From: eginting+@cs.cmu.edu (Eka Namara Ginting)
Subject: Re: What is the problem ?
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:02:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.011132.46715@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> hsiahaan@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>Hey, Mr Ginting. Finally member of our 'group' other than me appears here..
>I am glad [despite our opinion difference]...
>
I've been here for a while; you probably haven't noticed it but for our
differing opinions... ;-)

>>>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. 

Ah. I guess you see what I'm getting at. To quote that wonderful, crazy thinker
Nietzsche: 
	"Every seeing is relative; every knowing is perspective"

>
>You did not argue on my assesment on the uniqueness
>of this problem [as being Indonesian-only], so I [will] assume you agree. 

Not completely. At what level of abstractions are we examining the religious
tension in Indonesia? If you include every single aspect (since it may be an
instantiation of a sensitive-dependent-on-initial-condition case, where a flap
of a butterfly in Beijing yesterday at 12:01 am may impact the March futures of 
the Deutsch Mark against Yen), then one instance of a high-school student
fighting in a bus with a twist of religion involved is essentially different
from the burning of a certain church in the corner of a certain 'desa' the next
week. That is one extreme. 

On the other end of the spectrum, we have historically seen wars and fightings
induced by religious differences or in the name of religions. And I personally
believe that the religious tension problem in Indonesia is some combination of
these points in the spectrum, and thus we cannot claim uniqueness.

>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...;-)  ]
>

Do 'we' really know these problems better than anyone else?
[we == Indonesians] I cannot be so sure. 
Yes, we have experienced it directly; yes, we have been immersed in it for a
long time. But isn't it slightly possible that other people have perspectives
that allow them to acquire knowledge that otherwise may have been missed by us?
Since you are a scientist, think about measurement instruments. Is it always
true that a measurement instrument that has been calibrated to measure in one
particular condition is always capable of picking up everything? Isn't it
possible that another instrument, one that has not been conditioned to that
condition, may actually pick up signals that otherwise would have been missed?
And as for your 'reduced perspective validity' example, I can be smart alecky
and say that 'Of course I also listen to the blind man. He may be from Serpong,
and work at BPPT!' You never know....
[Smiley intentionally left out]

>>>>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 ? 

Relativitism, my dear Watson. 
See further...

>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]. 
>
There are a few problems with this idea.
One is that you would *never* have a set of limit that is agreeable to
*everyone*. Barring absolute agreement, would you then suggest a majority rule?
If yes, aren't we creating a tyranny of the majority? If I am of the minority,
who disagrees with the majority's approved rule, what right has the
majority group to strip me out of my right to voice my opinion?
Further, concluding that the absence of such a set of limits should imply that
there should be no discussion is backwards. It's like saying that
"There shall be no businesses conducted until we drafted a regulation
concerning business practices." 

>>>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
:-)...].

How does this prove uniqueness?
Again if I abstract it to this level: has there been an incident/society in
which voicing an opinion about a religious figure, contrary to the popular
stand results in personal injury/harm/loss? I believe you wouldn't hesitate to
say yes.  

>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 ?] 

Really?  Who's that wise guy who sez that 'A wise man learns more from a fool
than a fool from a wise man ?' 
I certainly hope to learn and update my opinions even from the most negative
ones, not just the informative ones.

>   [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 ?...:-) ]
>
Ah. 
Reminds me of an anecdote about a priest who is sitting on top of his
church's roof when the whole village was flooded. He prays, and prays, "God,
please do not forsake me. I have done everything you wish for. Please safe me."
A lifeboat comes along, asking the father to join in, but the priest refuses,
"No, son. Thank you. I'm waiting for God to save me." The water rises to reach
the bottom of the curch's cross. A chopper comes by, and the crew inside yells,
"Come on, father. This is our last trip in. Pick up the rope and we'll take
you out of here." But the priest again refuses, "Thank you, my son, but no,
thanks. I'm waiting for God to save me." So the father dies, and goes to
heaven, where he meets with God. He angrily cries at God, "God, why have you
forsaken me? Why didn't you save me?" To which God replies, "Who *(# *($# do
you think sent those boats and choppers?"

>>>	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). 

Try substitute people with individual and see what you get. (i.e. zoom in)
Individuals are isolated. Each individual is unique. Solutions differ from one
individual to another. By this argument, you wouldn't reach a conclusion when
you talk about individual interactions, because each is unique.

>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 !]. 

This, to be frank, is absurd.
Especially since these three newsgroups (if they do exist) do not have empty
intersections with each other. Differential calculus is still as valid if
applied in calculating the distance of a parabolic movement in Physics as if it
is applied in computing a point of maximum profit in Economics.
Different domains, yet enough similarities...

>We can learn from so-lutions of other groups', but do not take them for
>granted.  
>
Now this one I agree with. But please don't prevent others from presenting what
they think as a solution - be it in the analysis part (which may include
negative campaigning and flaming) or the synthesis part.

>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'.

This, I must point out, is not the way I look at religion. I went to Catholic
Junior and Senior High Schools and the priest there taught me one very
important thing about approaching religion: to critically question, even the
Bible.  We even made jokes about how badly it would be if you 'stick with every
word of that religion's holly [sic] book' (for example, I can find you a clause
in the Bible that says that God does not exist).

Now as far as looking at people of other religions, I was told that according
to Islam, people who are not Islam are "kafir." Does this fit your definition
of 'dirty'? Some Moslem intellectuals in Indonesia (Gus Dur or Cak Nur, I
believe) say that there are different levels of 'kafir'-ness, depending on
whether the person actually believes in certain religions or not. 

>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 ?]

As I understand it, we are not trying to 'find a meeting point between two
different religions.' What I expect to learn from exchanges (be it in a polite
manner or flames and curses) about religions is that I would learn about the
people, the individuals involved, and how their religions influence them. These
inputs, I hope, would enable me to live peacefully with them, since I know
where they get off and where they would give me their broadest smile. 

>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

Please, Hisar. I think this is what's wrong with us. Just because the majority
says something then we immediately discard our opinion?
I am not suggesting that we all become rebels, but succumbing to every point
that the tyranny of majority decides is one sure way to regress into
mediocrity. 

The executive summary of my points is:
Discarding one person's opinion on the basis that that person does not have the
necessary background is a great loss, and the aci is a great medium for any
cultural discussions, including but not limited to religious (and I would add,
racial) tensions, given the existence of these problems in our world today, in
Indonesia or in any other countries.

Thanks,

--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>