Article

Cegah Kasus 'Innocence of Muslims', SBY Tawarkan Konsensus Internasional

New York, - Di tengah ruang sidang utama Markas Perserikatan Bangsa Bangsa (PBB), Presiden SBY dengan lantang menyuarakan konsensus internasional untuk mencegah permusuhan berlatar agama seperti kasus Innocence of Muslims yang menggemparkan dunia. Menurut SBY, kebebasan berekspresi itu tidak mutlak.

Hal ini disampaikan SBY saat menyampaikan pidato dalam Debat Umum Sidang Majelis Umum ke-67 PBB, di markas PBB, New York, Amerika Serikat, Selasa (25/9/2012) waktu setempat. Mendapat nomor urut 9 setelah antara lain Presiden AS Barack Obama, SBY menyampaikan pidato selama 15 menit.

Dalam pidatonya, SBY menekankan mengenai budaya universal saling toleransi dan menghargai keyakinan beragama satu sama lain. Sebagai bangsa yang menjunjung tinggi keragaman budaya dan agama, Indonesia menyerukan saling menghormati dan pengertian di antara orang-orang yang memiliki keyakinan berbeda-beda.

SBY prihatin bahwa pencemaran nama baik agama itu sampai sekarang masih ada. "Meskipun ada inisiatif dari negara-negara PBB dan juga forum lain, pencemaran nama baik agama terus berlanjut. Kami telah melihat lagi salah satu wajah yang buruk dalam film 'Innocence of Muslims' yang sekarang menyebabkan kegemparan internasional," kata SBY.

Deklarasi Universal Hak Asasi Manusia menegaskan bahwa dalam melaksanakan kebebasan berekspresi, setiap orang harus memperhatikan moralitas dan ketertiban umum. "Kebebasan berekspresi itu tidak mutlak. Oleh karena itu, saya meminta sebuah instrumen internasional untuk secara efektif mencegah hasutan permusuhan atau kekerasan berdasarkan agama atau kepercayaan. Instrumen ini, produk dari konsensus internasional, yang masyarakat dunia harus mematuhinya," ujar SBY.

Untuk mendukung hal ini, SBY mendorong adanya dialog antar agama, peradaban, dan kebudayaan. "Tapi tentu saja dialog ini tidak hanya sekadar dialog, tetapi harus diterjemahkan ke dalam kerjasama yang sebenarnya sehingga masyarakat dari berbagai budaya dan agama dapat datang menghormati satu sama lain. Komunitas ini akan menjadi benteng bagi perdamaian," terang SBY.

Dalam pidatonya, SBY juga menyinggung mengenai konflik Suriah. Menurut dia, konflik Suriah ini sebagai bukti bahwa belum ada instrumen yang memadai di PBB dalam menangani seluruh spektrum konflik masyarakat di semua belahan dunia. "Oleh karena itu, Indonesia menegaskan kembali seruannya bagi penghentian segera kekerasan di Suriah, yang telah mengambil banyak korban dari warga sipil tak berdosa," jelas dia.

SBY berharap PBB bisa menemukan cara yang lebih baik dalam menangani perselisihan dan pertikaian sebagaimana PBB bisa menyelesaikan konflik-konflik seperti di Angola, Bosnia, Kamboja, Timor Leste, dan banyak lagi. SBY juga berharap konfik di Laut China Selatan juga akan selesai dengan damai.

Menurut SBY, PBB juga harus bisa mengantisipasi tantangan keamanan abad ke-21. Saat ini, sudah tidak ada ancaman bencana nuklir dan tidak ada prospek perang dunia yang telah dua kali merusak dunia pada abad ke-20. Ekonomi global telah berkembang sangat baik. Setiap bangsa saling bergantung dan perlu mengedepankan kerja sama internasional.

