60b3r

[60b3r]

Menyoal Demonstrasi

ini adalah kritik saya terhadap obrolan soal masalah mutasi mendadak yang berhubungan dengan konflik Kementerian Kesehatan dan IDI, lalu dihubungkan dengan hal demonstrasi di dalam kampus. Dikutip dari percakapan pagi ini, Kamis, 8 Mei 2025 di grup WhatsApp Indonesian Bioethics Forum.

PM: Kebebasan berkumpul dan berpendapat dijamin kontitusi UUD 45 Pasal 28E Ayat 3. Konteks kebijakan pemerintah dengan UU yang dibuat DPR bersama pemerintah (UUD 45 Pasal 20 Ayat 2), maka bila ada aspirasi yang timbul silakan disampaikan dengan santun ke DPR komisi terkait sebagai lembaga perwakilan rakyat (UUD 45 Pasal 19), bukan dengan unjuk rasa dalam kampus oleh tricivitas academica sekalipun, karena kampus adalah forum akademik untuk penelitian dan pendidikan. Unjuk rasa dalam kampus adalah pelanggaran teritorial akademik.

PMA: Saya mengikuti dari awal mula perselisihan Organisasi Profesi dengan Pemerintah karena saya ada dalam pusaran tersebut. Semua punya sisi benar dan sisi salah, yang terjadi kemudian adalah para pihak selalu menunjukkan sisi benarnya dan tidak ada yang mengakui sisi salahnya. Perselisihan ini tidak akan selesai karena para pihak tidak duduk bersama mencari solusi tapi semua sibuk saling menjatuhkan dan merasa paling benar.

EMD: Kalau tersinggung mbok ya diajak diskusi, dibina dulu kalau memang salah, nggak langsung di-cut.

BB: Ini yang disebut arogansi kekuasaan!

PM: Rektor adalah pemimpin dan penanggung jawab tertinggi kampus dengan otoritas akademik (UU 12/2012, PP 4/2004). Pertanyaannya, apakah unjuk rasa yang menggunakan wilayah kampus oleh siapapun & dg tujuan apapun sudah seizin tertulis dari rektor?

RHM: Untuk demo atau untuk rasa di fasilitas publik, tidak perlu izin. Cukup kirim surat pemberitahuan kepada kepolisian setempat terkait kegiatan itu. Namun demikian, jika dirasa berisiko, dengan pertimbangan tertentu, polisi berhak menolak kegiatan itu. Kalau di kampus, sebuah wilayah yang sifatnya relatif independen…. Entahlah, apakah harus berupa surat izin atau cukup dengan surat pemberitahuan sebagaimana demo/unjuk rasa di tempat publik. Ingat, demo/unjuk rasa cukup menggunakan surat pemberitahuan dan tidak lagi surat izin, karena demo/unjuk rasa damai merupakan bagian dari kebebasan mengemukakan pendapat sebagaimana dijamin konstitusi. Tentu dengan mengindahkan aturan perundangan yang berlaku, seperti dilarang anarkistis.

PM: Silakan pelajari UU terkait dan statuta kampus. Kampus bukan wilayah publik, kampus wilayah akademik. Sangat jelas.

RHM: Justru kampus sebagai wilayah akademik, masih relevankah skema surat izin untuk mengekspresikan gagasan? Tidak cukupkah sebuah surat pemberitahuan kegiatan sehingga diskursus gagasan tak terbelenggu oleh proses administratif yang sesungguhnya adalah bagian dari management control systems yang berpotensi melibatkan conflict of interest dan abuse of power. Apakah ekspresi gagasan para dosen di sebuah perguruan tinggi negeri itu juga melalui mekanisme pengajuan surat izin dan memperoleh izin berekspresi oleh Rektor…?

PM: Demo oleh siapapun terbukti kontra produktif. Anarkistis, merugikan publik, ganggu lalu lintas, stel lagu dangdut memekakkan telinga, teriak2 dengan toa, meninggalkan tugas tapi minta naik gaji. Berkumpul dan berpendapat dijamin UU, tapi (secara) konstitusional ke DPR, bukan cari panggung di jalan raya untuk euphoria sia-sia padahal tidak ada yang menggubris.

EMD: Mungkin kita membicarakan demo yang jenisnya berbeda, karena tidak semua demo itu anarkis juga. Demo ada bermacam-macam, apa fair jika digeneralisasi? Pembicaraan nggak bisa nyambung karena beda yang dibicarakan.

