From: eginting+@cs.cmu.edu (Eka Namara Ginting)
Subject: Re: What is the problem ?
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:02:41 GMT

Completing this technical report may be a better thing to do, but temptation of
an interesting discussion sometimes is too hard to ignore...

In article <1993Jan21.145903.46603@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> hsiahaan@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>
>Mr Bill Alves writes:
>>Well, I wasn't going to get drawn into this, but since you asked, I vote
>>a very emphatic YES. I am neither Muslim nor Christian, but I found the
>>posts very interesting. I most certainly did not find them insulting nor
>>offensive. It is true that I am not Indonesian, but I am a subscriber
>>to this newsgroup. I believe my perspective is just as valid.

I would like to second Bill's opinion about discussing religions and the
interactions of their followers in Indonesia; I think it's a good idea to talk
about it, especially given the current religious tension in Indonesia (or the
world for that matter).
>
>Now, Sir, keep in mind that your are religion-less; this may bias your
>opinion on this. Further, you are not an Indonesian which reduces your
>'perspective validity' in this issue (remember, this issue is not only
>unique to religion-owners , but to Indonesian in particular. Also,
>note that the debated postings are by non-Indonesians). Not that I dont 
>want people like you (religion-less/non-Indonesian) to participate in this 
>news-group, but what you are not may affect your opinion.
>
Now, now, now. Don't be too harsh, Hisar.
What you are saying is that one person's opinion is context dependent; who
he/she is, where and how he/she lives, and all other conditions and
characteristics of the environment that one person has been and is currently
embedded in have a significant influence in how one thinks. OK. That's a simple
fact that I don't think anyone would dispute.

But by this very same token, one may say that you also suffer from biases coming
from your environment (i.e. being a Christian and Indonesian, and having been
raised and living in Indonesia, American educated, etc), that may result in an
inability to see the religious tension problem from an "objective" point of
view. 

>>In my opinion, religious tension is not created by talking about religious
>>issues. Quite the opposite. Silence and censorship create the kind of
>>ignorance and lack of communication that promotes stereotypes and intol-
>>erance. Religious prejudice and other forms of bias are overcome by knowing
>>members of other religions as people, by trying to understand (if not agree
>>with) their belief systems and customs, and by openly communicating.

In general I agree with this statement. There are, however, limits to what can
and should be talked about openly and what cannot or should not. How and who
should determine the limits? I think it should be left to each individual.
>
>I agree. Talking about religious issues may not create religious tension, as
>long as several considitons are met:
>	1. It is not a negative campaign about other's religions. 
>You see, this is just what the potings debated are all about. They are not
>informative about the writers' religion(s), but rather discuss what is wrong 
>about other religion according to the writers'. This certainly can create 
>tension.

Well, what if I have a very negative (false) opinion about a religion? Should I
be able to say so or should I not? It may be the case that by my posting of my
negative opinions, a certain amount of tension arises; but wouldn't you think
that it would also be possible that someone more knowledgable than me come up
and convince me that my opinions are false? Of course I won't trade my opinions
because of a single posting refuting my beliefs, but it will have an effect. A
good dose of "healthy" discussions (of course it will be spiced with flames
here and there) will probably correct or at least soften my negative false
opinions. You may remember the Saul -> Paulus conversion, if you care to look
it up in the Bible. Would you rather miss this opportunity? 

>	2. Rather than an open discussion on a newsgroup, it is better to
>have such discussion on one-on-one or special-group base (hopefully among the
>mature-minded participants). So, why to A.C.I while there are soc.rel.* 
>newsgroups ? You may argue that religion is part of culture which makes it OK
>to talk about it here. Well, then you must know Indonesian culture better
>before you issue your version of 'valid perspective'.
>	

Religion *is* one part of culture. (Talk to any anthropologist, and he/she will
probably be able to convince you of this).

Now, suppose Bill does not know Indonesian culture at all. Does this make
his perspective be an invalid one? If you agree that there are aspects of
humanity that are common to all human beings, regardless of their environments
and whatever other factors there may be, then everyone has a valid perspective
when talking about humanity. Bringing it down to the religious tension issue,
can one be sure that the religious tension in Indonesia absolutely has no
similarities with religious tensions around the world, now or in the past? Or
to take it even further, as Bill brought up the racial conflict here in the US
as an example, would you be absolutely sure that there is nothing one can learn
about this racial conflict here that may be applicable to the religious tension
in Indonesia? I for one would be intellectually lying if I answer these
questions in affirmative.

The supposition above, however, may be as furthest from the truth as
possible... 

>>You may disagree, and that's fine, but this isn't Indonesia - this is
>>the usenet: an open forum for people all around the world. I subscribe to
>>this newsgroup, among many others, because I want to read and discuss
>>ideas that I would never otherwise be exposed to.
>
>So, you've been exposed to it, and hopefully you learn about our culture and 
>our stand on religions and religion discussions.  
>
Please forgive me if I read your sentence above by substituting "Hisar's" for
every occurence of "our" .....

>>>I think you are
>>>not familiar with the situation in Indonesia regarding religion aside from 
>>>the fact that 80% of Indonesia is technically Muslim.
>
>>I think the poster was familiar with this fact, which is why he thought that
>>this would be an appropriate newsgroup.
>
>On contrary, I think he is not. That is why he posted to A.C.I. The only thing
>that I think motivated him to post his writing here is his stereotyping of all
>Indonesians are Moslems and (Indonesian) Moslems have small tolerance on (In-
>donesian) Non-Moslems.
>
>>>while most
>>>educated people does not care what religion their friends are in, as long as
>>>they are nice people, the topic of religion is a very sensitive matter.
>
>>Then, to me, the answer is more education and the teaching of religious
>>tolerance...
>	     ...APPROPRIATELY.
>
And how, may I ask, does one determine what is appropriate and what is not? The 
whole beauty (and burden) of this wonderful computer network is that it now
lies on the individual poster. I think it was Voltaire who said, "I may not
like what you say, but I'll protect your right to say what you want to say"
[Or something like that]

>HSIAHAAN

I'd better finish up writing this technical report....
;-)

--Eka Ginting


-- 
  School of Computer Science
  Carnegie Mellon University		"Life is the purest form of art"
  (412) 268-2993, fax: (412) 681-5739
  Eka.Ginting@cs.cmu.edu		#include <disclaimer.h>
Newsgroups: alt.culture.indonesia