"Kini, kita telah pindah dari era perang dingin ke era perdamaian yang hangat. Dalam hal 'perdamaian yang hangat', saat ini dunia tetap terjebak dengan arsitektur keamanan internasional yang sudah usang yang masih mencerminkan kondisi abad ke-20, padahal seharusnya dengan arsitektur ekonomi global yang telah berkembang lebih baik untuk menyongsong abad ke-21," jelas SBY.

Comment:                                                                                                            

in this case the conflict should be related to the belief that the trust should be minimized because it is very personal and is not equal among each other. So as believers we should have mutual respect among one another and respect for religious differences among us.

Article

Religious freedom concerns

November 08, 2012

Religious freedom is an entirely new issue. The issue at hand is whether people should be allowed to express and live by their religious beliefs in public or whether the state to ensure equality should be allowed to confine religious behavior to various worship services.

The former is the status quo of American law. It has been held that it is an affront to force a people to go against their religious consciences. An example of this is the provision in American law that citizens of Amish or Mennonite profession do not have to serve in the armed forces because of the fact that war is against the professed beliefs of their religion.

The HHS mandate supported by governmental leaders such as Obama, Clinton, and Pelosi, proposes that Catholic Institutions in order to ensure a fair society should provide insurance coverage for contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortion inducing drugs, all of which are contrary to the professed beliefs of the Catholic Church. This hasn't been proposed before in American law. This legislation sets the precedent that religious conscience should only be respected when it does not conflict with the wishes of the state.

Such a precedent when investigated more closely would make it easier for the state to force people of other religious beliefs to go against their consciences whenever they come in conflict with the needs of the state such as forcing Mennonites engage in war for the protection of society. Such an intolerant precedent must not be taken lightly.

Comment:

Every human being has the right to choose their own religion. When someone has to choose their religion, then they are already convinced that their chosen beliefs. the most important thing is one's belief that their religion is very personal and should never be combined with other things like business

Task 2

Task 2

1. What do you know about melting pot and salad bowl?

Melting pot is a place where a variety of races, cultures, or individuals assimilate into a cohesive whole.

Salad bowl is a the variety of different ethnic group in the modern american society symbolize the "ingredients" which reserve their own flavor and texture while constributing to the aggregate "salad"

2. Did American people see melting pot as a model to follow? Explain!

I think America has no native culture, but get rid of the original culture of the Indian tribes. Along with the increasingly modern times, people of different ethnicities coming to America now dominated by ethnic whites. By because it is united to become one of the dominant culture "melting pot". "melting pot" itself has meaning a place where a variety of races, cultures, or individuals assimilate into a cohesive whole.

Being a christian in pluralistic society

Only a few decades ago, well past the Second World War and into the early Sixties, American culture was almost universally regarded as based upon Christianity. Most leaders, as well as people generally, not only accepted this basis as a fact, but also more-or-less firmly agreed that that is how things ought to be.

This was especially true of educational institutions. Speeches by the Presidents of even the state schools, such as the University of California at Berkeley, often could have passed for Christian sermons. And even as late as 1965, when I came on the faculty of the University of Southern California, the prayers which the Chaplain delivered on public occasions were noticeably Christian prayers by a clearly Christian person. While that was viewed by some individuals with scepticism, boredom, or even resentment, the cultural prerogative that Christianity enjoyed was generally conceded a certain right.

No longer!

Now the university Chaplain, here or at other secular schools where there still is such an office, would never mention the name of Jesus as a basis of public prayer, but will with great care work in a little Taoism, some Vedanta or Islam, or even words that can be construed as invoking "The Goddess." And the university President may be a member of some Christian denomination. But Christian ideas and motivations will no longer be appealed to in whatever directions or appeals he or she may publicly express.

Anyone who now uses distinctively Christian language in the general university setting will at bestbe treated as giving voice to just one cultural bias among others. More likely, they will be treated as especially benighted or obnoxious precisely because of the exclusive role assumed for Christianity in past American culture.

