http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/04/pluralism-and-volunteerism.html
I am pleased to share the following article on Pluralism from Jakarta, Indonesia. To be religious is to be a pluralist, one who consistently works on mitigating conflicts and nurturing good will. If we can learn to accept and respect the God given uniqueness of each one of the 7 billion of us, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge.
Mike Ghouse
Pluralism is not a solution; think altruism, volunteerism
http://old.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20080429.E03&irec=2
Anand Krishna, Jakarta
“Pluralism is a ground fact here, so we have to accept it,” says a politician whose party has a set of religious dogmas and doctrines as its guiding principles.
“Pluralism is against our beliefs,” says a clergyman who represents the very same religious beliefs, dogmas and doctrines.
The politician may sound more tolerant and moderate than the clergyman, but actually both are saying the same thing. The politician does not appreciate pluralism, he only accepts it — in his words he “respects” it — because it is a fact here. This country is a pluralist country. This nation is pluralist, so he has to accept it.
Tolerance is never effortless. Tolerance can never be genuine and sincere. We cannot tolerate someone or something without a reason, whatever the reason is. A politician must tolerate, accept or honor pluralism because he has something to gain from it. He does not do so without any reason. He has his political agenda to take care of. He does so to ensure a larger constituency, more votes and of course more power.
A clergyman rejects pluralism outright because of the very same reasons in different terms. His constituency and votes are the “number” of people adhering to his interpretation of religious dogmas and doctrines. His power is the “blind faith” of such people in him. He cannot risk the possibility of losing them by accepting pluralism. He must stick to the principle, “However good others are, I am the best”.
Both acceptance and rejection of pluralism actually mean one and the same thing. Neither is better than the other. As such, pluralism itself loses its value, importance and usefulness. Pluralism is not beneficial. In fact, it is harmful. For the very word “plural” is against the word “singular” — therefore the conflict between the two cannot be avoided.
It is high time that we stop looking for comfort and solution in pluralism. We have been fighting each other because of pluralism. Let us find comfort and solution in something else, in something with a higher value than pluralism. Let us go beyond both, the singular and the plural.
Singular represents the number one and plural represents the number two or more. Now, numbers are mathematics. And mathematics is part of our left brain hemisphere. This is the part of our brain which is concerned with logic, which calculates profits and losses. Both the politician and the clergy are left brain people. They are logicians. They are concerned with their profits and losses. Hence, both have failed in delivering something of a higher value to this country.
Both the politician and the clergyman may stand on the roadside with sacks of rice or money to distribute to the less privileged ones, but don’t you get deluded by them. They are not being charitable. The politician does so to win the election. The clergyman does the same to ensure a plot in heaven. Both have their personal interests in view.
What we need today, as recently pointed out by United Nations Secretary-General Ban ki Moon, is the spirit of volunteerism and altruism. We need people who can work without any personal motive and interest. We need people who can serve the society without thinking of their personal gain.
We need people who do not think in terms of singularism (I have just coined the word) and pluralism — but in terms of what we Indonesians call kebhinekaan and keberagaman. It is very difficult to explain the two near synonyms in English. Both imply a “conscious, genuine and sincere appreciation, and not mere tolerance, toward the differences”.
The founding fathers of the United States very well understood this. John Leland, a Baptist evangelist who worked with Jefferson and Madison to secure religious freedom in Virginia, said: “Let every man speak freely without fear, maintain the principle that he believes, worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in doing so.”
The first principle of our nation’s ideology Pancasila speaks of ketuhanan or religiousness as the highest value. It does not define the word further, for one’s belief is a personal matter, and cannot be defined by another. Our founding fathers were really genius.
Back to the United States, the agnostic Robert Ingersoll said in 1876 the nation was a place where religion had to make its own way; there would be no preferential treatment: “Every church has exactly the same rights, and no more; every religion has the same rights, and no more.”
Once, we believed in the very same principles — and we became a great nation. With all the domestic problems, our Sukarno was a name to reckon with. It was with a deep sense of pride that we would introduce ourselves overseas as a citizen of Sukarno’s Indonesia. Alas, that sense of pride is now gone.
Let us think, and think hard what made Sukarno great. It was his openness, his genuine appreciation toward the differences, his firm belief in kebhinekaan and keberagaman. Politically and economically, he may be judged incorrect by many. But humanly he was 100 percent correct. Today, we still remember him for his humanity. History shall forget his mistakes in all other fields, but shall always remember his right attitude toward differences.
Indonesia is not divided between the Muslims and non-Muslims; Indonesia is not divided between the so-called believers and non-believers or infidels; Indonesia is not divided between the converts and non-converts. Indonesia, as Sukarno rightly said, “belonged” equally and alike to one and all. All for one, and one for all.
This broad view, this concept and philosophy of life, is currently being challenged by our own people — by those who were educated overseas where such a concept is taboo. These people are everywhere, including but not limited to our Cabinet, our legislative body, our political parties and the streets. Some of them claim to be militant but nonviolent, others endorse violence. They conceal their relationship with each other, but actually they have the same vision, mission, agenda and political ambition.
Many of the issues surrounding pluralism, such as the Ahmadiyah and pornography issues, are “created” to deflect the attention of the general public from the real issues of increasing poverty, hunger, dwindling economy and the sale of our assets to large foreign corporations.
Let us unite to face the actual issues. Let us put an end to the conflict between the singular and the plural, let us go back to our own kebhinekaan and with that spirit save this nation from further degradation.
The writer is a spiritual activist. His websites are aumkar.org, californiabali.org, anandkrishna.org.