PM: Kamu sudah pernah ikut demo? Sudah pernah kena demo? Baru komentar! Sudah pernah lihat di UGD buruh memar dan berdarah wajahnya dipukuli temannya sesama buruh karena tidak mau ikut demo? Demo itu orderan, ada bohirnya. Mau berapa orang massa, berapa banyak dibayar, apa sasarannya, lokasi dan waktunya bagaimana. Itu sudah menjadi komoditas. Sekarang dia demo untuk tujuan A, besok ganti tujuan B, dimana bisa saja A & B berlawanan. Yang penting dapat duit dari bisnis demo.

Respons-respons saya di sela-sela obrolan tersebut:

1. Demonstrasi pesanan yang jelek berbeda dengan demonstrasi benar yang mendukung demokrasi.

Saya pernah ikut demo (sebagai peliput maupun aktivis) dan pernah dekat dengan koordinator lapangan saat demo. Saya pernah ikut turun ke jalan di kedua sisi demo dan saya pun pernah terjebak macet ketinggalan kereta karena demo. Yang terjadi bukan saya mengutuki orang demo, malah saya jadi tahu mereka lagi demoin apa dan saya bersimpati dengan pendemo itu. Saya tahu ada demo orderan, ataupun ada penyusup. Saya tahu ada yang tulus dan aslinya berangkat dari keresahan publik. PM telah melakukan fallacy pars pro toto, mengambil subset sebagian fenomena untuk menjelaskan keseluruhan suatu set fenomena. Generalisasi yang berbahaya, akhirnya PM menyangsikan demo yang bisa jadi merupakan artefak demokrasi yang sehat dan organik.

Kita seharusnya memang mengecam orang yang oportunistik seperti itu, demo pesanan, mereka tampak tak punya tuan kecuali demi cuan, kemarin asyik di sayap kiri, besok menclok sayap kanan. Tidak jelas ideologinya, pokoknya untung dulu hanya bermodal nasi bungkus. Saya setuju bahwa demo ada yang pesanan, tapi saya ragu kalau semua demo bisa dianggap pesanan. Saya pernah juga diiming-imingi 'nasi bungkus' lantas diminta memobilisasi massa buat suatu kepentingan kelompok tertentu, lha ngapain kalau saya sendiri tidak simpati ataupun setuju sama kepentingan dia, ya tinggal saya tolak saja. Bahkan beliau saya usir dari forum publik yang saya bangun karena merusak tatanan. Tapi kan masyarakat kita yang bodoh tidak bisa selalu rasional begitu.

Minimal yang menggubris (para pendemo itu) adalah orang-orang macam PM ini, yang merasa terganggu kegiatan sehari-harinya terganggu, harusnya kan justru menjadi bahan renungan kenapa kok kita yang punya privilege waktu, tenaga, sumber daya, atau jabatan ini tidak membantu kawan-kawan kita di jalanan dengan jalan santun saat mereka ditindas dari kemarin-kemarin? Kenapa sekarang kok setelah kita terganggu kepentingan pribadinya malah menyalahkan mereka yang demo?

Adanya konflik horizontal antar kelas lah yang terjadi, pemerintah yang abai terhadap aspirasi rakyat malah senang-senang saja melihat pendemo jalanan seperti saya dan PM yang menduduki jabatan saling melempar sumpah serapah dan lupa kalau yang didemo sebenarnya adalah pemerintah. Kalau begitu terus sama saja namanya pengalihan isu, bukan? Padahal kita bisa loh sama-sama mengemukakan pendapat ke penguasa atas apa-apa yang tidak kita rasa pas di pengambilan kebijakan, dengan jalan kita masing-masing.

2. Kampus: ruang akademik adalah ruang publik, ruang publik adalah ruang akademik.

Rekan saya seorang dosen, matanya bonyok dan giginya rontok setelah dipukul polisi. Yang PM sampaikan ini merupakan fallacy red herring, mengalihkan pembicaraan dari pokok bahasan kalau demo itu sejatinya boleh dilakukan. Mereka (korban demo) adalah akibat demo bukan sebab demo, efek samping proses demokrasi yang belum dewasa, akibat aparat represif, akibat ditunggangi kelompok kepentingan tertentu, akibat koordinator lapangan yang kurang terampil memanajemen massa, atau pendemo yang didikannya rendah. Sebabnya kan karena adanya ketidakadilan. Mahasiswa di kampus boleh demo, bahkan rekan-rekan dosen saya banyak yang berangkat demo dan mengajak mahasiswa untuk demo. Itu bentuk bernegara, itu bentuk pendidikan.

