undertaken in almost all countries of the world, are expected to create a better world going ahead, one of that is free from the current global problems of violence and discrimination perpetrated in the name of religion, which is still a common problem for the mankind. Indonesia is one of the countries that has been intimately involved in the massive global movement in favor of religious freedom, subject to various ups and downs, achievements and setbacks along the way. When discussing freedom of religion, Indonesia is always of interest to researchers. This is amply shown by the many studies that have focused on religious freedom in this country, whether exclusively or inclusively

1

Hamid Chalid is a Lecturer of Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Law, Universitas Indonesia. Obtained Bachelor of Law (S.H.) from Universitas Indonesia (1992), Master of Law (LL.M.) from University of Melbourne, Australia (1998), and a Doctor of Law (Dr) from Universitas Indonesia (2009). He is now also serving as Vice Rector for Human Resources, Development and Collaborative Affairs of Universitas Indonesia. 1

(i.g, the U.S Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2014; Farr, 2011:66). There are many reasons for Indonesia's attractiveness to researchers of religious freedom, the most important of which is the fact that Indonesia is the nation with the largest Muslim population in the world. At the same time, the country is also highly plural in terms of religion, race, ethnicity, culture, languages, and other matters. These two realities work together to create a unique and complex pattern of intercommunal interaction, including inter-religious relations in a country with a Muslimmajority population. Based on data from the last Indonesian census of population, the Central Board of Statistics (2010) recorded that the country’s population stood at 237,641,326, while according to World Bank (2015) data, the country’s population had increased to 257.6 million by 2015. This makes Indonesia the fourth most populous country in the world after China, India, and the United States. Of the country’s total population, some 224 million (87%) are Muslim. This makes Indonesia the country with the largest Muslim population in the world. Indeed, according to the Pew Research Center (2010), Indonesia’s Muslims account for 13% of all Muslims worldwide. Given this demographic reality, there is no doubt that Indonesia serves as one of the most important “laboratories” for studying religious freedom. This is because the country’s Muslims live side by side and coexist with adherents of many other beliefs. As regards the level of religious freedom in Indonesia, it must be admitted that the nation’s record is not entirely untarnished. Nevertheless, alongside the complex problems that undoubtedly exist, one thing that cannot be denied is the fact that Indonesia continues to strive to promote religious freedom. In this regard, Jakob Tobing (in the periodical Civis 2009) writes as follows: "From an optimistic viewpoint, we can see that the concept of freedom of religion continues to spread in our society. Not only among the elite, but also among ordinary people, who are becoming increasingly involved in disseminating the concept."

2

In the light of the above, the writer will seek to show that, as postulated by Grim and Finke, all nations face problems related to religious freedom, with Indonesia being no exception. Furthermore, the writer will seeks to demonstrate that Indonesia has a strong tradition of fostering harmony and religious freedom. History bears testament to this. Although there have admittedly been incidents, even tragedies, that have sullied Indonesia’s reputation for religious harmony and tolerance, in general the country has been quite successful in maintaining unity and common purpose in the midst of a heterogeneous society (see Paul Sheehan 2015). Indonesia is one of the few Muslimmajority nations that has managed to maintain interfaith harmony, as a result of which the country continues to stand strong. By contrast, many other Muslim countries, particularly in the Middle East and Africa, have become mired in destructive and debilitating sectarian conflicts (see Farr 2011). In this paper, the writer discusses the guarantees that exist for freedom of religion in Indonesia and their practical application. Guarantees of Religious Freedom in Indonesia Historical Background From the normative perspective, the concept of religious freedom in Indonesia is no less developed than in Western countries, and is enshrined firmly and explicitly in the nation’s 1945 Constitution. This is in line with the tendency for most modern constitutions to provide guarantees of human rights (see Strong 1966; Wheare 1970), including guarantees for religious freedom. At the higher philosophical level, religious freedom in Indonesia is simultaneously mandated by and is a consequence of the first principle of Pancasila (the five national principle; Indonesian national ideology), which is titled "Belief in Almighty God." In the life of the Indonesian nation, Pancasila occupies a pre-eminent position as the basis/philosophy/ideology of the state. In addition, Pancasila is also the ultimate source of all other sources of law, including the source from which the 1945 Constitution derives its binding authority. Indeed, the five principles of Pancasila are enshrined in the Constitution’s Preamble.

3

If we carefully study the first principle of Pancasila, it will be seen that it contains a record of the history and the spirit of brotherhood that prevailed among religious believers in Indonesia during the preparatory period leading up to the country’s independence. This is clear from the fact that in the initial draft of the Jakarta Charter of 22 June 1945, the formulation of the first principle of Pancasila read as follows: "Belief in God, with the obligation to abide by Sharia Law for its adherents." In the face of criticism, Muslims, who as the majority had the power to determine and control the direction of the newly established state, relented and permitted to delete the word “with the obligation to abide by Sharia Law for its adherents," and be replaced by the term "Belief in Almighty God" (Ansari 1981). Although the first principle of Pancasila, as formulated in the Jakarta Charter, was agreed on June 22, 1945 by a team that included a representative of the Christian denominations (A. A Maramis), its formulation was subsequently disputed by Christians representatives from eastern Indonesia. The main reason for this was because it appeared to accord a privileged or preeminent position to Islam and was therefore unacceptable to Eastern Indonesia, the majority of whose inhabitants were Christian (Hatta 1969: 67-19). As a result of the Christian objections, the day after independence (August 18, 1945), a meeting of the Preparatory Committee for Indonesian Independence (PPKI) that had been convened to ratify the 1945 Constitution amended the formulation of Pancasila as set out in the draft preamble to the constitution (the Jakarta Charter) so as to delete "Belief in God, with the obligation to abide by Sharia Law for its adherents," and replace it with "Belief in Almighty God" alone. The decision to amend the first principle of Pancasila in the preamble to the 1945 Constitution so as to remove the perception of favoritism towards Islam clearly reflected the spirit of brotherhood and inter-religious harmony in Indonesia in general and among the representatives in the PPKI in particular (Roem in Ansari 1986: XIV-XIV). This shows that from its inception, Indonesia has been founded upon the principle and basis of mutual acceptance and respect for differences. If the Muslim nationalists had not been willing to accept and appreciate the differences that characterized the nation, it

4

is quite conceivable that Indonesia would have become a very different country from the one we know today. During the course of the PPKI’s existence, there had been intense debate between the secular and Muslim nationalists as to the religious character of the new state. According to the secular nationalists, Indonesia should be a secular state, whereas the Muslim nationalists were determined to see the new country become an Islamic state or a nation based upon sharia law. Despite these fundamentally opposing positions, the differences between the two sides were eventually overcome through compromise and consensus during this critical formative period. As a consequence, Indonesia, under the 1945 Constitution, is neither a confessional nor a secular state. Rather, the state protects all religions and fosters the spiritual bond with God. Indeed, Jimly Asshiddiqie (2015: 23-25), characterizes the 1945 Constitution as the "very Godly constitution of Indonesia." He points out that of all of the world’s written constitutions, Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution (as amended four times during the reform period of 1999-2002) is the one in which the words “God” and “Religion” appear most often. The word “Allah” appear twice, “God” twice, “religion” 10 times, “belief” twice, “faith” once “piety” once, “Almighty God” twice, and “the Almighty” once. This means that even when enacted on August 18, 1945 after the deletion of the seven words about Sharia from the Jakarta Charter of 22 June 1945, as described above, the number of words reflecting the concepts of God and religion remained very high, indeed, the highest in the world. Indonesia, therefore, may be described as being a religious state without being a confessional state. The spirit of brotherhood and unity which was performed by the Indonesian founding fathers was sadly lacking in the case of India's independence, where the Indians and Pakistanis, who had originally worked hand in hand to prepare for statehood, ultimately went their separate ways and established their own countries. The reason was that the aspirations of the people of what is today Pakistan, the majority of whom were Muslims, were not sufficiently included in negotiations for India's independence. In addition, the aspirations of the people of Pakistan were not accommodated in the draft

