Academic Draft of the Bill on the Protection of Religious Communities (Indonesian)

Many people view the term “religious harmony” as a paradox. How is it possible that religion—which is generally viewed as a source of enlightenment and the path to truth, compassion, and human goodness—still needs to address the issue of harmony? Shouldn’t harmony, peace, and justice already exist naturally within every religion and every society if that society is truly imbued with an active, vibrant, and consistent religious life? The term “religious harmony” implies a contradiction between, on the one hand, the substantive status of religion as a source of all that is good and, on the other hand, its concrete sociological reality, which points to the possibility of conflict, opposition, differences, and even violence.

This paradoxical dimension relates to the dual nature of the internal-external claims inherent in every religious value system: on the one hand, all religions teach goodness, justice, and total and universal peace; yet at the same time, on the other hand, each claims to be superior to the others. This is what subsequently creates a discrepancy between the substance of religion (religion in the form of its teachings) and the form of religion (religion in its social and institutional expressions). The substantive aspect always emphasizes and reproduces noble ideas regarding undeniable goodness, while the formal aspect often gives rise to opposition and conflict. It is religion in its formal aspect—that is, religion in its social and institutional expressions—that raises issues regarding harmony and coexistence.