 |
| 'Atheism does not violate Pancasila. All Indonesians may consciously and rationally choose their own beliefs. The country’s very foundation protects their right to do so.' (Photo courtesy of Karl Karnadi) |
Alexander
Aan, a civil servant in Dharmasraya, West Sumatra, was beaten and charged with
blasphemy after writing “God does not exist” on his Facebook page.
The
response has ranged from condemnation by several international organizations to
support by local citizens and the Indonesian Council of Ulema. Many people have
invoked the first principle of Pancasila, the state ideology, to make the
argument that atheism — and Alexander — have no place in Indonesia.
But is this
really the case? Has atheism been banned by Pancasila since the dawn of the
Indonesian state? Since the argument is based on the text of a legal document,
let’s examine this question from a legal perspective.
The first
principle of Pancasila says the nation of Indonesia shall be based on the
belief in the one and only God. It is usually interpreted literally. As a
result, nonbelievers, and atheists in particular, are often accused of
violating the nation’s philosophical foundation. Their way of thinking is seen
as incompatible with the country’s fundamental “monotheistic” tenet.
This is a
naive and simplistic view of Pancasila. Interpreting any philosophy is not all
about the exact meaning of the words; it is about context and the systematical
connections.
In legal
science there are two methods of interpretation: historical and teleological. A
historical interpretation requires an examination of the historical context in
which a statute was created. With teleological reasoning, it is the goal of a
statute that matters most.
Historically,
the first principle of Pancasila, belief in one supreme God, has been a
compromise between secular nationalists, Islamic nationalists and nationalists
from other religions. It had its origins in the first principle of the Jakarta
Charter, the obligation to hold Muslims to Shariah law.
When the
non-Muslim nationalist founders protested the charger, a compromise was
reached: The belief in one supreme God was codified into Pancasila instead.
If this
historical context is further analyzed in a goal-oriented, teleological way, it
is evident that the first principle of Pancasila was not intended to ban
atheism. It was meant to bring together the different religions of Indonesia in
a fair-minded, compromising manner.
Some might
still insist that every statute must be interpreted precisely as it was written.
This, of course, is exceedingly problematic if you consider the six officially
“recognized religions” of Indonesia: Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism,
Confucianism, Hinduism and Buddhism.
If the
notion that the first principle requires monotheism is correct, then at least
two of Indonesia’s recognized religions are obviously incompatible with
Pancasila.
Hinduism is
henotheistic, meaning Hindus acknowledge the presence of other gods despite
worshiping only one. That is why we see many gods in India such as Ganesha,
Vishnu and Shiva.
Buddhism
includes no concept of a divine creator or deity; it is considered a
nontheistic religion. Sometimes the words “a not-born, a not-brought-to-being,
a not-made, a not-conditioned“ in Buddhist scripture are cited to support the
claim that Buddhism has a creator. But a closer look at the text shows that the
words refer to nirvana, not to a god.
Are
Hinduism and Buddhism unconstitutional? Do they deserve no place in Indonesia?
Should they be banned? Our founding fathers should have anticipated this
problem.
Meanwhile,
even if the misguided literal interpretation prevails, the people who lean on
that to justify their stance against atheism will run into another problem.
There is
another foundational passage in Pancasila that addresses religious beliefs.
This one stipulates that “the belief in one and supreme God must not be forced
on another person.”
This point
is specific in nature, while the first principle is general. According to the
legal doctrine of lex specialis, specific laws overrule general laws. This
means that atheists have a right to their beliefs, and cannot be forced to
espouse the views of others. Ironically, this shows that the people who try to
force God on atheists are actually the ones infringing on Pancasila.
Atheism
does not violate Pancasila. All Indonesians may consciously and rationally
choose their own beliefs. The country’s very foundation protects their right to
do so.
Yordan
Nugraha is a student of international and European law at the University of
Groningen in the Netherlands.
"Perceptions of God" – June 6, 2010 (Kryon channeled by Lee Carroll) (Subjects: Quantum Teaching, The Fear of God, Near-death Experience, God Becomes Mythology, Worship, Mastery, Intelligent Design, Benevolent Creator,Global Unity.... etc.) (Text version)
“.. For centuries you haven't been able to think past that box of what God must be like. So you create a Human-like God with wars in heaven, angel strife, things that would explain the devil, fallen angels, pearly gates, lists of dos and don'ts, and many rules still based on cultures that are centuries old. You create golden streets and even sexual pleasures as rewards for men (of course) - all Human perspective, pasted upon God. I want to tell you that it's a lot different than that. I want to remind you that there are those who have seen it! Why don't you ask somebody who has had what you would call a near-death experience? …. “
"The Humanization of God" – Jul 16, 2011 (Kryon channelled by Lee Carroll) - (Subjects: The Humanization of God, Gaia, Benevolent Design, Shift of Human Consciousness, 2012, Guides and Angels, Communication with God, Wars in Heaven ?, The Love of God, (Old) Souls, Global Unity,.... etc.)
“… Do angels exist? Absolutely, but not as you think or have been taught. Are there helpers? Absolutely, but again, not like you think. When angels visited Humans in ancient days and the events were written about by those who were there to witness the experience, I can guarantee it was a lot different than they could express on paper. When an angel appears before a Human, it looks like a swirling ball of energy, sometimes even fire that is not hot and does not consume anything. Angels are not in Human form and never have been. They are multidimensional beings, not in 3D. Yet you want to put skin and wings on them and give them a name! Why? It makes you feel better about them. We understand that…”
“… Do angels exist? Absolutely, but not as you think or have been taught. Are there helpers? Absolutely, but again, not like you think. When angels visited Humans in ancient days and the events were written about by those who were there to witness the experience, I can guarantee it was a lot different than they could express on paper. When an angel appears before a Human, it looks like a swirling ball of energy, sometimes even fire that is not hot and does not consume anything. Angels are not in Human form and never have been. They are multidimensional beings, not in 3D. Yet you want to put skin and wings on them and give them a name! Why? It makes you feel better about them. We understand that…”
No comments:
Post a Comment