5

constitution of India, which is marked by a very pronounced Hindu spiritual character (Ambedkar 1946). As a result, the representatives of Islam-Pakistan, led by Mohammad Ali Jinnah, withdrew from the negotiations for India’s independence and subsequently made preparations for the creation of an independent, stand-alone country outside India, which we now know as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Khan 2007). Pakistan received its independence from Britain on August 14, 1947, one day after Indian independence on August 15, 1947. The above description on the one hand explains the tragic partition of Pakistan and India, whose peoples were originally united in struggling for India's independence, due to a failure to accommodate the aspirations of the Muslim minority. On the other hand, however, the earlier description of conditions in Indonesia at the time of preparing for independence reveal a greater spirit of brotherhood and mutual acceptance among religious believers in Indonesia than in India during the run-up to its independence. Thus, the Indonesian nation emerged intact as an independent state on 17 August 1945, unlike India, which became independent without Pakistan due to the deadlock in the negotiations between the representatives of the minority Muslim community and the Hindu majority. Thus, the Indonesian nation was established by its founding fathers based on the principle of religious freedom, given the wide variety of religions and faiths adhered to by its people. These religions and faiths include Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism and various other religions or belief systems. Thus, it is not surprising that from its very inception (long before its amendment) the 1945 Constitution provided a constitutional guarantee for freedom of religion in Indonesia. This guarantee is expressly set out in the Constitution’s Article 29, which reads as follows: “(1) The State is based on the will of Almighty God"; and “(2) The State guarantees the freedom of each citizen to profess his own religion and worship according to his religion and beliefs." After the amendment of the 1945 Constitution in the period 1999-2002, the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom was further stronger. This is because 6

religious freedom, which was originally provided for by only one chapter in the Constitution, is now governed by many more provisions, namely, the provisions on human rights contained in Chapter XA. The provisions in question include Article 28E(1) which provides that "Every person shall be free to practice religious faith and to worship in accordance with their precepts of their religion." However, the right to enjoy religious freedom is not entirely unrestricted. Rather, religious freedom must have regard to the law and respect for the religious freedom of others. In this regard, the Constitution is cognizant of the need to limit freedoms and human rights (including the right to religious freedom) in order to ensure that they are not counterproductive and do not interfere with the freedoms of others. This recognition of the need to circumscribe rights is expressly set out in Article 28 J (2) of the Constitution, which essentially provides that in exercising his or her rights and freedoms, a person shall be subject to restrictions established by law with a view to respecting the rights and freedoms of others based on considerations of morality, religious values, security and public order. This provision should not be subjected to undue scrutiny or addressed in an a priori fashion as this kind of restriction is not only adopted by the 1945 Constitution, but also by the constitutions of many other countries, including the constitutions of various Western countries, such as Germany. In the German constitution, the provisions on human rights are set forth in Chapter I (Basic Rights), and it is made clear that such rights may be subject to restriction. Provisions restricting basic rights in the German Constitution can be found, for example, in Article 17a, which permits restrictions to be placed on fundamental rights in certain circumstances (see Article 17a Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany). In addition, Article 19 of the German constitution essentially allows basic rights to be restricted by law. The placing of restrictions on freedoms and human rights is absolutely essential so that such freedoms and human rights can be effectively protected and do not conflict with each other (Loucaides 1994: 179-181). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) of 1948 also recognizes and permits the imposing of restrictions of human 7

rights. This can be clearly ascertained from Article 29 (2) of the UDHR, whose formulation is similar to that of Article 28 J (2) of the Indonesian Constitution. Similar restrictions are also recognized and permitted by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Returning to our discussion of religious freedom in Indonesia, from what has been said above, it is clear that religious freedom in Indonesia is built on firm foundations as it is constitutionally guaranteed and regulated by various provisions of the Constitution, including Article 28E, Article 28I(1), and Article 29. Thus, every person in the Republic of Indonesia enjoys a constitutionally mandated right to religious freedom. However, it should also be remembered that the exercise of religious freedom must prioritize respect for the rights and freedoms of others. Consequently, the 1945 Constitution not only guarantees freedom of religion, but at the same time also promotes inter-religious harmony. This is due to the fact that the concept of religious freedom embraced by the Constitution is not an absolute freedom, unlike in Western countries in general, but rather is framed and signposted in terms of respect for the rights / freedoms of others. Indonesia as a Religious Nation State In general, there are two alternative concepts as regards the relationship between religion and state, namely, the religious state and the secular state (Sukardja 2014: 191). By a religious state is meant a state that establishes a particular religion as the state religion and enshrines that religion’s teaching as a cornerstone of state life. Meanwhile, the term “secular state,” in its broadest sense, refers to a state that recognizes the express separation of state and religion, and neutralizes the role of religion in the state’s life (see Harvey Cox 1984). Indonesia has declined to accept either of these two alternative concepts. It is neither a religious state nor a secular state. Rather, Indonesia has developed its own concept of the relationship between religion and state. In accordance with the first principle of Pancasila, which is headed "Belief in Almighty God," Indonesia is committed to maintaining its relationship with God and religion. But at the same time, in accordance

