From: hsiahaan@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.culture.indonesia
Subject: Re: What is the problem [long !]
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:00:35 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


Eka,
[some stuffs are deleted to save bandwidth and you can put smileys where ever
you want/need]
>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.

If a problem that happens in Indonesia, happens among Indonesians and created
by Indonesians is not a unique Indonesian problem, then what would you rather
categorize it ?  
I know the similar problems [i.e religion tensions] happen every where else in
the world. But do they involve Indonesians ? Or you are saying every one in the
world is the same [more specifically: if it is about religion] ?  Now, let's 
back up a little bit: are Indonesians unique or not ? 

>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....

Calibrating measurement instruments could not guarantee the 'objectivity' of 
the measurements. First:calibrating them according to what standard ? Doesn't 
every car dealer say they are No. 1 [by their own 'calibrations'] ? Second: as 
you just said: 'in one particular condition'. The same condition must apply so
that the measurement results are 'correct' [of course 'correct' is also 'ob-
jective']. Different condiditons [watch !] LIMIT/REDUCE THE VALIDITY of those 
'calibrated' measurement instruments' results. Adjustments must be done [these 
adjustments reflects its limitations].If an 'objective' measurement instruments
are used, we might 'see' new things. But we may also 'lose' some things. We may
be confussed and deceived if we don't know the 'other conditions' that those
equipments have run through.
Other people may have acquire such knowledge that me missed, but is it apllica-
ble to our problem ? Can't you see the 'limitation/decrement' of perspective 
based on such 'knowledge' ? 
 [What would you expect your blind BPPT guy to answer: 'I feel the bus move to
  the left, then to the right, then to ...' ? Good luck ?!]

>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." 

Oh, would you play no-rule American Football ? Go ahead, but not me ! Of course
the rules are set as the game are played. But why risk 'injuries' if we can set
the rules before playing the game ?
Nobody strips your right to voice your opinion. But do you have any tolerance
toward others that might be hurt by your 'Hey-there-is-no-rule-I-can-say-what-
I-want-to-say opinion' ?
Not everybody agrees with something. But they still have to do [and doing] it. 
What you call it ? Obedience ?  Do you think everyone wants to pay tax ?

>>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

>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.  

Exactly .Refer back to your previous opinion [above] that you do not need an 
[majority] agreement before expressing something.
Just give me examples of reporting the result of a survey which is against
the popular stand [involving a religious figure and a president] happens in
other country results in the arrest of the surveyers, then I will answer the
above quetion.

>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?"

I know: faith without actions is dead. But I also have a story for you:
Let's say there is another priest lives near a dam. One day rains comes pour-
ing out the sky. He listens to the radio and the weatherman says that this rain
will continue on for several days and the closeby dam cannot stand to hold the
river much longer [let's say within 2 hour]. The dam will be destroyed. Our 
priest know running right now will be impossible. He has a boat, but is broken
[leaking in several places]. So he prays: 'God, please help me fix this boat
before the 2 hours comes'. So he starts working and working hard. The clock is
still ticking. After 1 hour 59 minutes working he noticed that he hasn't finish
ed the job. So he jump up to the boat and wait for the flood hoping the boat 
can still save him. However, just as he is ready, the rain stops. Listening to 
the radio, it says the danger is gone. He is saved. But by who ? By his acti-
ons ? By his 'help me fix my boat' pray ?
Not what you do that counts, but what God's will. Not every action based on
faith will be successful [it can even be dangerous]. We have to be wise to
know when to act and when to wait. You just have to be 'pandai' [like a dove] 
and 'licik' [like a snake].

>>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.

First: if we talk about group, there is no 'isolated' individual; because human
is a social creature. Second, if you want to talk about 'isolated' individuals, 
there will be no 'tolerance' problem, and hence the problem discussed here will
not exist. In fact I think the only problems exist among a 'non-social and iso-
lated' individual are hunger, thirst,tired,sickness & death [and a few others
that I might miss]. Most problems are created by the interactions among indivi-
duals [because as we say: every one is unique]. Now, do you agree that there 
are similarities among individuals living in the same group ? If yes, do you 
agree that these similarities make the group 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...

These three newsgroups do have non-zero  intersection set. This new set then
will be the only similarities among those three newsgroup [and I will strongly
disagree if you say one group is a subset of another, which ever group you 
choose].
Notice:			  
	x0+x1=4 .....(0) - \    
                            > A
	x1+y1=3 .....(1) - /
	x2+y1=5 .....(2) - \
                            > B
	x2+y3=1 .....(3) - /    
If x1=2 in (1), in (2) x2=4 (and no other value !). Doesn't this mean limita-
tion ? If it is required that y3>0, do you think the value x1=2 will satisfy
problem (3) ? If (2) and (3) are parts of a bigger problem  B, using the va-
lue x1=2 will be indeed unacceptable, right ?

>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.

Now, nobody says about 'preventing/banning' someone to express his [allegedly]
solution. But do you agree that Bill's 'solution' has 'limited validity' ? Or
stronger: does his solution apllicable in Indoensia ?

>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).

I am sure your priest means questioning the 'interpretation' of the Bible. 
Try read: Rev 22:19-20. Tell me what your interpretation is.
And I think it is just such a stupid mistake try to find a clause in the Bible
and interprets it to prove God's non-existance. The whole book of Bible tells
us about God's existance. If U try to find part of the Bible which refutes God's
existance, then you refutes the content of the whole Bible, which includes your
'proudly-presented' clause. Sadly, somehow I find your effort of doing this
similar to of the Babylon Tower buliders'.Also, similar tactic is done by that
L*****r guy: using God's word to test God. 

>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. 

There is no 'dirty' meaning in the word 'kafir'. This is the difinition of 
'kafir' in 'An Indoensian-English Dicitonary' by J. Echos & Hassan Shadily:
 kafir: (n) unbeliever,pagan
So, I can also use the word kafir [safely] for 'not-my-religion' believer.

>' 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. 

My experience: once you upset someone by telling him what is wrong with his/her
religion, he would not get out of that 'wound' easily. Even if discussion about
religion is conducted 'politely' [a 'subjective' word], they will politely 'get
off' [dendam]. Then, you would not be able to live peacefully or bring back 
their 'honest, broadest smile'

>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. 

Of course not !. 
But because we live in a group, we should consider others. True ?

>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.

However, to listen to one's opinion [which as you said: every one is biased], 
we have to consider his backgrounds. 
I will still vote NO to religion discussion as long as there is no set of 'e-
thic' rules determined, because:
 1. I don't want to receive [and play with] flames/curses.
 2. I don't want to lose my friends because of what I say about other religion
may [directly or not] hurt his/her feeling
If such rules have already been determined, I will be the first to post  [but
still, not negatively campaigning against other religion, but informatively 
tell people about my religion]. 

>Thanks,
Ditto

HSIAHAAN