Our
Problem is not intolerance,
but
a lack of common sense
Mohamas Mova Al’Afghani, LECTURER OF LAW
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF IBN KHALDUN, BOGOR
SUMBER : JAKARTA POST, 6
Maret 2012
Recent
disputes on the construction of religious buildings, the prosecution of
minority sects and the rejection of hard-line groups have resurfaced the
discussion of tolerance. I argue that tolerance (and the lack thereof) is not
the real problem, but instead a pervasive lack of common sense throughout
society.
There are three inherent weaknesses in the concept of tolerance. The first is that the idea of tolerance may result in the reinforcement of tutelage. The second is that its imposition on people may actually violate human rights and finally, it does not address the real problem.
In its most common definition, “tolerance” is the practice of allowing or permitting something that someone disapproves of. As the definition entails, in “tolerance”, people are allowed to cling to their default position.
In orthodox religious practices and paternalistic cultures, often the default position is “tutelage”, whereby people are afraid of taking even the simplest decisions in their life, without receiving blessings from their religious patron.
This is a chronic problem in our society, because a large number of people feel compelled to consult with their religious patron for frivolous problems such as sending seasons greetings on religious days, or in using social media, or in celebrating New Year and many other things.
The purpose of enlightenment is the opposite. It seeks to free people from this tutelage. Individuals are encouraged to think, act and be responsible for themselves, using their common sense.
Tolerance, however, allows people to stay in this default “tutelage” position, as long as it permits others to practice their beliefs.
My second critique is that “imposed tolerance” can actually violate human rights. The most classic example of tolerance during our school year is the story of Sunan Kudus, a Muslim saint who spread Islam in the 16th century in Java.
Sunan is said to have forbid his followers to slaughter cows, as it was regarded as a holy animal by Hindus. The story went on that the local society refrained from eating pork, to reciprocate Sunan’s tolerant gesture.
When practiced in modern society, this would certainly violate human rights as people have the right to eat anything they like. People can forbid certain foods or animals, but they should not compel these practices on others.
The most modern implication of imposed tolerance is with the practice of fasting. Most major religions, not only Islam, introduced fasting as a spiritual practice.
I have heard that in some countries people of other beliefs are compelled to refrain from eating or drinking in front of fasting people to show tolerance. While this is not imposed legally, the social pressure not to eat or drink before those fasting may undermine other people’s right to eat.
My third critique is that the real problem in our society is the lack of common sense. This is evident in politics, law enforcement, bureaucracy and religion.
Why do polygamous legislators with glamorous lifestyles, expensive watches and luxurious cars still get elected? The only answer is because people still vote for them no matter what.
To me, our voters do not practice their common sense. Instead of using logic, they are swayed by demagoguery. Indeed, it is demagoguery, instead of clear platforms and public agendas that shapes our politics.
In law enforcement, the lack of common sense is absolutely vivid, because lately public money has been used to prosecute petty crimes up to the Supreme Court level.
Cocoa fruit, plates, photocopied paper and sandals have been presented as evidence in our courtrooms. Corruption is often not the problem, as many of those judges and prosecutors are actually honest people.
The problem is simply that some of the provisions in our colonial, Dutch-inherited Criminal Code are outdated.
Of course, law enforcers can actually put forward their common sense and leave the code aside, but most of our law enforcers and lawyers believe in the myth of “legal certainty” and that beats their common sense.
Due to this worrying development, the Supreme Court recently issued a rule that reintroduced fines as a punishment alternative for petty crimes. Although a wonderful move, this is a top-down and paternalistic approach.
This shows that our law enforcers remain incapable of using their common sense as they need someone at the Supreme Court to show them what to do.
Bureaucracy is another interesting case. A few months ago I read a banner placed in front of a governmental building in Jakarta stating its endorsement and support for motivational, spiritual training for government employees.
The banner actually referred to a specific popular spiritual training program. Not long after that, a government minister was widely quoted by the media for his plan to send millions of government employees to that specific motivational spiritual training program in an effort to combat corruption.
I have nothing against people following spiritual motivation training on a personal level, but not when it is invoked as an official policy. What I learned in my studies is that corruption can be curtailed by improving transparency and enhancing accountability, not by sending government employees to spiritual motivation trainings.
When it comes to religion, some people are trying to make people tolerant by offering them alternative religious interpretations of their holy text. While this must be encouraged in an academic setting, I don’t think this is an appropriate strategy. Why?
First, they are not cost-efficient. In this modern age we have become extremely specialized in our knowledge and this makes it inefficient for people of professions other than religious studies to consult voluminous religious texts in order to get confirmation on simple matters.
Second, people finally find it exhausting to consult ancient texts, so they appeal to alternative “tolerant” interpretations offered by liberal scholars.
The positive impact of this strategy is in inducing “cognitive dissonance”, which is to make people reconsider their truth-value as there are various alternatives of interpretation that they can choose. But there is a potential danger: The unintended preservation of the “appeal to authority” tradition. Instead of using their common sense in directly deciding simple problems such as sending season greetings to people of other religions, they now need to ask another scholar, albeit a liberal one. “Tutelage” is therefore reinforced.
Finally, for religious conflict, the roots, I believe, lie in hypersensitivity. What needs to be done therefore is to de-sensitize people. “Tolerance” does not address this as it allows people to stay on their default “hypersensitive” position.