8

with the country’s diverse religious demographics, the people of Indonesia have also refrained from establishing a particular religion as the exclusive state religion. Rather, the state acknowledges and accepts all of the country’s religions and beliefs as being part of the spiritual wealth of the Indonesian nation. Based on these characteristics, it may be said that Indonesia is a “religious nation state” (see Mahfud 2010: 243), that is, while the Indonesian state does not have an established state religion, the Indonesian people have not turned their backs on religion, as many people have in the Western countries in general, much less become openly hostile to religion, as was the case in the Communist countries (Asshiddiqie 2015). Rather, the Indonesian state respects all religions, and guarantees the fulfillment and promotion of the religious life of the people, as mandated by the Constitution. Thus, despite various shortcomings in the effort to protect religious freedom, Indonesia is, in reality, a country that was designed to be “religion-friendly.” This character should be recognized and availed of by all of the nation’s people to uphold freedom of religion in an atmosphere of tolerance and mutual respect. Actualization and the Dynamics of Religious Freedom in Indonesia As highlighted by Grim and Finke (2010), almost all country’s face difficulties from time to time in upholding religious freedom. Indonesia is no exception. Indeed, it must be recognized that religion-related controversies are frequent occurrences in this country. It is likely to be some considerable time before true religious freedom becomes firmly embedded in Indonesia. Problems concerning religious freedom, such as intolerance, intimidation, religion-motivated violence and discrimination against adherents of minority religions and beliefs continue to be commonplace in Indonesia. Even the most casual study of these issues will reveal that obstacles to religious freedom generally appear and are found in countries whose societies consist of majority and minority religions. The problems tend to be exacerbated if disparities between the majority and minority are very pronounced. Unfortunately, this phenomenon of majority and minority religions exist in all countries. In Indonesia, the majority religion is Islam,

9

while other religions are in the minority. By contrast, in the United States the majority religion is Protestantism, while other religions are in the minority. Likewise in India, Hindus are a majority, while the rest are minorities. Is an indisputable fact that threats to and violations of religious freedom most frequently occur in such countries, where the majority religion is perceived as a "threat" to the freedom and rights of religious minorities. This truism is almost akin to a law of nature that is universally applicable. In the case of Indonesia, the Muslim majority are perceived as being in a position to dominate and are deemed the culprits in nearly every violation of religious freedom. But in the case of the United States, for example, the opposite is true, as the Muslim religious minority is in a weak position and vulnerable to violations of their religious freedoms by the majority Christians. Based on this thesis, I want to show that all religions have the potential to be advantaged by being in the majority, and also the potential to abuse such position by violating the religious freedoms of others. Likewise, all religions can potentially be harmed and left the vulnerable to religious-freedom violations when in the minority. The thesis is, of course, predicated solely on the number of adherents in a country as a source of strength. Beyond that, there are a great deal of other factors that may be no less decisive in determining who is really in a position of advantage, whether in terms of political and financial power, media influence, global intervention and so forth. Therefore, what needs to be done to promote religious freedom is not to condemn or discredit a particular religion/group in a particular place or country on account of its perceived involvement in religious freedom violations. The facts show that a priori attitudes of this kind can provide fertile ground for the growth of hatred that can destroy inter-religious harmony. Moreover, based on the above thesis, not all religions enjoy advantages and disadvantages in equal measure. The only difference is location. In one location, religious believers who feel they have the support of a power center could become aggressors against other religious groups, while in another location the adherents of the same religion could be vulnerable as a religious minority without the support of a power center. In this regard, as Juergensmeyer (1992:1) rather tendentiously pointed out, "violence has always been endemic to religion ...". 10

Returning to the question of actualizing religious freedom in Indonesia, it is indisputable that in general violations of religious freedom in Indonesia are primarily perpetrated by Muslims. However, if we look at the issue more deeply and at a more local level, we will see that while Indonesia is predominantly Muslim, there are certain regions that are dominated by other religious groups. In these regions, it is the adherents of these religions that pose a threat to the followers of other religions, particularly Islam. This can be seen from violations of religious freedom in Papua province, for example. The burning down of a mosque in Tolikara when Muslims were reciting Eid prayers (see report in the July 17, 2015 edition of Republika daily) is proof that is clear for all to see. In addition to violations of religious freedoms perpetrate by the adherents of one religion on another, there are also many violations that are internal to one particular religion. These types of violations are normally perpetrated by the followers of one sect on another within the same religion – normally, it is the mainstream sect that violates the religious freedoms of a minority sect. An example in Indonesia is the persistent violations of the religious freedoms of members of the minority Shiite sect. Based on a report from the National Commission on Human Rights (in VOA Indonesia, 24 February 2016), a total of 87 cases of violations of religious freedom were reported to the Commission in 2015. This figure was up from 74 cases the previous year (2014). The reported violations included the destruction of places of worship, prohibition of religious activities, intimidation, physical assault, and the ignoring of violence by the authorities (U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2014:1). I do not propose to discuss these violations on a case by case basis due to limitations of space. Rather, I will address them generally. According to the study by the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (2014), one of the most significant factors hampering freedom of religion in Indonesia is the failure by the State and its agents to act firmly against intolerant groups that target other religious believers. Further, the claim by the minority Jamaah Ahmadiyah Indonesia sect that it is part of Islam has left it open to blasphemy charges under Law No. 1 of 1965 (Blasphemy Law) as the sect is considered to violate the principal teachings of Islam. That is why the U.S Department of State, Bureau of 11

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor sharply criticized this legislation. In fact, the purpose of the legislation is so that horizontal conflicts among religion believers can be resolved by legal system, rather than having communities taking the law into their own hands. Blasphemy Law essentially bans the spreading of teachings related to a particular religion that violate the principal precepts of that religion. The legislation characterizes such activities as “defaming” the religion in question as they prejudice and endanger the religion. This is intended to create a sense of security for all religions and to reassure believers that the State will act to protect their religion from the threat of blasphemy and desecration. In accordance with the provisions of the said legislation, one who commits blasphemy for the first time is issued with a warning to desist from committing a similar offense in the future. If the perpetrator persists in committing acts of blasphemy, he or she will be liable upon conviction to a term of imprisonment of not more than five years (see Articles 3 and 4 of Blasphemy Law) Despite the intention of protecting all religions in Indonesia against blasphemy and deviance, Blasphemy Law has been persistently criticized as violating religious freedom, including by the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor in its study. The legislation has also been criticized by many other bodies and groups, and its constitutionality was the subject of a challenge in the Constitutional Court in 2009. However, the Constitutional Court rejected the challenge, holding that Blasphemy Law does not violate the Constitution (see Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, 2010). I am one of those who agree with the Constitutional Court’s decision as I believe that Blasphemy Law continues to be needed. There are two important reasons for this. First, the Law is essential in order to protect religions from defamation and deviant teachings so as to create a sense of security for adherents. Secondly, the Law does not favor any particular religion. Rather, it accords equal protection to all religions. Conversely, there is no religion that is prejudiced by the Law.

12

People tend to judge this law based upon Western liberal perceptions and fail to take into consideration the values that prevail in Indonesia, where it is inconceivable for individual freedoms to be exercised in an unrestricted manner, without any kind of rules and limitations, including limitations predicated upon religious values. In my opinion, one cannot demand freedom of religion if the exercise of this freedom implies the permitting of blasphemy and deviance, especially given the character of the Indonesian Constitution (“the very godly constitution”). Unbounded freedom that fails to respect the importance and role of religion may be acceptable in the liberal and secular West, but is most assuredly not acceptable in Indonesia. The placing of restrictions on religious freedom in order to protect religion from blasphemy and deviance is permitted by Article 28J (2) of the Constitution. As stated by Hazarin (1973: 69), in Indonesia, it is not acceptable for laws and activities to conflict with religious and spiritual norms, whatever the religion concerned might be. As explained earlier, God and religion continue to be accorded a prominent and respected role in society, as reflected in the first principle of Pancasila and Article 29 of the Constitution. While I believe that the Blasphemy Law continues to be necessary, it is simply unacceptable to resort to violence and mob rule against those considered to adhere to "heretical” sects. It was precisely to remove the excuses for such violence that the Blasphemy Law was enacted in the first place. The legislation provides a formal legal basis that may be availed of by those who seek to defend the interests of their religion against blasphemy and deviance. Consequently, the accusation that a particular group is deviant or heretical (whether justified or otherwise) does not give anyone the right to intimidate let alone commit acts of violence against the group’s followers as a legal channel for remedial action has been provided by the State. Accordingly, the Blasphemy Law provides a practical solution to problems involving the violation of one group’s religious rights by another group. The frequency of incidents involving violations of religious freedom (in all of its manifestations) continues to be high (as shown by the National Commission on Human Rights data quoted earlier). This reality requires us to work harder than ever so as to 13