Today the Christian is often regarded as the big, bad bully who has been humbled and must be punished for past misdeeds. One must accept as a fact that university life is now immersed in an irrational, but historically powerful swing against Christianity. Nothing can be done about this in the short run except recognize it and prepare to stand in the midst of it.

As followers of Jesus, it will be helpful to keep a number of things in mind:

First, pluralism is not a bad arrangement. It is a good thing. It is, in fact, a social expression of the kind of respect and care for the individual that is dictated by trust in God and love of neighbor. Therefore the Christian does not oppose pluralism as a social principle. Pluralism simply means that social or political force is not to be used to suppress the freedom of thought and expression of any citizen, or even the practice that flows from it, insofar as that practice is not morally wrong.

Pluralism does not mean that everyone is equally right in what they think and do. It does not mean that we must agree with the views or adopt the practices of those of other persuasions. It does not mean that we must like those views or practices. It does not mean that we will not appropriately express our disagreement or dislike for other viewpoints.

Pluralism also does not mean that we will not try, in respectful ways, to change the views or practices of others, by all appropriate means of persuasion, where we believe them to be mistaken. In fact, pluralism should, precisely, secure a social context in which full and free interchange of different views on life and reality can be conducted to the greatest advantage of all. Thin-skinned and narrow-minded people may not particularly enjoy a pluralistic society, but their discomfort is vastly outweighed by the benefits to all of open and free interchange of information and ideas. The Christian, perhaps more than anyone else, has reason to favor such interchange and be confident about its outcome.

Second, the Christian gospel does not require cultural privilege or even social recognition in order to flourish. God's work is not disadvantaged by persecution, even to death, and much less then by mere pluralism. As Christians we stand now in the Kingdom of the Heavens, and it is always true that they who are for us are more than they that be against us. (I Kings 6:16) It is always true that the One who is in us is greater than the one who is in the world. (I John 4:4)

On the other hand, there can be little doubt that if the teachings and example of Jesus were generally followed in a given society, that society would be remarkably better off than any which followed another way. The constant drumbeat of moral failure and incompetence now heard from American institutions--from the universities and scientific or artistic communities to business corporations, the Church and sports--simply would not exist if Jesus were trusted and obeyed. There would be no sexual harassment, no gutted savings and loans, no homelessness or gang violence in a society that substantially accepted Christian principles of life. It is not the Christian who loses when social prejudice goes against Christ, but the society itself.

Third, pluralism in American society means that the Christian has just as much right to be explicitly a follower of Jesus, or a practitioner of traditional Christian culture, as any non-Christian or anti-Christian has to be explicitly what they are.

The pronounced "victimization" structure of contemporary moral thinking obscures this. Non-Christian perspectives see themselves as victims of past Christian domination of the social order. This often translates into an atmosphere where the non-Christian group is permitted to be assertive in ways that Christians or Christian groups are not. A kind of "redress" is thought to be in order, with the effect that the Christian becomes "fair game" for attacks and abuse that would quickly be branded as discriminatory if directed at anyone else.

From within our faith, of course, we should expect to be attacked, and even attacked "unfairly." So we are not thrown off course or even particularly surprised when it occurs. But we should also understand that that is not a part of what it means to be a good citizen in a pluralistic society. In appropriately Christlike ways we should point out to those involved that they are discriminating against us on the basis of our religion, and remind them that there is legal recourse available to us in such matters. This is especially needed in the university setting, as a shock to its internal authority system. It might provide the university with an occasion for re-evaluating its current anti-Christian biases, which are badly in need of review.

Fourth, we must keep in mind that truth and reality are not in themselves pluralistic. If your gas tank is empty, social acceptance of your right to believe that it is full will not help you get your car to run. Everything is just exactly what it is, and you can develop cultural traditions, vote, wish, or whatever you please, and that will not change a thing.