Wilayah akademik (kampus, sebagaimana disebutkan oleh RHM) itu ya wilayah publik, demikian sebaliknya. Lulusan sekolah juga akan terjun dalam hidup bermasyarakat. Janganlah kita yang punya privilege sekolah ini duduk di atas menara gading (lantas mencegah orang demo dalam kampus). Dokter, guru, bahkan karyawan BUMN pun seharusnya berhak melakukan demo, hanya saja kalau bentuk civil disobedience mogok kerja yang patut dipertanyakan, karena kewajiban mereka sebagai abdi rakyat harusnya mengatasi abdi keuntungan tempat kerja atau kepentingan golongan. Meskipun begitu, mereka-mereka sebagai abdi rakyat harusnya mendemo kebijakan yang bersifat (over)commercialization of public service boleh dong…

Saya bukan dokter, saya bukan dosen, apalagi ahli Manajemen Rumah Sakit. Tapi saya tahu RS adalah bisnis, dimana proses mencari balance tipis antara bisnis dan pengabdian memang susah. Yang kita lawan kan over-commercialization, karena hal tersebut akan menuju kepada dehumanisasi sistem pelayanan kesehatan publik. Sama saja dengan teknologi robotika dan AI: kita tidak menolak ada robotika dan AI di kedokteran, tapi akan kita gunakan hanya untuk unsur penunjang saja. Segala proses edukasi, diagnostik, terapeutik, dlsb. masih perlu adanya kehadiran sesama manusia, sehingga prosesnya tetap humanis.

Di lingkungan sekolah tempat saya berbakti juga begitu. Guru diminta memberikan yang terbaik buat siswa, pengabdian yang paripurna, tapi kalau gajinya seuprit ya ironis. Sementara itu, biaya pendidikan anak-anak mahal sekali selalu ditagihkan ke orang tua yang kian hari kian terseok-seok pontang-panting mencari uang. Ini kan namanya manajemen profit-oriented, dampak over-commercialization yang mengorbankan pelayanan publik. Itulah keadaan manajemen dalam tubuh Kemenkes yang sedang dikritik oleh para dokter dari kampus ini.

3. Demonstrasi yang mendidik rakyat adalah ciri iklim berdemokrasi yang hidup

Intinya, saya perlu setuju untuk tidak setuju dengan pendapat PM. Dalam berbagai kesempatan telah saya tegaskan demo itu perlu, wong protes dengan jalur santun aja tidak didengar, malah dibilang "anjing menggonggong kafilah berlalu" oleh pejabat—alias kita dikatain kayak anjing (sama pejabat). Ada tagar #KaburAjaDulu, direspon sama Wamenaker "kalo perlu jangan kembali". Kan malah memperparah brain drain di Indonesia jadinya. Kalau jalur resmi jalur santun tidak (berusaha) didengar oleh pejabat publik, ya cara lainnya adalah civil disobedience. Thoreau menyebutkan itu aksi sosial yang valid, bahkan Gandhi saja melakukan (pemogokan).

Demonstrasi itu juga sekaligus cara mengedukasi masyarakat tentang isu sosial yang dibenamkan oleh kusutnya birokrasi korup. Kalau nggak ada demo ya memang kelihatannya saja aman tenteram seperti pada saat masa Orde Baru. Ketika pada akhirnya ada demo besar-besaran (dimana kaum Tionghoa lagi-lagi jadi korban reformasi) dan Suharto bisa lengser, barulah kita disuguhkan kenyataan bahwa ternyata tidak ketahuan borok-boroknya sudah kadung busuk, karena yang selama ini mau mengekspos boroknya sudah keburu didor atau dibredel duluan.

Kalau saya hitung sudah kali ke sekian PM secara picik menyebutkan demo kontra-produktif, padahal demo itu vox populi sedang meronta-ronta jiwanya. Terakhir ada yang kritik pemerintah lewat jalur 'santun' dengan tulisan opini dan naskah akademik saja dikirimi kepala babi, mungkin barangkali yang kritiknya gak sopan dengan turun ke jalanan lalu bikin macet, bakar ban (kalau ini saya gak setuju juga, polusi) perlu dikirimi timah panas oleh aparat saja ya? Kan ndak begitu. Sangat disayangkan sekali, padahal PM adalah guru yang saya hormati, sebagai salah satu narasumber terkemuka dalam lingkar akademisi etika kesehatan dan termasuk para tetua pengasuh Indonesian Bioethics Forum.

[60b3r]

Sukarno dan Fangsheng

Cerita berikut dikutip dari "Kenanganku Bersama Bung Karno", dalam Catatan Jenderal Pranoto Reksosamodra (PB Kompas, 2014), halaman 167.