ensure that religious freedom is placed on a firmer footing. We all have a role to play in fostering mutual understanding and respect, both as regards the members of our own religion and people of other religions. Differences in religion and belief cannot be justified as reasons for distancing ourselves from others, let alone for hating each other. Such differences must be addressed wisely in a large, heterogeneous nation such Indonesia. In reality, Indonesia’s diversity is a blessing in disguise and we should all be thankful that we can live side by side as one nation, despite coming from diverse religious backgrounds (see Mahfud 2010: 242). As stated by Jakob Tobing (in the publication Civis 2009), while the image of religious freedom in Indonesia is tarnished, our hope is that the situation will gradually improve with time. The history of the Indonesian proves that this is possible. To this day, the Indonesia nation continues to stand strong despite the centrifugal forces that could emerge in such a heterogeneous society. The spirit of tolerance and interfaith harmony that was exemplified so long ago by our founding fathers must be maintained and fostered in order to ensure a better tomorrow for everyone. Tolerance and forbearance are natural characteristics of the Indonesian people. These characteristics should be built upon through firm law enforcement and a fair and objective approach to every attack on religious freedom. Failures by the State to take action actually exacerbate conflicts and lead to them spiraling out of control. Reflections on Religious Freedom in the United States While the US Constitution as originally adopted in 1787 did not set out guarantees of religious freedom, that does not mean that the lives of the American people at that time were devoid of religion. The Christian faith, the religion of the majority of Americans, was very strong at the time (Jose Casanova 2006). Guarantees of religious freedom were only incorporated into the U.S. Constitution through the First Amendment in 1791. The First Amendment of 1791 is also known as "the first ten amendments" as a total of ten amendments were ratified simultaneously as a single package on 15 December 1791. The First Amendment sets out various protections for human rights (including freedom of religion) that were not incorporated in the

14

Constitution as originally adoped in 1787. The First Amendment is also frequently referred to as “the Bill of Rights.” The guarantee of religious freedom is incorporated in the first of the ten amendments that were ratified in 1791. The first amendment not only provides a guarantee of religious freedom, but also protections for freedom of speech and the press, freedom of association, and the freedom to petition or claim compensation from the government (see Amendment 1, 1791). The third article of the Bill of Rights reads as follows: "Congress shall make-no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The Bill of Rights makes it abundantly clear that freedom of religion is one the fundamental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. Thus, normatively, both Indonesia and the United States provide guarantee for freedom of religion at the highest level, that is, by setting them out in their respective Constitutions. Accordingly, in both countries, freedom of religion is established as a fundamental right that is guaranteed and protected by the Constitution, so that no one has the right to arbitrarily or unlawfully circumscribe or diminish this freedom. As in the case of Indonesia, the United States also consisted of a heterogeneous population that can together in order to establish a state. This explains why the United States adopted "e pluribus unum" as its national motto, meaning “Out of many, one”(Luedtke 1987). This is in many ways similar to the concept encapsulated in Indonesia’s national motto, “Bhineka tunggal ika,” which may be freely translated as “Unity in diversity.” Given the pluralistic nature of U.S. society and the many religions and beliefs its people adhere to, it is obvious that guarantees of religious freedom are essential in the United States. The overarching ideal is that one religion or belief does not interfere with the basic freedoms of another religion or belief.

