tulisan ini dimuat di The Jakarta Post http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20070330.D09&irec=3 karena ada beberapa editing, Saya postingkan versi sebelum diedit.
Selamat membaca: Law and Religion by Z. Fikri We have been witnessing the legislation and implementation of Syaria' or Islamic Law at the local level in the various regions in Indonesia where the majority of Muslims live. Now Manokwari, a Christian-majority district, in West Irian Jaya, is finalizing the local regulation draft based on the Bible. One of the crucial issues is the prohibition of wearing veil or Muslim headscarf at the public space. If it is approved, then, we will have the extreme conflicting laws at the local level under one unitary-state. At the Muslim regions, a number of local governments have enacted the law obliging the people to wear Islamic religious dress. On the other side, the government at the Christian region is making law prohibiting the wearing of Muslim headscarf or Jilbab. These two conflicting trends bring us to the issue of constitutionality, particularly the proper role of the government and the legitimate scope of the state's coercive power and the people constitutional rights. What is a constitutional framework for the implementation of religious teachings? To what extent the government can interfere with people's religious lives? Can the government compel us to do our religious duties? Can the government make law prohibiting the free exercise of religion? The position and status of religion in the Indonesian Constitution had been debated since the early birth of this country. When the founding fathers formulated the Article on Religion, some said that the religion was an obligation, known as the Jakarta Charter; a seven word statement that stipulated that Muslims should follow the Islamic law, or literally "the obligation for Muslims to observe syariah." The others argued that the religion was a right. However, they agreed that the government might not compel its citizens to perform their religious teachings. Prof. Dr. Pangeran Ario Husein Djajadiningrat questioned the Charter. He was afraid that it would bring about fanatism, for example, compelling people to worship, coercing them to pray etc. Replying the question, Wachid Hasjim of Nahdhatul Ulama said that if the coercion happened, it could be solved through the parliament. And when the seven words would be mentioned on the Articel 29, section (1), Wongsonagoro argued that because it can be interpreted that the state might compel Muslims to observe syariah, the words "and his or her belief" (dan kepercayaannya) should be added to the Article 29, section (2). Hadikoesomo of Muhammadiyah also said that the government might not compel anyone to perform their religion. What they were afraid of to happen, now is really happening. For example, a number of local governments make law coercing Muslim women to wear Islamic dress and Jilbab. This type of law is contrary to the position and status of religion under the Indonesian Constitution. It is stated that a religion is a right not an obligation. Article 28E (1) of the Second Amendment of the 1945 Constitution states: "Every person shall be free to adhere to his/her respective religion and to worship according to his/her religion". It means that if the government obliged every woman to wear Jilbab, and this obligation is backed up by some sanctions, she is not free anymore. She is coerced to do it and she has no other choices. This is contrary to the very nature of right. Because, if you have right to something or an action, you are free to do it or not to do, no body will punish you. It is your right. The position of religion as right is restated at the Article 28E subsection (2): "Every person shall have the right to freedom of belief, to express his/her thoughts and attitudes, in accordance with his/her conscience". On the other extreme side, the government makes law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This happened at the times of the New Order when the government prohibited Muslim girls wearing Jilbab at public schools. I think the law prohibiting the free exercise of religion is also contrary to the nature of religion as right. Every citizen is guaranteed the right freely to exercise his or her religion. "Exercise of religion" often involves not only belief and profession but the performance of physical acts or abstention form physical acts; for instance, if some person chooses to wear Jilbab because she believes that it is her religious obligation and she wants to express it physically by wearing it, that is her right as well. In this case, the government has to guarantee her right to exercise freely. I think we need such a neutral state where the government takes the balanced position by allowing people to exercise or not to exercise their religion freely. Free exercise; no obligation and no prohibition. =================== tentang Raperda Injil lihat: http://www.republika.co.id/koran_detail.asp?id=287486&kat_id=139 http://202.155.15.208/kolom_detail.asp?id=287460&kat_id=3 http://www.republika.co.id/koran_detail.asp?id=287214&kat_id=3