"Beliau tidak suka memelihara binatang yang disekap di dalam kandang... Sungguh berjiwa merdeka, maka ia tidak suka melihat binatang yang dikurangi atau dirampas kebebasannya."

Pagi-pagi buta, Bung Karno berkeliling ke asrama (pengawal Presiden, resimen Cakrabirawa). Di luar kamar-kamar ada banyak sangkar burung kesayangan para pengawal itu. Tanpa bertanya, Bung Karno membuka pintu semua sangkar, yang membuat semua burung lepas dan terbang bebas. Setibanya kembali di istana, Bung Karno memanggil semua pemilik burung yang ia lepaskan tadi.

"Tadi pagi, burung-burung piaraan kalian saya bebaskan semua, karena saya tidak suka melihat sesama hidup di dunia masih ada yang dirampas kemerdekaannya, walaupun wujudnya binatang. Kalian memiliki burung piaraan tentunya dulu beli di pasar atau diberi entah dari siapa, maka Bapak bermaksud menggantikan kerugian kalian itu."

Anak-anak pengawal serentak menjawab, "Ah, tidak usah, Pak. Kita jadi sadar dan bahkan memohon ampun ke hadapan Bapak."

Pranoto Reksosamodra adalah seorang jenderal berlatar belakang calon guru muda. Aktif sejak masa PETA, puncak karirnya ialah ketika dia ditunjuk Soekarno untuk menjadi Plt. Harian Menpangad sejak 2 Oktober 1965 sepeninggal Ahmad Yani. Sebagai orang yang diharapkan mampu mengatasi kekacauan pasca Gestok, ia kemudian malah disingkirkan oleh Suharto dan menjadi tapol tanpa proses peradilan apapun hingga akhir hayatnya.

Fang Sheng (放生) dan Jiu Sheng (救生) adalah salah satu bentuk praktik dari Abhaya Dāna (Perbuatan Baik untuk Keselamatan/Rasa Aman). Fangsheng adalah melepaskan makhluk hidup ke alam bebas, sementara jiusheng adalah menyelamatkan makhluk hidup dari bahaya, misalnya dengan memberi makan atau membantu hewan terluka.

Namun, fangsheng tidak bisa dilakukan di sembarang tempat. Lokasi pelepasan dianjurkan adalah habitat asli hewan tersebut, karena jika salah tempat bisa mengakibatkan kematian satwa yang dilepaskan dan juga bisa berdampak buruk bagi rantai makanan dan makhluk endemik di lokasi tersebut. Misalnya, melepaskan ikan ke sungai tertentu yang bukan habitatnya dapat mengintroduksikan spesies invasif yang mengganggu keseimbangan ekosistem.

Karena nilai-nilai ajaran Buddha yang semakin tergerus, banyak orang hanya menganggap fangsheng sekadar ritual belaka. Tidak jarang orang-orang memanfaatkan momen tradisi fangsheng dan menjadikannya bisnis, yakni dengan menjebak hewan-hewan untuk kemudian dijual lagi. Celakanya, hewan-hewan tersebut bisa saja malah sengaja diternakkan untuk dijual di kelenteng-kelenteng atau vihara-vihara yang umatnya tidak dididik dengan baik. Jika dilepaskan ke alam bebas, justru hewan-hewan tersebut bisa mati karena biasa dipelihara.

Sabba pappasa akaranam, Kusala uppasampada, Sacitta pariyodapanam, Etam Buddhanam sasanam Janganlah melakukan perbuatan jahat, Perbanyaklah berbuat kebajikan, Sucikan hati dan pikiran, Inilah inti ajaran Buddha. (Dhammapada XIV, 183)

Oleh karena kitu, mari kita jaga nilai-nilai ajaran welas asih Sang Buddha, kita wajib melestarikan lingkungan sekitar kita, dan secara bersamaan memastikan bahwa keluarga kita bisa melakukan fangsheng dengan benar. Apalagi, habis ini momen Imlek, dimana banyak sekali orang keturunan Tionghoa yang masih melaksanakan ritual Tridharma juga ikut menyerap tradisi Buddhisme ini. Kita bisa mulai dengan tidak memelihara hewan-hewan yang sudah terancam punah, dan tidak menelantarkan hewan-hewan peliharaan yang merupakan tanggung jawab kita. Semoga semua makhluk hidup berbahagia.

[60b3r]

Legal Tyranny of the Constitutional Court

A brief response from the Petitioner to Decision Number 146/PUU-XXII/2024

Possible consequences of this decision include:

This means that all citizens are now legally permitted to lie by providing false information. In fact, they are obligated by law to do so if their actual beliefs are not included in the list of options or will not be acknowledged by the state. Truly, an astonishing level of religious freedom.

This means that all citizens who have lied about their religion are now permitted, nay, even obligated by law to adopt either imported religions or "indigenous Nusantara religions" to fulfill their interests, particularly to legally marry, even though it's religiously invalid. How can a religion justify fake conversions followed by sham religious weddings conducted by non-believers? Yet this is precisely what might happen to those who don't believe but are forced to become "Kadialim Diponegoro" (“kafir dadi alim dipeksa negara”, infidel turned devout by state coercion). And this act isn't considered religious blasphemy but merely a consequence of the state's imposition on all its citizens to adopt a religion, at least administratively.

This creates a new categorization of religion for citizens: 1) the actual religion or belief they truly believe in, and 2) the administrative religion that is listed in the population data.

According to Usman Hamid, Executive Director of Amnesty International Indonesia: 1) The potential misuse of the Constitutional Court's decision by law enforcement, which could lead to the imprisonment of those who choose to be non-religious or hold beliefs different from state-recognized religions. 2) The decision provides room for certain groups to engage in acts of intolerance or discrimination against individuals who are deemed not to conform to the officially recognized religious teachings in Indonesia. 3) The decision could be a breath of fresh air for practices of intolerance and discrimination in society, ultimately harming religious freedom and human rights as a whole.

When the Penal Code is enforced, what might happen is what has already happened: individuals defiling their own religion. All offenders according to Article 302 are those who follow a religion, just like previous religious defilers according to the PNPS Law amendments were also all religious followers. Strange but true.

The law closes the space for citizens to be non-religious, does this mean losing the right to citizenship? Should such citizens be expelled from Indonesia (obviously they won't have ID cards with all the legal consequences) or should they seek asylum in countries where the law allows citizens to be non-religious?

Legal science needs to revisit what rights and obligations are, because according to the Constitutional Court, rights and obligations, like human rights, are not universal but particular to the Indonesian nation. In particular, in Indonesia, a right can be interpreted as a certain obligation, the obligation to choose one of seven options is still called a right and not an obligation. It’s like saying “it’s still a goat, even if it can fly.”

Legal science must examine the element of the so-called “sinar ketuhanan” (“divine illumination”) in all applicable legal products. Legal science must test the degree of “barokah” (“blessing”) in all legal products. Legal science must determine whether a right has been particularized or remains universal, has been de-liberalized or is still liberal, and whether it has been illuminated by the “divine light” or not.

All marriages performed before 1974, especially those between people of different religions, those who are non-religious, or those who are religious but did not perform their religious marriage rites, are essentially invalid according to the Constitutional Court because "religion and belief in Almighty God are elements that cannot be removed from the requirements for a valid marriage."

Indonesia will be viewed by the international community as having especially reneged on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other international human rights covenants that Indonesia has ratified.

If we use the current perspective of the Constitutional Court, it is clear that Ir. Soekarno made a fatal mistake in his speech before the UN General Assembly and his speech on the birth of Pancasila. Perhaps Soekarno's Pancasila is different from the Pancasila as interpreted by the current Constitutional Court?

Contradictions found in the verdict:

Religious freedom is guaranteed by law as long as you choose one of the seven available options for the religion column on your ID card and Family Card. Therefore, Indonesia is not truly a religious state, but a state of seven religions. Recognition of anything beyond these six is merely lip service, perhaps? This is reminiscent of the tale told by Henry Ford about the Ford Model T cars, which were only available in black: "Any color the customer wants, as long as it's black."

The restriction that citizens must choose one of the provided religions or not be served is not an oppressive or arbitrary form of coercion because the law allows citizens to provide false data to the state. If the law did not allow and oblige citizens to lie and provide false data, then it could be called an oppressive and arbitrary state.

The nature and character of human rights enforced by the state are not universal but particular, even though the country has ratified the civil and political rights covenants based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which binds all UN member states. So, the human rights enforced in Indonesia must first undergo a process of de-liberalization, de-universalization, or what is called particularization, and the entire process from start to finish must be continuously illuminated with the “Divine Light” to ensure the legal product brings “blessings”.

Even though it has ratified the ICCPR and agreed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Republic of Indonesia does not feel bound and is not obligated to align its laws with these general standards. Instead, it is required to process all human rights through particularization, de-liberalization, and illumination with the Divine Light.

All human rights must be particular and religious in nature, and thus appropriately imposed on all elements of the Indonesian nation but cannot be applied to people of other nations due to their particular nature. Such coercion does not fall into the category of oppressive and arbitrary coercion, even though all other rights requiring possession of an ID card cannot be provided by the state.