15

Consequently, the U.S. is not only very liberal, but also secular. Consequently, the concept of religious freedom is also applied in a liberal manner, in the sense that religion is regarded as a wholly private matter (forum internum), with the state’s role confined solely to guaranteeing protection (Hasson 2012). The liberal concept of religious freedom, completely free from state intervention, as applied in the U.S., is different the concept of religious freedom that is applied in Indonesia. The reason is clearly the fact that Indonesia has never formally adopted liberalism and secularism as ideologies, unlike the U.S. As a consequence, in actualizing religious freedom in Indonesia in accordance with Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution, the state is required to actively participate in realizing religious freedom, rather than simply relegating the matter to one of individual choice. I do not propose at this juncture to venture an opinion as to which concept of religious freedom is better or preferable as both, Indonesia and the U.S. have their own historical backgrounds and national characteristics. I believe that the concepts of religious freedom that have been developed by the two nations are the ones that are best suited for them. In my opinion, it is fruitless to debate which concept of religious freedom is superior, let alone try to pressure other nations into accepting our preferred concept. I believe that the most important thing is how religious freedom can actually be realized in each country so that it is not just an ideal or wishful thinking, but rather is something that can actually be enjoyed and felt (e.g., Azra in Taher 2009: 23-27). Returning to the discussion of religious freedom in the U.S., while that nation is recognized by many as having a well-established tradition of religious freedom, in reality, as highlighted by, among other, Chris Beneke (2006), violations of religious freedom still frequently occur in the U.S. This tends to strengthen the thesis of Brian J. Grim and Roger Finke (2010) that I referred to at the beginning of this essay, namely, that all countries are vulnerable to problems resulting from religious intolerance, including both developing and developed countries. As I have mentioned earlier, when we analyze issues related to religious freedom, it will be frequently seen that majority religions in particular places often threaten and violate the religious freedoms of minority religions. In the case of the U.S., because the 16

majority religion there is Christianity, then like it or not, it is Christians who are often the aggressors against religious minorities group. It is also widely known that the religious believers that find themselves in the most vulnerable position are Muslims (Ali 2010). There have been many cases of religious intolerance in the U.S. involving Muslims in particular and minorities in general. For example, the rejection of a plan to build a mosque at the site of the former WTC that was destroyed in the 11 September 2001 attacks in New York (BBC, 14 August 2010). There have been many other prominent cases in which Muslims have been targeted and had their religious freedoms violated. The most common violations include the refusal to allow the building of mosques, prohibitions on religious activities, intimidation, discrimination and exclusion (Islamophobia). The U.S. is home to many anti-Muslim groups and movements that explicitly espouse enmity towards Islam. More worrying still, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump expressed his enmity towards Islam in no uncertain terms in a campaign speech on 7 December 2015 (VOA Indonesia, 8 December 2015). Malicious words and deeds that target a particular religion and its adherents, such as those referred to above, pose a clear and present danger to religious freedom in America. Such attitudes only serve to undermine religious and communal harmony and fail to reflect the greatness of America. In the light of the above description, it will be clear that no matter how wellestablished the concept of religious freedom is in the U.S., religious intolerance continues to result in violations of this freedom. Thus, the United States, just like Indonesia, has significant work to do in order to resolve the various problems that hamper the enjoyment of religious freedom by all citizens, whether members of the majority or a minority faith. No nation can be considered civilized until such time as all of its people enjoy true religious freedom while simultaneously respecting the religious freedom of others.

17

Bibliography Ali, Muhamad. (2010). Amerika Serikat dan Kebebasan Beragama (United States of Amercia and the Religious Freedom). http://muhamadali.blogspot.co.id/2010/09/amerika-serikat-dankebebasan-beragama.html (accessed on June 12, 2016). Ambedkar, B.R. (1946). Pakistan or Partition of India (2nd ed.). Bombay: AMS Press Inc. Anshari, Endang Saifuddin. (1981). Piagam Jakarta 22 Juni 1945 dan Sejarah Konsensus Nasional antara Nasionalis Islami dan Nasionalis Sekuler tentang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945-1959 (Jakarta Charter of June 22,1945 and the History of National Consensus between Islamic Nationalist and Secular Nationalist about the Basis of Republic Indonesia on 1945-1959). Jakarta: Rajawali. Asshiddiqie, Jimly. (2015). Penguatan Sistem Pemerintahan dan Peradilan (Strengthening the System of Government and Justice). Jakarta: Sinar Grafika. Central Statistics Board (Badan Pusat Statistik). Census of Population http://sp2010.bps.go.id/index.php/navigation/topik (accessed on June 11, 2016).

2010.

BBC. Obama Defends Right to Build Mosque Near 9/11 Site. 14 August 2010. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-10973459 (accessed on June 12, 2016). Beneke, Chris. (2006). Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism. New York: Oxford University Press. Casanova, Jose. (2006). Rethinking Secularization: A Global Comparative Perspective. The Hedgehog Review, 8:Spring/Summer, 101-141. Constitution of Federal Republic of Germany. Constitutional Court of Republic of Indonesia. Decision Number:140/PUU-VII/2009. Cox, Harvey. (1984). Religion in the Secular City: Toward a Postmodern Theology. New York: Simon and Shuster. Farr, Thomas F. (2011). The Trouble with American Foreign Policy and Islam. The Review of Faith and International Affairs, 9:2, 65-73. Grim, Brian J. and Roger Finke. (2010). The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hasson, Kevin Seamus. (2012). The Right to be Wrong: Ending the Culture War Over Religion in America. San Francisco: Encounter Books. Hatta, Mohammad. (1969). Sekitar Proklamasi 17 Agustus 1945(Around August 17, 1945 Proclamation). Jakarta: Tintamas. Hazairin. (1973). Demokrasi Pancasila (Pancasila Democracy). Jakarta: Tintamas. 18

Indonesia. Undang-Undang tentang Pencegahan Penyalahgunaan dan/atau Penodaan Agama (Law on the Prevention of Religious Abuse and/or Blasphemy). UU No. 1 Tahun 1965, LN No. 3 Tahun 1965 (Law Number 1 of 1965, SG No. 3 of 1965). Juergensmeyer, Mark. (1992). Violence and the Sacred in the Modern World. Oxford: Routledge Juergensmeyer, Mark. (1993). The New Cold War? Religious Nationalism Confronts the Secular State. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Khan, Yasmin (2007). The Great Partition: the Making of India and Pakistan. New Haven: Yale University Press. Loucaides, Loukis G. (1994). Essay on the Developing Law of Human Rights. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Luedtke, Luther S. (1987). Making America: The Society and Culture the United States. Washington, D.C: United States Information Agency. Mahfud, Moh. (2010). Perdebatan Hukum Tata Negara Pasca Amandemen Konstitusi (Constitutional Law Debate After Amandement of Constitution). Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada. Pew Research Center. (2010). Muslim Population of Indonesia. http://www.pewforum.org/2010/11/04/Muslim-population-of-indonesia/ (accessed on June 12, 2016). Republika. Ini Kronologi Pembakaran Masjid di Tolikara (This is Chronolgy of Mosque Arson in Tolikara). July 17, 2015. Sheehan, Paul. (2015). Lessons For The Middle East in Indonesia's Success. http://www.theage.com.au/comment/lessons-for-the-middle-east-in-indonesias-success20151206-glgnig.html (accessed on June 11, 2016). Strong, C. F. (1966). Modern Political Constitutions: An Introduction to the Comparative Study of Their History and Existing Form. London: Jackson Limited. Sukardja, Ahmad. (2014). Piagama Madinah dan Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 (Medina Charter and Constitution 1945). Jakarta: Sinar Grafika. Taher, Elda Pelzi. (2009). Merayakan Kebebasan Beragama (Celebrating for Religious Freedom). Jakarta: Kompas. Thames, Knox. (2014). Pakistan's Dangerous Game with Religious Extremism. The Review of Faith & International Affairs, 12:4, 40-48. Tobing, Jakob. (2009). Perlindungan Konstitusi bagi Kebebasan Beragama (Constitutional Protection for Religious Freedom). Civis Vol. 1 No. 1 Oct 2009. http://www.leimena.org/id/page/v/182/perlindungan-konstitusi-bagi-kebebasan-beragama (accessed on June 11, 2016).

19

U.S Bill of Rights 1791. U.S Constitution 1787. U.S Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. (2014). Indonesia 2014 International Religious Freedom Report. Washington, D.C. VOA Indonesia. Pelanggaran Kebebasan Beragama di Indonesia Meningkat (Violations of Religious Freedom in Indonesia Rises). February 24, 2016. VOA Indonesia. Trump Serukan Larangan Muslim Masuk ke Amerika (Trump Calls for Ban Muslim Entering the USA). December 8, 2015. Wheare, K. C. (1970). Modern Constitutions (8 ed.). London: Oxford University Press. World Bank. Indonesia. http://data.worldbank.org/country/indonesia/indonesian (accesed on June 25, 2016). Yang, Fenggang. (2013). A Research Agenda on Religious Freedom in China. The Review of Faith & International Affairs, 11:2, 6-17.

20