Religion and the State
Illustration: Didie SW
Heated political tension ahead of the Jakarta gubernatorial election in April 2017, especially between those deemed the politically sectarian and those seen as the nationalists, can be seen in the context of macropolitics as a manifestation of our uneasiness as a nation in dealing with religion-state relations.
The turbulence is a mere superficial by-product or epiphenomenon of a more fundamental issue, which is our anxiety as citizens in dealing with hierocracy and democracy, God’s will and people’s will, vox populi and vox Dei, namely religion and the state. There must be continuous efforts to resolve this anxiety so that we can avoid any unwanted or harmful repercussions, both in our religious and political lives.
In an article in Kompas (16/5/2017), religious figure Salahuddin Wahid, who chairs the Tebuireng Islamic boarding school, highlighted seven facts in our nation’s history since independence in which we successfully formulated and legalized religion-state relations through agreements or modus vivendi that can be accepted by both sides.
The seven historical facts outlined by Wahid deserve our attention and can help us understand the tension that may inevitably surface between our appreciation of religion and the state in today’s life and seek ways to resolve such tensions to ensure that justice is upheld for parties involved in differences of worldviews.
Nevertheless, Indonesianness and Islamness are but two examples of the huge issue related to the need to clearly define the roles and boundaries of religion and the state in a democratic society. Other religions, on different scales and intensity, face the same questions regarding how to seek a balance between the state and religion in a democracy.
As we know, any religion contains teachings of morality and of a human being’s relation to what he or she believes as the Almighty. Religion provides a human being with a transcendental orientation in seeing the world and provides a transcendental meaning to their actions. On the other hand, the state’s political power is necessary to maintain public order in a society, especially to provide the state with an ability to enforce people’s obedience to prevailing regulations. Religion provides bonum maximum (the ultimate virtue for its adherents) and the state’s political power is the minus malum or the lesser evil (something that is not necessarily good but is inevitable to maintain order and to avoid a chaotic war of everyone vs. everyone) or bellum omnium contra omnes as was taught by philosopher Thomas Hobbes.
The politicization of religion
With such positions of religion and political power, it can be said that every form of politicization of religion (conducted by any religion) is disrespectful and demeaning toward religion, as it undermines religion’s noble teachings and moral values by using them as tools to gain temporary political power. In other words, the bonum maximum is undermined as nothing but a tool for a minus malum.
Sociology of religion has provided much proof that both religion and politics will never be able to spared of any temptation, especially that of power. Religion may be tempted to expand its influence and power into politics. On the contrary, political power can expand into religious life. Peace and harmony can only be achieved if the two powers limit themselves in their respective spheres of influence.
I am of the opinion that there is nothing wrong in taking lessons from other countries that have successfully and proportionately resolved the issue by respecting the political and religious aspirations of their citizens and preventing religion and state politics from entangling and complicating each other, thereby resulting in either the neglect of religion or of state politics. Robert Bellah, a retired Harvard University professor, is seen by many social scientists as the best expert of sociology of religion and the most prolific writer on state-religion relations in the US.
At first, he conducted in-depth research on the Tokugawa religion in Japan. Afterward, with Soedjatmoko from Indonesia, he led a research project on the relation of religion and economic development in Asia. Then, he researched various problems related to state-religion relation in the US, especially on the central role of religion in US politics as is evident through the nation’s official motto In God We Trust, despite religion never becoming a determinant on the national political roadmap.
The US is a Christian-majority state comprising various Christian denominations and theological views. Bellah researched US presidential inaugural speeches from George Washington to Abraham Lincoln and John F Kennedy. He found an interesting and important fact: in taking the oath of office as head of state and head of government, every US president swears “before the people and Almighty God”, without once mentioning Jesus Christ, who is the core of the belief of all Christian churches.
This was done deliberately to respect non-Christian minority beliefs. Believing in Jesus is seen as a private matter of all Christian communities. In taking oaths of office, it is enough for US public official to cite the Almighty God, as a form of calling and prayer that is acceptable for all US citizens, Christians and non-Christians alike. This way, religion does not become a sectarian issue in national politics.
Since the beginning, US government and citizens have acknowledged that religion cannot be neglected in national politics. However, they also clearly and cautiously define the position and role of religion so that it does not interfere with national politics. Republicans heavily emphasize the role of religion while Democrats emphasize the important role of US citizens in building their country.
Republicans seemingly see that the nation was established as the will of God who provides mankind with several inalienable rights, namely the right to live, right of freedom and right to pursue happiness. The government is established to ensure and safeguard the realization of these rights. Democrats, on the other hand, see the nation as the manifestation of people’s free will that is put into laws and regulations, to which the people must adhere. One side says that the voice of God is the voice of the people (vox Dei est vox populi), while the other says that the voice of the people is the voice of God (vox populi est vox Dei). Both sides agree that the US must stand on two important pillars: the Declaration of Independence inherited by Republicans and the US Constitutions inherited by the Democrats.
This consensus is well-recorded even by foreign observers. Alexis de Tocqueville is a French aristocrat who wrote about the US in the book Democracy in America, which is still read today in political science and sociology classes due to its apt portrayal of the various aspects of American socio-political life. He researched the US for nine months (May 11, 1831 – February 20, 1832) and traveled 7,000 miles across the country up to Canada.
About religion, he wrote: “In the US, the influence of religion is not limited to the people’s good behavior but it also boosts their intelligence. Some among Anglo-American people sincerely adheres to the teachings of Christianity and some others adheres to the religions due to fears of being suspected of unbelieving. Therefore, Christianity becomes a majority by consensus, with the evident consequence that every moral principle is pre-determined and fixed, even if politics is submitted to debates and experiments among the people. Therefore, the human mind is never allowed to really wander to the unlimited plane with all of its pretenses. Instead, it is monitored from time to time by boundaries that cannot be exceeded”.
Such observations became a basis for him to draw the conclusion that, in the US, “everyone is given the free permission to follow any path that they think will bring them to heaven, just like the law that permits everyone to have the rights to choose their own government”.
The deep roots of religion in US society is acknowledged by many presidents from George Washington to John F Kennedy. President Dwight Eisenhower, for instance, said, “Our government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith – and I don’t care what it is.”
Founding father George Washington in his farewell address at the end of his term in 1797, said clearly, “And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
The state’s position
Several of these practices show that, despite religion having an important role in the psychology of US citizens, the state tries to ensure its position in treating all religions its people adhere to equally. The state tries to see each religion as the religion’s community and leaders see their own religions. Each religious community clearly has different teachings, different theologies, different rituals and different practices. The state ensures the right of every religious community to adhere to these differences.
Nevertheless, it is also clear that the state has no right to know and manage in detail the religions that it must protect. This is why the state gives attention to the core traits that religions must have and the state can use in determining its policies on religion. Look at President Eisenhower’s remarks that the government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith. He emphasizes that he does not care how faith is manifested and appreciated in religious communities.
State-religion relations have long influenced Western philosophical thoughts. France philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his book on social contract talked about the idea that will later be called as civil religion in sociology of religion. In short, the term refers to how the state “simplifies” the definition of religion to facilitate its making religion-related policies. Rousseau said that the tern “religion” in civil religion refers to certain teachings and beliefs that are seen as representing all existing religions, such as belief in God, belief in the afterlife, belief in divine rewards for kindness and divine punishments for waywardness and rejection of intolerance toward other religions.
It is highly possible that such a simplified definition of religion will not satisfy religious leaders and be rejected by professional theologians. However, Rousseau said the state was not an expert on religious affairs. It is only required to safeguard and oversee the religious life of its citizens. Specific religious details should not make things difficult for the state in determining its policies towards religions that is must protect as its political duty. Based on European history, this is understandable as Europe immensely suffered from a prolonged religious war.
A particularly regrettable example is the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) between Germany’s Reform movement and Spain’s Catholic Counter-reform movement. The prolonged war resulted in terrible losses and destruction for both countries, like all preceding and following religious wars, without any side emerging as a clear victor. Such bitter experiences eventually led to many European countries reaching agreements to separate the church and the state in order to avoid endless international religious wars.
When Europe migrants reached the Americas, they brought along the spirit and resolution ot create a new world, a new culture and a form of Christianity purified from all the imperfections as seen in European history. These pilgrims do not forget and leave behind their histories, but many things are given the “New” attribute. There is well-off and well-educated New England in Northeast US, comprising Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut.
There is New Haven, a harbor city in Connecticut that was originally famed as city of puritan British migrants but is now more famous the site of the Yale University – one of the oldest and best universities in the US. There is New York, the US’ biggest city and port and many other examples. With the new spirit that leans toward puritanism, it is not easy for Americans to break away from the tenets of Christianity that they seek to purify and use as a defining feature that separates the Americas as the new world and Europe and the old world. The religious roots in Christianity seemingly has a long and complicated history.
The theory of state-religion separation is applied in the US in a distinctive way, namely by keeping religion’s place as the main source of the national morality and at the same time declaring clear boundaries in the involvement and role of religion in national politics. Efforts are made to ensure that the religion of the majority do not neglect or threaten minority groups.
The case in Indonesia
This brief explanation on state-religion relations, especially on the role of Christianity in the US’ national politics, is not meant to be an example that can be copied directly by Indonesia or any other country. I merely write the explanation as a comparison, based on the cases that I happen to know with my limited knowledge and lack of professional capability in either comparative politics or comparative religion.
Indonesia as a nation-state should find its own way to establish a harmonious relation between religion and the state, between religious piety and politically correctness, between group solidarity and national loyalty, between the need to defend one’s religion and the duty to respect each other. Strong foundations for these issues can be found in Indonesia’s fundamental philosophy of Pancasila, which was unanimously accepted after proposed by Bung Karno on June 1, 1945.
This is the national consensus that serves as the cornerstone of a new state called the Republic of Indonesia. The consequence is that, a united Indonesia will only remain united if all of its citizens are united in promoting Pancasila. Famed American anthropologist Clifford Geertz, in his studies on religion, introduced two important concepts for research in sociology of religion. He named these concepts as the force of religion, which is the depth of internalization of religious values and teachings within the adherents, and the scope of religion, which is the breadth of social context where the religious teachings are seen as necessary and relevant. The first concept refers to the relation between a religion and its adherent, while the second concept refers to the relation between a religion and that socio-political context that encompasses all people.
In the US, the state is appointed to promote the force of religion, as evident in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, and cautiously manage the scope of religion or the boundaries within national politics that religion cannot overstep as is stipulated in the US Constitution. Resolution of state-religion conflict in the US was reaffirmed by John F Kennedy in his inaugural address on January 20, 1961: “With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God\'s work must truly be our own.”
IGNAS KLEDEN
Sociologist
