From: hsiahaan@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.culture.indonesia
Subject: Re: What is the problem ?
Date: 25 Jan 93 01:11:32 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

Hey, Mr Ginting. Finally member of our 'group' other than me appears here..
I am glad [despite our opinion difference]...

>>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 co-
>ming 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. 

Let me clarify: there are few things appropriately called 'objective'.I would
rather not use it. I'd prefer 'relatively objective' [or 'outsiders' for Bill's 
case ??].

OK, every one is biased. You did not argue on my assesment on the uniqueness
of this problem [as being Indonesian-only], so I [will] assume you agree. Hence 
who knows this problem better other than us, Indonesians ? Or would you rather 
listen to a blind on how 'to get to Serpong from Thamrin No. 5' ? You might 
think I am too strong in using 'reduced perspective validity'. Read further...
 [BTW. Eka, you're not supposed to reveal my religion. It could destroy my 
 'relative objectivity' on this discussion. Well, that's OK though...;-)  ]

>>>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.

If what are the limits and who will set them are left for each individual to 
be determined, then they would not be limits any more. Right, Eka ? A set of
limit should be made and agreed by everyone reading this newsgroup. Since that
set does not exist [yet], there should be no such discussion [at least I prefer
it that way]. 

>>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?

You recall the arrest of Indonesian journalists who seconded Nabi Muhammad's 
popularity to our president [even though it was the result of a survey] ? This
again proves this problem uniqueness [I might have saved your rear end :-)...].
Despite of who is wrong in that case, we are still by far a unique group of
people with doubtful 'democracy maturity' and system which somehow limits the
freedom of expression [with the so-called 'responsible freedom']. Your argument
that someone will be able to correct you on your 'false' ideas about other re-
ligions can only be achieved by informative campaigning, and not negative one
[Hey, this is just what those missionarists do. Right ?] 
   [Eka, c'mon. You do know the Saul -> Paulus process happened because of his
    amazing encounter with the 'Big One' and not by any 'healthy' discussion,
    don't you ? Open back again that dusty Bible of yours, will you ?...:-) ]

>>	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.
 
People are originally grouped [and for a while 'isolated']. This makes each 
group unique, which also makes their problems unique. Although similarities 
are there, solutions are undoubtfully unique from one group to another. The 
only thing that makes other group member's perspective valid is if it is about 
those similarities. The uniqueness of the solutions limits other group member's
perspective validity to only until the 'universal taste' portions of the pro-
blem(s). In other word, Bill's perspective is valid if this is a soc.cul.reli-
gions or soc.cul.universal_pro-blems [which is not !]. We can learn from so-
lutions of other groups', but do not take them for granted. 

Honestly, I feel that the only 'approriate' way of having the religion harmony
in Indonesian is not to have any 'religion friction' which includes debate a-
mong beliefers of different religions on who is right and who is wrong. Reli-
gion is just something that cannot be argued. Once you believe in one, you just
have to stick with every word of that religion's holly book. This is not consi-
dered biggotary as long as we dont see people of other religions 'dirty'.Trying
to find a meeting point between two different religions is just futile [unless
it originally does exist]. Discussions about religions have to be limited to
only on 'informative' and 'learning' purposes:
	1. Informative is for tolerance [like: what and when people of other 
religion may eat, etc.]
	2. Learning is for self-comparison and evaluation [ like: whether I 
have chosen the correct one or not ?]
Of course in this newsgroup where it is an open forum it is very hard set this
limit. That is why I would prefer not to have any discussion on religion on any
form whatsoever [unless the majority says differently]

HSIAHAAN