ID cards and Family Cards are not the right of every citizen. Being legally recorded as a citizen only happens if they fulfill the obligation to choose a religion according to the applicable law. This is not arbitrary coercion, of course.

Not a contradiction, but an interesting reality: “All students must increase their faith and piety,” including their administrative faith and piety. Therefore, a new terminology can be introduced: “Administrative iman and taqwa”. All citizens are expected to have high administrative faith and piety to maintain the character of a religious-administrative nation, truly.

Indonesia is not a religious state, even though all citizens are required to be religious. It’s not a religious state, although its constitution is a "godly constitution." Not a religious state, even though its constitution is a "religious constitution." Not a religious state, even though the Constitutional Court has declared that the principles of democracy and nomocracy are based on the principles of theocracy. Indeed, Indonesia is not a religious state, but it can clearly be called a state of seven religions. It is also clear that the holder of the divine mandate in Indonesia's theocracy is none other than the Constitutional Court itself, as the guardian of the divine constitution, the guardian of the religious constitution. Due to this identification of the constitution, the Constitutional Court might as well be called, quod non, the Divine Court or the Religious Court or perhaps the repeater of the “Divine Light's radiance”.

Inconsistencies in the Constitutional Court's reasoning:

The petitioner does not have legal standing to challenge Article 302, Paragraph (1) of Law No. 1/2023 on the Criminal Code because it is not yet in force, hence it is irrelevant even as a potential harm. How can something that is certain to come into effect be viewed as not posing a potential threat until the danger from that threat becomes real? Given the reality of a law being enacted, its potential consequences at the time it comes into effect should be deducible. But this is not unusual to happen, just as regional elections have been declared not a general election by the Constitutional Court. "Ancestral religions" are seen as not religions but are equated with religions, while regional elections according to the Constitutional Court are not and cannot be equated with general elections even though all elements are exactly the same except for the position contested in the regional elections.

In the testing of laws, the contents of the law itself or other laws should not be used as arguments. However, the Constitutional Court has repeatedly used the contents of other laws in its rejections, such as: “This protection even includes protection for the existence or continuity of religious life, among other things by prohibiting blasphemy and prohibiting calls to not adhere to any religion that is based on the Almighty God.”

The Constitutional Court's decision No. 97/PUU-XIV/2016 (especially elaborated on pages 137–140) asserts that the right to adhere to religion and belief is a constitutional right of citizens that cannot be reduced under any circumstances, which essentially stems from natural rights, not from state grants. Therefore, the state, especially the government, has the obligation and responsibility to respect, protect, and fulfill these rights. But in the current decision, it is stated that the right can be reduced and even limited to “only seven choices.” Did the Constitutional Court forget that the right to religion cannot be reduced under any circumstances? It is clearly and explicitly stated in Article 28I of the 1945 Constitution: “The right to life, the right to not be tortured, the right to freedom of thought and conscience, the right to religion, the right to not be enslaved, the right to be recognized as a person before the law, and the right to not be prosecuted under retroactive laws are human rights that cannot be reduced under any circumstances.” They are quoting an article that allows restrictions, which should only apply to other human rights elements, but confusingly is also applied to the right to religion.

The idea that after recording their administrative religion, citizens are not burdened with any religious obligations is not in line with reality. Many legal products, not just the Marriage Law, impose additional obligations.

The Constitutional Court lacks sufficient reasons to refute several arguments presented by the Petitioner, including:

President Ir. Soekarno's speech before the UN General Assembly literally stated that there are Indonesians who are non-religious, even atheists. It was merely contrasted with statements of unclear sources, based solely on subjective conclusions and beliefs. In this matter, among others, Soekarno, Muhammad Hatta, Moh. Natsir, KRMT Wongsonagoro, A.A. Maramis, I.J. Kasimo Hendrowahyono, were national figures who believed that absolute belief comes from religion and adherence to God's rules.

All arguments were only linked to the petitum of "the right to be non-religious," thus ignoring the argument about the removal of the religion column because it can endanger lives, contradicting the state's goal of protecting all Indonesian people and their homeland. Therefore, the issue of removing the religion column will be submitted again, although skeptically, but "the struggle, although seemingly doomed to fail, must continue" (William Wallace, The Braveheart). Its removal is not only due to the right to be non-religious; the state may still force citizens to choose one of the seven religions but including it on the ID card and Family Card is a different matter. The Judges have been unfair from the start, using blinders in assessing the petition, not considering each article as itself, but always linking everything to the "right to be non-religious."