Truth and reality do not adapt to us. It is up to us to adapt to them. A four thousand year old tradition does not become truer as the years go by. If it is false or wrong, it simply continues to be a long-standing error. If it is popular, it is widespread. If adopted by the powerful, it is authoritative. But it is still wrong. Acceptance of its right to exist in a pluralistic society does not make it any more correct, and will be of no help to those following it when they finally run into reality.

Some of my intellectual friends say that this is true in the domain of "fact," but that religion is the realm of "faith." They are victims of the unfortunate delusion of current culture that "fact" is limited to what is sense-perceptible. Hence they say that whether past or current living species where created by God or not, for example, is a matter of "faith." The implication is that for faith things are, somehow, as you think them to be. Much of what is now written in support of pluralism or "inclusivism" in religion assumes that there is no "way things are" with God, or at least that we cannot know how they are. Hence all views of God are said to be equally true because all are equally in the dark--an astonishingly fallacious inference.

Now we must keep in mind that all of this really has nothing to do with pluralism as a social principle. We have already pointed out that pluralism, the rejection of social force to suppress divergent opinions or practices, does not mean that we concede all views to be equally right. Nor does it mean that they are all equally wrong, and therefore have an equal right to exist.

"Inclusivism" stabs at the heart of Christian faith, which claims that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. This claim is either true or it is not, just as God either created life on earth or not. And it matters a great deal what the truth is here and whether or not we believe it. As Christians we cannot just say: "Anything goes." And we most certainly are not saying that when we stand up for the right of all groups to be free of social suppression of their beliefs.

Finally, Christians in a pluralistic society, where there is no presumption in favor of their beliefs or practices, but perhaps a strong bias against, are in the very best position to show the true excellence of the Way of Christ. When Elijah called the prophets of Baal to the contest on Mount Carmel, he gave them every advantage that could be given. And when it came his turn to call for fire from heaven to consume his sacrifice, he had his altar and sacrifice flooded three times over with water before he prayed. The "disadvantage" of the water proved to be no problem for Jehovah, who answered by fire to consume the sacrifice.

Things have not much changed. Our Mount Carmel may be our university, or our business or profession, and the floods of social discrimination may flow against us. This is only to make all the more obvious, to those with eyes to see, that God is with us, and that the life of His resurrected Son is effectual in every dimension of our existence. We welcome our life in a pluralistic society as the very condition most favorable to our own sure knowledge of God, as our aspirations and our accomplishments testify that He is the one at work in us to will as well as to do the good things He desires for His world.

Comment:

            America is now a democratic country, as in the case of the Christian religion in particular every citizen the the freedom to embrace Christianity or not, and also the language of the bible can be used in teaching.

Negara dan agama dalam masyarakat pluralistik

Masih adakah Indonesia di masa depan jika kekerasan berlatar agama terus terjadi? Ada apa dengan toleransi antar umat beragama dewasa ini hingga perbedaan selalu berujung pertikaian? Ke mana spirit kerukunan yang merupakan identitas bangsa Indonesia? Lantas, kebijakan apa yang mestinya diperankan negara untuk merawat pluralitas Indonesia?

Pertanyaan-pertanyaan di atas relevan diajukan seiring masih kerap terjadinya amuk massa berlabel agama, sekaligus merupakan refleksi atas peringatan hari ulang tahun Sumpah Pemuda ke-83 beberapa hari lalu.

Terjadinya konflik berlatar SARA sesungguhnya menegaskan bahwa intoleransi masih merajalela, Bhineka Tunggal Ika dalam ancaman, dan kerukunan antarumat beragama dan penganut kepercayaan berada pada titik mengkhawatirkan.

Tentu Bung Karno dan Bung Hatta, tidak pernah menduga bahwa Indonesia bakal diporak-porandakan aneka konflik horisontal bernuansa agama. Padahal, dahulu kedua tokoh berhasil menyatukan anak bangsa dari berbagai latar belakang suku, agama, ras, dan golongan untuk melawan kolonialis. Bahkan jauh sebelum proklamasi 1945, Soekarno, Hatta dan para pendiri Republik lainnya telah sukses mewujudkan kebhinekaan dalam keekaan melalui ikrar Sumpah Pemuda 28 Oktober 1928.

