About the Limit

The Minister of Religious Affairs, Suryadharma Ali has been fervently responding to the upcoming judicial review and possible appeal of Act Number 1/PNPS/1965, titled the “Anticipation of Abusing and/or Disgracing Religion”. Beyond making harsh statements in the media, he has dedicated the entirety of his energy to sabotaging the appeal. Reportedly, he has gathered Islamic social organizations, including non-democratic ones, to fight against this attempt to bring equality before the law to the people of Indonesia.

I would like to respond to recent statements made by the Minister of Religious Affairs and the Minister of Law and Human Rights. My response not of value because both ministers are devout Muslims; it is of value because they are public officials who speak with the voice of the ruling government. Therefore, their statements affect the relationship between citizen and government, between society and state.

The Limit of Religion

Ali stated that the government officially recognizes six religions in Indonesia, namely Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. [Republika, 27th January 2010].

This statement is problematical because, first, there is no government decree concerning the stipulation of official religions in Indonesia. The PNPS law does not mention official or recognized religions. Yet, the Circular Letter of Minister of the Interior, No. 477/74054/1978, on the guideline for filling in the religion column on Indonesian ID cards mentions that the recognized religions in Indonesia are Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism and Buddhism. However, the Constitutional Court’s chief justice, Mahfud, declared that the letter is problematical since it is intended to instruct one on the administrative guidelines of filling in the columns on an ID card rather than determining new policy, which is beyond the authority of the Interior Minister.

Second, the definition of some religions as “official” religion implies that other religions are un-official or unrecognized. This poses a serious problem in terms of the principle of freedom of religion, which must be adopted by the state once it ratifies the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The limiting of religious practices to those that are “official” means limiting people’s right to consensually embrace a religious faith of their choice. In fact, millions of Indonesian citizens feel that they are not practitioners of any of Indonesia’s six officially recognized religions.

Third, limiting the citizenry’s choice of faiths to the six officially recognized religions runs directly counter to the concept of religious freedom and the ideological basis upon which a democratic state rests.

The Minister of Religious Affairs worries about the emergence of new religious groups once the PNPS Law is annulled. In fact, the birth of new religions, as well as the death of older faiths, is part of the historical process to which all societies are subject. History necessitates never-ending change. Substantially, religion is related to human thought and belief. Nobody knows when human thinking and movement will end. How can we limit humans from thinking and believing? Why should we worry about the emergence of new religions? Have not all religions, at one point or another, been new? 

On the other hand, the requirement of the state is to stand above all groups. The state must be religion, race and tribe neutral. Favoring of one group above another is discrimination.

Fourth, the limitation of religions to those that are officially recognized ignores the anthropological realities of this pluralist country. On the level of policy implementation, this limitation has led to compulsory hypocrisy; citizens who do not believe in one the official religions must still identify themselves with one of these religions on their ID cards. Millions of Sikhs, Bahai, Jews, and devotees to local-traditional beliefs, which existed before the rise of the official religions, have become the victims of this limitation.

This limitation also denies the fact that a majority group in a country can be minority in other country. If every country enforces their own preferential policies based on religious affiliation, millions of Muslims will be consequently discriminated against in other countries.

The Limit of Freedom

Meanwhile, the Minister of Law and Human Rights, Patrialis Akbar, stated that the appeal by NGO activists is equal to an appeal for unlimited freedom (Suara Merdeka, 4th February). Is this true? Does he not know that there is no such thing called as unlimited freedom? Does he not understand that these sorts of blind accusations are what are pushing the petitioners into pushing for the appeal?

I am sure that the Minister of Law and Human Rights is fully aware that government can limit the freedom of religion, just as it is stated in ICCPR and Law No. 39/1999 which protects human rights. This constitutional limitation aims to maintain the public order, protect the safety, health, and morality of society, while defending its basic rights and freedoms.

I am also sure that the Minister is fully aware that freedom of religion is a right which can not be derogated, though religious freedom can be circumscribed in terms of expression, it can not be restricted in terms of the religious belief.

Apart from the above legal justifications, we must also come to a conclusion concerning the impossibility of unlimited freedom, because individual freedom must automatically be limited by another individual’s freedom. This is the important limit determined by natural law which any human law cannot countermand.

Hence, let us rethink the limit.

This article is edited by Christian Kolbe