Other interesting findings:

Values of justice, usefulness, goodness, and other beneficial values are declared by the Constitutional Court as moral and ethical divine values, even though it is clear these are not exclusively "divine moral and ethical values." Does the Constitutional Court also wear blinders that claim all these values exclusively? Does the Constitutional Court believe that without the radiance of divine light, all these values become meaningless?

According to the Constitutional Court, the principles of democracy (sovereignty of the people) and nomocracy (sovereignty of law) of the Republic of Indonesia are not fundamental principles because, according to the Constitutional Court, they must be based on the principle of theocracy. According to the Constitutional Court, "the country was essentially founded with the spirit of theology that inspires national and state life practices." Will the Constitutional Court also claim to be the extension or at least the evaluator of the "will of God"? Will the Constitutional Court become the guardian and determiner of divine and religious values?

The Constitutional Court's decision can be said to also possess literary value, not just legal value, with the inclusion of the term "divine illumination." All related phrases suddenly become more poetic.

What is this “divine light” anyway? The Constitutional Court reads: “Human rights in Indonesia are not universal but particular and must first be de-liberalized, and the entire process must be illuminated with the divine light so that the legal products made must be illuminated with the divine light (at max intensity?)… laws made must pay attention to and ensure the creation of blessings (oh the barokah)…”

But according to the applicable law, the Constitutional Court's power is absolute, even if its decisions violate (quod non?) any regulations, they remain final and binding. All of its decisions can be viewed within the framework of Performative Truth Theory, not whether the decision aligns with reality, is consistent or not, but the decision itself creates reality. Can the verdict rendered by Convict Aqil Mochtar (formerly Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court) be reviewed? Can the verdict related to the code of ethics (Gibran Rakabuming Raka case, although the legal counsel of the Petitioners –Teguh Sugiharto– did not agree with the Constitutional Court's Hononary Council decision) be reviewed? Therefore, it can be said that democracy and even human rights are sometimes contradicted and crushed by the legal rulers (nomocracy), especially theocracy, because the Constitutional Court believes our constitution is a religious constitution or also called a godly constitution. It can be concluded that the Constitutional Court claims itself as God's representative in Indonesia, authorized to judge whether a legal product is truly in accordance with God's will or contradicts it, or at least whether it has been “illuminated by the divine light (in the most truly holy and genuinely sacred illumination, of course)”.

No party, not even the Almighty God, can annul the Constitutional Court's decision unless the Court itself changes its opinion based on the principle of lex posteriori derogate lex priori. And no party, not even the Almighty God, can stop the Constitutional Court if it makes a decision that contradicts the 1945 Constitution, as the Constitutional Court did with this case, which also contradicts the statements of the Founding Fathers Ir. Soekarno and KH Agus Salim. A decision that has the potential to divide the nation, has the Constitutional Court forgotten that one of the purposes of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is "considering that human rights need to be protected by law, so that people are not forced to choose the path of rebellion as a last resort to oppose tyranny and oppression"? With this decision, the Constitutional Court clearly states that the law must turn its back on the UDHR because the UDHR is “universal and liberal” and not illuminated by the radiance of the divine light, thus they argue that UDHR produces universal, liberal, and especially non-blessed legal products.

Thus, this response to the decision that has been unjust from the beginning, by not providing an opportunity to explain and give adequate information, to present witnesses and experts who support and perfect the petition, thus raising the possibly true suspicion that the Constitutional Court followed the instructions of Hidayat Nur Wahid (Chairman of the MPR RI), to immediately decide without the need for prolonged deliberation.

[60b3r]

Albert's Cultured Crunches

Top 3 Must Reads

On Bullshit is an article by Harry Frankfurt (1968) that talks about different types of bullshit, its uses, and why it needs to be analyzed and distinguished from lies. Now, we can think that 'fake news' can also be analyzed based on its purpose. Being familiar with misinformation allows us to analyze the hidden meanings that the spreader of the information wants to convey.

Dao De Jing is a collection of poems by Laozi (4th century BC) that should be read not only as Daojiao (Taoist teachings) but also as Daojia (a collection of thoughts). After reading this book directly from the original language (like I did), you will understand that Laozi was a literary figure who conveyed social criticism and philosophical views about the world in the context of his time.

Digital Fortress is a techno-thriller novel written by Dan Brown (1998) while he was possessed by the creative spirit of Tom Clancy. The way Brown writes a story full of tech jargon—considering the time he wrote it—yet still keeps readers flipping through the pages, is an unparalleled experience. It was so enjoyable, it's the only book I still remember even though I usually don't like fiction.