When using common sense, on the other hand, people will set aside emotion and put forward logic and intuition. It is useful to ponder that people who use their common sense are normally tolerant. On the other hand, not all people who are “tolerant” use their common sense. ●
There are three inherent weaknesses in the concept of tolerance. The first is that the idea of tolerance may result in the reinforcement of tutelage. The second is that its imposition on people may actually violate human rights and finally, it does not address the real problem.
In its most common definition, “tolerance” is the practice of allowing or permitting something that someone disapproves of. As the definition entails, in “tolerance”, people are allowed to cling to their default position.
In orthodox religious practices and paternalistic cultures, often the default position is “tutelage”, whereby people are afraid of taking even the simplest decisions in their life, without receiving blessings from their religious patron.
This is a chronic problem in our society, because a large number of people feel compelled to consult with their religious patron for frivolous problems such as sending seasons greetings on religious days, or in using social media, or in celebrating New Year and many other things.
The purpose of enlightenment is the opposite. It seeks to free people from this tutelage. Individuals are encouraged to think, act and be responsible for themselves, using their common sense.
Tolerance, however, allows people to stay in this default “tutelage” position, as long as it permits others to practice their beliefs.
My second critique is that “imposed tolerance” can actually violate human rights. The most classic example of tolerance during our school year is the story of Sunan Kudus, a Muslim saint who spread Islam in the 16th century in Java.
Sunan is said to have forbid his followers to slaughter cows, as it was regarded as a holy animal by Hindus. The story went on that the local society refrained from eating pork, to reciprocate Sunan’s tolerant gesture.
When practiced in modern society, this would certainly violate human rights as people have the right to eat anything they like. People can forbid certain foods or animals, but they should not compel these practices on others.
The most modern implication of imposed tolerance is with the practice of fasting. Most major religions, not only Islam, introduced fasting as a spiritual practice.
I have heard that in some countries people of other beliefs are compelled to refrain from eating or drinking in front of fasting people to show tolerance. While this is not imposed legally, the social pressure not to eat or drink before those fasting may undermine other people’s right to eat.
My third critique is that the real problem in our society is the lack of common sense. This is evident in politics, law enforcement, bureaucracy and religion.
Why do polygamous legislators with glamorous lifestyles, expensive watches and luxurious cars still get elected? The only answer is because people still vote for them no matter what.
To me, our voters do not practice their common sense. Instead of using logic, they are swayed by demagoguery. Indeed, it is demagoguery, instead of clear platforms and public agendas that shapes our politics.
In law enforcement, the lack of common sense is absolutely vivid, because lately public money has been used to prosecute petty crimes up to the Supreme Court level.
Cocoa fruit, plates, photocopied paper and sandals have been presented as evidence in our courtrooms. Corruption is often not the problem, as many of those judges and prosecutors are actually honest people.
The problem is simply that some of the provisions in our colonial, Dutch-inherited Criminal Code are outdated.
Of course, law enforcers can actually put forward their common sense and leave the code aside, but most of our law enforcers and lawyers believe in the myth of “legal certainty” and that beats their common sense.
Due to this worrying development, the Supreme Court recently issued a rule that reintroduced fines as a punishment alternative for petty crimes. Although a wonderful move, this is a top-down and paternalistic approach.
This shows that our law enforcers remain incapable of using their common sense as they need someone at the Supreme Court to show them what to do.
Bureaucracy is another interesting case. A few months ago I read a banner placed in front of a governmental building in Jakarta stating its endorsement and support for motivational, spiritual training for government employees.
The banner actually referred to a specific popular spiritual training program. Not long after that, a government minister was widely quoted by the media for his plan to send millions of government employees to that specific motivational spiritual training program in an effort to combat corruption.
I have nothing against people following spiritual motivation training on a personal level, but not when it is invoked as an official policy. What I learned in my studies is that corruption can be curtailed by improving transparency and enhancing accountability, not by sending government employees to spiritual motivation trainings.
When it comes to religion, some people are trying to make people tolerant by offering them alternative religious interpretations of their holy text. While this must be encouraged in an academic setting, I don’t think this is an appropriate strategy. Why?
First, they are not cost-efficient. In this modern age we have become extremely specialized in our knowledge and this makes it inefficient for people of professions other than religious studies to consult voluminous religious texts in order to get confirmation on simple matters.
Second, people finally find it exhausting to consult ancient texts, so they appeal to alternative “tolerant” interpretations offered by liberal scholars.
The positive impact of this strategy is in inducing “cognitive dissonance”, which is to make people reconsider their truth-value as there are various alternatives of interpretation that they can choose. But there is a potential danger: The unintended preservation of the “appeal to authority” tradition. Instead of using their common sense in directly deciding simple problems such as sending season greetings to people of other religions, they now need to ask another scholar, albeit a liberal one. “Tutelage” is therefore reinforced.
Finally, for religious conflict, the roots, I believe, lie in hypersensitivity. What needs to be done therefore is to de-sensitize people. “Tolerance” does not address this as it allows people to stay on their default “hypersensitive” position.
When using common sense, on the other hand, people will set aside emotion and put forward logic and intuition. It is useful to ponder that people who use their common sense are normally tolerant. On the other hand, not all people who are “tolerant” use their common sense. ●
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar