Franz Magnis-Suseno said that religion in the modern era and the globalization still holding on to the old paradigm. The old paradigm is the paradigm of religion that still exclusive, our people – strangers. There is a separation between those who believe in a religion with people who believe in other religions. In the 21st century, the world is (to) universal, all things affordable. Therefore, humans also need a universal thought to unite with other individuals establish communication and cooperation. Unfortunately, religion has become inhibiting factors for this. Religion coldly rejected the modernization. In this case, Suseno compare the present with the Enlightenment (Aufklärung), which began fighting for the ideals of a new political ethics that aims to ensure human dignity of God's creation, but religious coldly rejected the ideals of democracy, human rights, religious tolerance, freedom of thought and religion, as well as the ideals of liberty and human equality. Thus, the conflict will continue to happen because of religion have always felt that modernization and globalization is an absolute threat to them, so to uphold his religion, people within the religion (fanatic) will take action dehumanzation to defend the old paradigm (Suseno, 2003: 52-61).
There was also the view of a pastor from Sumba who said that the attitude of fanatic has tainted and go the religion down to its lowest level. Why does he say fanatic? Yes, because the spirit is happening in Indonesia. Yewangoe took examples from Hans Kung on four position of inter-religious relations in Indonesian state, ie the first position is no true religion (all religions are equally untrue), the second position is there’s only one religion, all other religions are not true , the third position is that every religion is true (all religions are true), the fourth position is only one true religion and other religions have a stake in this one true religion. The second position is an inter-religious relations in Indonesia, that there is only one true religion, all other religions are not true. Such a view is what triggers the actions of the elephant in the room (Pallmeyer), who blindly do dehumanization for the sake of stating their religion the truest (and other infidels). In Yewangoe criticism of religious life in Indonesia, he thought there was nothing suitable to be developed in religious diversity in Indonesia, but the four positions that help to contextualize the theory into his own country, namely "a tree has many leaves, there are many religion and they are all rooted in one God only." It means no religion who claim to be true because the "Truth” itself is a center that must be surrounded by existing religions.
Two views of the above are the views of theologians in Indonesia. Now, I’ll try to switch the view to other thinkers who contributed his criticism of religion. Kimball and Pallmeyer are trying to see the factors in religion when religion itself is no longer to bring peace, but endless violence. Kimball and Pallmeyer, basically, have the same view of intellectual factors, both on religious leaders and the followers in decisions making. However, the difference, Kimball is more inclined to the mindset of religious leaders and the followers and Pallmeyer is more inclined text highlighting own more holy book (the basis of religion) which is considered the source of violence itself.
It was very interesting in my opinion, when we combine these two paradigms (Kimball and Pallmeyer). Kimball indicated the initial crime from the absolute truth claims are given in the interpretation of texts waits done is true and needs to be done for the sake of doing God's will. This has been a criticism of Pallmeyer also, that turned out in the text itself contains a tradition of “violence of God”, so automatic in a reckless and narrow interpretation will give birth to a movement of violence and aspire to on behalf of the will of God. In addition, there is also the theory of blind obedience that is going on among the followers who extol the leaders who want to realize the era of the "ideal" or in the language of Pallmeyer there is a personal interest in the interpretation of the "sacred" texts that. So it is very possible for a last resort is to detonate a holy war on behalf of "my war is war my God" and it will cause conflicts in every corner of the country.
However, more interesting if we borrow the term for a moment with the Cultural Violence of Galtung. Galtung’s cultural violence positioning as a basis for legitimizing the violence (direct and structural) that occur, views on the religion itself. This theological view move the followers to behave as they should. Come back again on Suseno, that the theological views like these that must be renewed.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar