Meta Ose Ginting | CRCS | Wednesday Forum Report

In a world so full of complexity, how does intimacy work? To Dian Arymami, it is very significant and important to revisit the understanding of intimacy because she observes the transformation of intimacy is connected to the transformation of society.  The practice, the understanding of intimacy have been reconstructed from time to time. Usually people would think about intimacy as an act of loving, but up to now there are many cases show that intimacy could be something out of love, outside of committed relationship and, to be more precise, outside of marriage. Moreover personal needs and desires are also part of our religiosity. Religiosity and intimacy are not totally opposed to each other.
Dian Arymami’s ongoing research on new kinds of intimacy in the phenomenon of extradyadic or non-monogamous relationships that have quickly become widespread in urban areas of Indonesia is not advocacy on behalf of a group of people but she insists that she is studying the voices of the voiceless. Their emergence can be seen on a practical level as a rebellion against the structure and social fabric of Indonesian society but at the same time as part of an ongoing shift of ideological values and norms. Those who practice extradyadic relationships are a voice that could not be heard by the society because people would always claim that the problem is in person not society.  We must think about this kind of intimacy as a social phenomenon and not a personal disease or failing.
Therefore, Dian came up with the signs of embodied practice of intimacy in the schizophrenic society. It related to something that material not representation. It is social not familial and she continue by saying that it multiplicity not personal. Many things transform relationships. According to the cases that Dian come up with, the social media is one of the biggest influence in transforming relationship in society. The discourse about intimacy embodied in the way people perceive things like divorce, sexuality, dating style, poly-amor trend and many others to follow. To define schizophrenic society, she refers to the theory of Gilles Delueze and Felix Guattari about the process of schizophrenia.  Unlike Freud’s understanding about paranoia, the schizophrenic term in Delueze shows a condition of an experienced of being isolated, disconnected which fail to link up with a coherent sequence. She than continues that no one is born schizophrenic. Instead, schizophrenia is a process of being. In the schizophrenic society, everyone experiences diverse meanings in relation to other objects, and, in the other times or places, no meaning at all. In other words, meanings are based on the schizophrenic’s object experiences, but it is society itself that must be understood as schizophrenic.
By highlighting her respondents’ experiences, Dian shows that there are many consequences of the practice of intimacy or intimate relationships in (as) the schizophrenic society including “value crash,” double life, “time and place crash” and many others. In extradyadic relationship people become a substitution for something that they cannot fill.
In the question and answer session, there were many fascinating questions about this topic. Zoyer, a researcher concerned with on-line dating in Yogyakarta, offered the idea that the complexity of intimate relationships in urban areas in Indonesia is affected by the cultural expectation that young people marry by certain ages. That is why people are trying to free themselves by “jumping into the extraordinary.”  The other question brings us to a reflection about what are the practitioners of these extradyadic relationships are becoming in society. Dian answered by changing the question: instead of questioning a person’s behavior, we must question society. Dian closed her remarkable presentation by stating that the idea of love is not exclusive and absolute.

Zainal Abidin Bagir | CRCS UGM | Opini

Tak sedikit tokoh, pejabat, politisi bahkan polisi yang memuji gelombang aksi protes terhadap ucapan Gubernur DKI Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (Ahok) yang kontroversial itu. Pujian-pujian itu beralasan, karena meskipun kelompok yang memobilisasi atau mendukung demo tampaknya berasal dari spektrum yang amat luas, mulai dari yang sangat moderat hingga yang disebut garis keras, tuntutan akhir mereka sama, yaitu menuntut agar Ahok diproses di jalur hukum, secara adil dan berkeadilan.
Supremasi hukum demi tegaknya keadilan tentu adalah jalan beradab, demokratis dan moderat. Tapi benarkah demikian? Saya khawatir, imajinasi tentang keadaban dan sikap moderat seperti ini terlalu cetek. Tentu tidak keliru, tapi tidak cukup. Penyelesaian masalah melalui jalur hukum harus dipuji, jika alternatifnya adalah respon kekerasan. Namun, khususnya dalam kasus “penistaan agama”, ada banyak alasan untuk meragukan bahwa seruan itu adalah jalan terbaik untuk memecahkan masalah, dan mungkin justru tak menjanjikan keadilan.
Sebab utamanya adalah bahwa peristiwa ini (ucapan Ahok dan pembingkaian atas peristiwa itu sebagai “penistaan agama”), jika masuk pengadilan, kemungkinan besar merujuk merujuk pada Pasal 156A KUHP, yang tidak memiliki karir gemilang dalam sejarah Indonesia. Ini adalah bagian dari pasal-pasal karet “kejahatan terhadap ketertiban umum” dalam KUHP. Pasal yang ditambahkan pada tahun 1969 atas perintah UU 1/PNPS/1965 ini memiliki nilai politis yang amat kuat. Target awalnya adalah untuk membatasi aliran-aliran kebatinan/kepercayaan yang terutama bersaing dengan kekuatan politik Islam pada tahun 1950 dan 1960an.
Setelah tahun 1998, target itu bergeser. Target lama tetap ada, meskipun bukan mengenai aliran-aliran kebatinan lama, tapi gerakan-gerakan baru seperti Salamullah yang dipimpin Lia Eden, atau Millah Abraham. Tak ada isu politik penting dalam mengejar kelompok-kelompok itu, namun alasan utamanya adalah “pemurnian” Islam (dan mungkin alasan soisal-ekonomi-politik lain). Selain itu, tujuan baru penggunaan pasal ini adalah sebagai upaya peminggiran intraagama, yaitu kelompok-kelompok dalam komunitas Muslim sendiri, seperti Ahmadiyah dan Syiah, yang sebetulnya sudah eksis di Indonesia sejak jauh sebelumnya. Dalam Kristen, ada beberapa kasus serupa. Pasal penodaan agama jarang digunakan sebagai ekspresi perselisihan antaragama, kecuali dalam beberapa kasus.
Melihat rentang wilayah penggunaan pasal KUHP itu, kita bisa segera mencurigai efektifitasnya. Bagaimana mungkin keyakinan (misalnya bahwa Nabi Muhammad adalah Rasul terakhir dalam Islam) dijaga dengan pasal yang sama yang memenjarakan orang selama 5 bulan karena memprotes speaker masjid yang terlalu keras (seperti di Lombok pada 2010; seorang perempuan Kristen yang mengomentari sesajen Hindu (seperti di Bali pada 2013); atau seorang “Presiden” Negara Islam Indonesia yang mengubah arah kiblat dan syahadat Islam, namun kemudian pada 2012 hakim memberi hukuman setahun, untuk dirawat di Rumah Sakit Jiwa. Itu hanyalah beberapa contoh yang bisa diperbanyak dengan mudah.
Selain rentang implementasi yang demikian luas, persoalan lain adalah amat kaburnya standar pembuktian kasus-kasus semacam itu. Kasus-kasus yang diadili dengan Pasal 156A tersebut biasanya menggunakan cara pembuktian serampangan, dengan pemilihan saksi ahli yang tak jelas standarnya pula (dalam satu kasus pada tahun 2012, seorang yang diajukan sebagai saksi ahli agama bahkan tidak lulus sekolah). Penistaan atau penodaan bukan sekadar pernyataan yang berbeda, tapi—seperti dinyatakan Pasal 156A itu—mesti bersifat permusuhan, penyalahgunaan atau penodaan, bahkan mesti ada maksud supaya orang tidak menganut agama apapun. Apakah Ahok, yang membutuhkan suara mayoritas Muslim Jakarta, berpikir untuk memusuhi mereka?
Selain itu, apakah ia dianggap menghina Islam, atau ulama? Yang dikritiknya adalah Muslim yang disebutnya membohongi pemilih DKI dengan menggunakan ayat 51 surat Al-Maidah. Apakah muslim seperti itu identik dengan Islam, sementara banyak ulama dan terjemahan Al-Qur’an memberikan tafsir berbeda?
Dalam kenyataannya, jika kasus ini masuk ke pengadilan, seperti dapat dilihat dalam banyak kasus, pertanyaan-pertanyaan tentang standar pembuktian kerap diabaikan. Yang menjadi pertimbangan yang tak kalah penting adalah “ketertiban umum” (yang menjadi judul Bab KUHP yang mengandung pasal tersebut). Persoalannya, ancaman terhadap “ketidaktertiban umum” itu lebih sering dipicu oleh pemrotes yang merasa tersinggung, dan bukan pelaku itu sendiri. Karena itulah, demonstrasi besar jilid satu dan dua pada 4 November nanti—dan bukan ucapan Ahok itu sendiri—menjadi penting sebagai dasar untuk menggelar pengadilan atas Ahok.
Pemurnian sebagai politik
Penting dilihat bahwa dalam kenyataannya, Pasal 156A dipakai hanya selama sekitar 10 kali sejak tahun 1965 hingga 2000, dan tiba-tiba dalam 15 tahun terakhir demikian populer, telah digunakan sekitar 50 kali! Apakah setelah Reformasi ada makin banyak para penoda agama atau orang-orang yang sesat? Atau ada penjelasan lain dengan melihat transisi politik pada 1998?
Seperti halnya pasal-pasal kriminal serupa di banyak negara lain tentang “penodaan”, “penistaan”, atau “blasphemy”, upaya seperti ini biasanya memang menggabungkan dua tujuan sekaligus: tujuan penjagaan “kemurnian agama” (tentu dalam versi kelompok yang memiliki kuasa untuk mendiktekannya) dan tujuan politik. Pasal ini menjadi instrumen efektif untuk menjalankan politik “pemurnian” agama, yaitu penegasan kuasa politik suatu kelompok keagamaan.
Pada tahun 2010, UU ini dan Pasal 156A diajukan ke Mahkamah Konstitusi. Benar MK mempertahankan pasal ini, namun perlu dilihat juga catatan panjang yang diberikan para hakim MK tentang kelemahan-kelemahannya, dan saran agar pasal ini direvisi supaya tidak diskriminatif serta mendukung pluralisme Indonesia. Bahwa ada unsur politik, bukan semata-mata pidana, dalam pasal ini, tampak dalam pertimbangan MK yang panjang, hingga mengelaborasi persoalan filosofis mengenai hubungan agama dan negara, dan sejarah Indonesia sebagai negara berketuhanan.
Bagaimana mengatasi Ahok: Imajinasi yang lebih kaya
Maka kita bisa bertanya, apa sebetulnya tujuan dari keinginan besar untuk mengadili Ahok sebagai penista agama? Soalnya mungkin bukan tentang umat Islam yang sudah seharusnya tersinggung atas upaya penistaan agamanya. Pertama, ketersinggungan itu mungkin dirasakan setelah pernyataan Ahok itu dibingkai orang dan kelompok tertentu, yang lalu memobilisasi massa. (Sekali lagi, ini mirip dengan kasus “penodaan” lain, seperti kasus kartun Denmark.)
Selain itu, jika tak ada alasan politik praktis menjelang pilgub DKI atau yang lain, tapi ini soal menjaga kemurnian agama, benarkah kita mau menggantungkan kemuliaan agama pada satu pasal karet yang sama yang telah digunakan untuk mengadili orang dengan gangguan kejiwaan, pencabut speaker masjid, seorang ibu rumah tangga yang mengomentari sesajen Hindu, atau banyak kasus-kasus lainnya?
Baca lagi –> https://islamindonesia.id/
_________
Penulis adalah seorang  Dosen Center for Religious and Cross-cultural Studies – Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta.

Meta Ose Margaretha | CRCS | Thesis Review

In 2014, the President of Indonesia, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, released a policy addressing the “revitalization” including potential reclamation and economic development, of Benoa Bay at the southern tip of Bali. In the months that followed, there was public debate about the economic and environmental consequences of the proposal involving many sectors of Balinese and Indonesian society. Since Bali is well-known as the one majority-Hindu part of Indonesia, it was to be expected that religious identities and value also would have a significant role in the controversy. Daud Partigor’s thesis “Significances of Theological Argumentation in Rejecting the Proposed Reclamation of Benoa Bay” focuses of religious elements of the debate, including the role of religious institutions and of religious language and ideology as the legitimation for arguments opposing the reclamation of the bay. His research also shows that the debates on rejecting the proposed reclamation of Benoa Bay are part of a complicated process merging ideas of religiosity, the environment, economic interests, culture, politics and humanity in one pot. But, here also, the author tries to emphasize how religious ideas could be implemented at other levels, such as in governmental regulations to advocate the existence of Benoa Bay area.
In this case, the key theological element being promoted and argued is the concept of sacred places. Local people around the Benoa Bay consider the bay itself as a sacred space. Toward the sacred space, Balinese Hindus have their certain understanding that leads them to behave also in a certain way.
The discourse of Benoa Bay’s sacredness based on the teachings of Hindu-Bali traditions became public in early 2015. The ideas about the sacredness came from  by analyzing how exclusively religiously-based arguments become explicitly used in the public discussion, the thesis offers insight into thethe revival of religion in public in a different context than Islam-focussed studies have offered.
The discourse of Benoa Bay as a sacred place is used by some organizations to advocate and protect Benoa bay from the reclamation. This study case is important because it shows how the policies made by both state and religion are influence each other. In the Bali context, the key actor is the Hindu Supreme Council or Parisada. Partigor explains how Parisada is divided between local branches and the central office in Jakarta which makes regulation and decisions for all the members of Parisada locally and nationally. In early 2016, the national board of Parisada issued a formal statement declaring the sacredness around the Benoa site and rejected the reclamation. Coming from the highest level of Hindu council in Indonesia, Parisada’s statement had political influences at the national level. that claim has a because it claimed to represent the whole Hindu community in Indonesia.
Parisada became the pioneer in reconstructed again the understanding of sacred place and other theological conceptions that used by other movements to reject the reclamation. Beginning of 2013, Parisada developed a theological argument about the reclamation of Benoa Bay based on  principles found in Tri Hita Karana and Sad Kertih. The central text for the Hindu-Bali communities, Tri Hita Karana talks about living in perfect harmony the three elements of human life: God, then other human beings and the environment. Another theological conception that has been used by the Parisada to reject the reclamation, Sad Kertih also talks about living in harmony with the universe. Sad Kertih specifically mentions the ocean, the forests, the lakes and also other human. While the Tri Hita Karana coming from general Hindu concepts found in the Vedas, Sad Kertih draws on the tradition of local Hindu-Bali traditions. Veda They have been used previously to support other political interests, including supporting the 1969 Rencana Pembangunan Lima Tahun (five-year development plan).
Even though Hindus are the majority in Bali, especially in Benoa Bay area, Bali is not homogeneous. There are some other communities that aren’t Hindu. Therefore, according to the author, the claimed of sacredness in Benoa Bay should not be the ultimate reason to reject the reclamation but the society need their own logic and perspectives to perceive this problem.
There are some characteristics of religion revival in the case of Teluk Benoa Bay if we compare to Thoft’s characteristics of religion revival. First, it refer to the participation of religious communities, which is this case are represent by the Parisada and other religious communities that live around Benoa Bay. Second, crisis on understanding religion from the secular world. In Indonesia’s context this process happened after the fall of new order, while religion and state being separated and even there was intervention to the religious related things. The third characteristic is the freedom of religious expression which is also begin after the fall of new order. And the last one is the influence of globalization, democracy and modernization.
Partigor argues that the discourse using a theological perspectives in order to reject the proposed reclamation could be an evaluation of John Rawls’s theory about public logic. Rawls argued that any  decision made in public should be based in inclusive ideas that canbe accepted by everyone from various backgrounds. In the debates of Benoa Bay reclamation, an exclusive idea was used in public by a religious actor and the public accepted it.
Title: Significances of Theological Argumentation in Rejecting the Proposed Reclamation of Benoa Bay | Author: Partigor Daud Sihombing (CRCS, 2016)