Tragisnya, kini spirit “berbeda dalam persatuan” dan “bersatu dalam perbedaan” yang diinisiasi lewat Sumpah Pemuda tampak makin redup. Kebersamaan terasa rapuh. Hal ini membuktikan Indonesia sesungguhnya belum merdeka dalam toleransi dan kemajemukan. Kebangsaan Indonesia tengah terpental jauh ke belakang.

Peran Negara

Menyikapi berbagai peristiwa anarkis berlatar agama, pemerintah berupaya mencari solusi terbaik. Namun, tepatkah dalam negara demokrasi, negara (baca: pemerintah) bertanggung jawab terhadap kualitas keimanan warganya agar masuk surga? Berwenangkah negara memberi stigma sesat dan tidak sesat pada warganya?

Terkait dengan hal ini, negara tampaknya telah salah kaprah menjalankan tanggung jawabnya. Urusan yang mestinya menjadi wewenang negara semisal memberantas korupsi, mengatasi kemacetan, menangani banjir, memerangi kemiskinan, menyediakan pendidikan dan kesehatan murah-berkualitas, jauh dari optimal dikelola dan dijalankan negara. Sebaliknya, negara latah mengurus iman umat yang sebenarnya di luar tanggung jawabnya.

Negara perlu belajar dari syair lagu Iwan Fals berjudul “Manusia Setengah Dewa”. Lewat lagunya, sang musisi menjelaskan distingsi antara tanggung jawab negara dan yang bukan tanggung jawab negara. Berikut petikan syairnya, “…Masalah moral masalah akhlak, biar kami cari sendiri. Urus saja moralmu, urus saja akhlakmu. Peraturan yang sehat yang kami mau. Tegakkan hukum setegak-tegaknya. Adil dan tegas tak pandang bulu. Pasti kuangkat engkau, menjadi manusia setengah dewa”.

Yang tepat, dalam perspektif konstitusional tidak ada kategori warga negara yang sesat atau saleh, yang ada adalah warga negara yang disiplin dan warga negara yang kriminal karena melanggar hukum. Pengajar Filsafat dari Universitas Indonesia (UI), Rocky Gerung menyatakan negara wajib memisahkan keyakinan iman individu dengan perilakunya di hadapan hukum. Negara tidak bisa menghukum warganya karena pikiran maupun keyakinan religiusnya. Maka, sesat atau salehnya warga negara, bukan wilayah otoritas negara sebab yang berdaulat di Republik Indonesia adalah pasal-pasal konstitusi, bukannya ayat-ayat kitab suci.

Konstitusi Republik Indonesia tegas mengamanatkan agar negara melindungi dan menjamin hak hidup segenap warga negara Indonesia, apapun keyakinan yang dianutnya. Maksudnya, negara tidak boleh memusuhi keyakinan apapun. Negara harus netral dan mengambil jarak yang sama terhadap semua agama dan keyakinan sesuai prinsip persamaan dan keadilan yang merupakan nilai fundamental dalam demokrasi.

Itu berarti, perlu etika dalam berbeda pendapat. Wacana harus dilawan dengan wacana, bukan dengan pentungan atas nama Tuhan, atau fatwa sesat. Karena itu, sikap toleransi dalam perbedaan menjadi penting. Menghargai pluralitas kehidupan berbangsa merupakan bagian dari penghayatan Bhineka Tunggal Ika dan Pancasila.

Penting disadari, peran negara adalah menjamin kebebasan atau otonomi warganya, bukan meniadakannya. Termasuk kebebasan menganut atau menetapkan agama atau kepercayaan sesuai pilihannya. Karena itu, negara wajib menindak tegas pelaku kekerasan yang merenggut kebebasan warga lainnya. Pantang bagi negara mendiamkannya, sebab itu berarti negara melakukan kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan (violence by omossion).

Dalam tatanan demokrasi, tidak ada entitas lain di masyarakat yang boleh menggunakan instrumen kekerasan, kecuali (aparat) negara. Max Weber menyatakan, negara memegang the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force. Hal ini bukan hanya bertujuan menjaga kedaulatan negara, tetapi sekaligus menjaga ketertiban di masyarakat. Tanpa monopoli penggunaan kekerasan oleh negara, tertib masyarakat akan punah.

Kesalehan Sosial

Pemahaman atas nilai-nilai agama seringkali memunculkan wajah paradoksal agama. Pada satu sisi menampilkan sosok lembut, pada sisi lain sosok sangar-menakutkan. Tak heran, hanya karena berbeda keyakinan, ada kelompok warga yang merasa berhak menindas hak hidup warga lainnya. Maka, terkait pemahaman atas nilai-nilai agama, teolog legendaris Karen Armstrong menyatakan setelah ia berinteraksi dengan hal-hal ilahiah, ia sampai pada satu kesimpulan bahwa teologi yang baik adalah yang menawarkan keramahan dan kedamaian kepada mereka yang berbeda, bukannya permusuhan dan kekerasan. Itu berarti, teologi yang buruk adalah yang mengajarkan permusuhan, merawat kebencian serta menyuburkan pertikaian. Yang pasti, Tuhan yang disembah adalah Tuhan yang mengajarkan perdamaian, kasih dan persaudaraan. Maka, sebagai umat beragama, agar masuk surga, selain fokus mencapai kesalehan indivual dengan menjalin relasi intim dengan Tuhan, umat beragama perlu mengupayakan kesalehan sosial dengan berempati, berdamai dan bersolider dengan sesama yang berbeda,

Di sinilah negara dan pemerintah bisa berperan, yaitu dengan memfasilitasi dan mendorong suasana di mana kesalehan sosial bisa tumbuh subur dan bukannya malah bernafsu mengurus moralitas dan iman pribadi warganya, yang sesungguhnya merupakan perbuatan lancang karena mencaplok otoritas Tuhan. ***

*Penulis, Staf Pengajar Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik (FISIP) Universitas Nasional, Jakarta, Presenter News and Talks TVRI Nasional, Jakarta.

Comment:

            Current sense of tolerance of Indonesian society began to fade. It can be seen from the fighting between students lately. Differences should there be diversity in the community. When there is no longer diversity anymore, Indonesia as a bigger cultural diversity will be lost.

Task 1

Task 1 (pluralistic societies)

1. Give the explanation of pluralistic societies?

            Pluralistic societies ia a society comprised of people from numerous different cultural and ethnic background. Although some integration and acculturation is only natural, a pluralistic society is one that acknowledges and allows for the cultural diversity of its citizens.

2. Whether Indonesian is pluralistic societies? If yes, then give the evindences of it.

Indeed yes, Indonesian is pluralistic societies. As you can see so many cultures, arts and languages in Indonesia. Those are the product of every single region from Sabang to Merauke. Every culture from different region have their own characteristic and it makes culture in Indonesia uniqueness. Bali for example, when local people had a great day like “nyepi”, muslims don’t use a microphone to voice azan. It means that muslims have a great respect to hindu. That bit of example of evidences of pluralistic societies. Other example of pluralistic societies in Indonesia is Bangka Belitung people. Although different religions and races, harmony created between the descendants of the Chinese and muslims.

3. Based on your own definition, what is culture? What are the relationships between cultures to society?

            Culture is a learned pattern of behavior and is a way in which person lives his life. The relationships between cultures to society is because cultures is a product of society. Every culture interpret their society, so that’s why cultures related to society itself.