Favourite Movie and Series

Cloud Atlas (2012 movie). It is said that there are only three kinds of people in this world: those who have never seen this film, those who have seen it and HATE it, and those who have seen it and LOVE it. The film combines elements of reincarnation, political satire, eco-dystopia, multiverse, and sci-fi. Guess which type of person I am.

Mr. Robot (2015-2019 series). Despite the goofy name, the series has nothing to do with actual robots. It is a hacker thriller and a social critique of current financial technology and our current psychological construct in the digital age. It deals with existentialist questions a lot while at the same time serving a myriad of pop culture references.

Love, Death, Robots (2019 running series). An adult animated anthology of sci-fi universes, the series' genre spans from post-apocalyptic atom punk to an alternate history gothic vampire hunt. They are original, standalone short stories that deals with how humans see themselves in the grand scheme of the universe.

Favourite Video Essayist

In its essays, Accented Cinema analyzes the cultural background and context that lead directors to make certain decisions. Why are there certain dialogue elements, why is the film set in a particular year, character attributes, camera angles, and so on. I guarantee you'll appreciate the creative process in the film industry even more.

The game designer Adam Millard, the host of Architect of Games, discusses many things about player-friendly level design, addictive scoring mechanisms, programming processes and limitations, and how a game can convey messages not just through text or music, but through unique mechanisms like time loops or strange respawns.

Top 2 Most Iconic Fictional Characters

A ghoul who has seen the worst of mankind multiple times over, Raul Tejada is unable to accept that his prime time has passed away (like an old man he is), he seeks closure from the disturbing things he witnessed or might have done during his lifetime (again, regretting the past, like an old man), but he is not just a regular 'grumpy old man', he gets the job done with the finesse of a prime cowboy.

Garrus Vakarian was a former C-Sec officer turned a vigilante because he can't stand the inefficiency of the existing justice system. He is a pinpoint marksman, a good commander, but… he also dances and throws witty jokes. Garrus drinks with you, and then sometime later backs you up in weird assignments on hostile worlds. He's the ultimate bro experience: he can be forgiving, and he can be ruthless.

Top 2 Most Pitiful Fictional Characters

Luke Skywalker is supposed to continue the Jedi Order, but his skills are there mainly not because he trained virtuously with Master Yoda, but because he is the son of the Chosen One (ugh, I hate genetics when it's being used incorrectly as a plot device). Lucas could have added more challenges and install a variety of pitfalls to his efforts while trying to restore the Galactic Republic. Maybe it was just enough at a time where the cinema trope of a struggling hero against a powerful evil was very prevalent in film culture.

While Boromir is considered a necessary supporting character, he is a mere minor antagonist with no strong character. It seems to me that he is only there for Tolkien (still, with all due respect, since he is a professor in literature) to progress the story. Tolkien kills him right after he had outlived his usefulness, that is to serve as an addition to Gollum, someone who succumbs to the temptations of the One Ring. Boromir deserved more chance to either fall deeper into the corruption or be redeemed wholly before he completed his story arc.

Top 2 Most Adored (Indonesian) Historical Figure

A Chinese-Indonesian famous for his role in defending the marginalized people in his work as a statesman and a just law enforcer, Yap Thian-hien also played a part in the early formation of legal aid institutions and became a figure in the struggle for Chinese integration in Indonesia. Yap is a role model in activism, even though he faced cynicism from fellow Chinese and racist insults at home.

Tjokroaminoto was the spiritual and philosophical mentor to notorious Indonesian political figures like Soekarno, Musso, and Kartosoewirjo. He played a role in their informal education, who would then later shaped Indonesia as it is today. His heroism theme is like a boarding house landlord with a spirit of communitarianism. Where can you find such a cool landlord these days?

Top 2 Most Questionable (Religious) Historical Figure

I won't talk about the 'miracles' Jesus Christ supposedly performed, but about the wide social impact Jesus caused. His teachings were quite revolutionary, he could have been a very eccentric and respected leader in his time (like an influencer today). But why did he surrender to the Romans to be crucified in his early 30s? Even if he wasn't crucified (according to certain religious teachings), why did he go up to 'heaven' and only come back at the 'end of times'? He caused a stir in Judea 2000 years ago and then just ghosted us?

Muhammad was a charismatic religious figure, a clever and skilled trader, and a successful political leader. Indeed, his teachings were quite systematic and the laws he made were very orderly, suitable for leading a young and unstable society. Sweet worldly pleasures in the afterlife promises are a good strategy to recruit people in wartime emergencies to be ready to die, but now those promises are used recklessly by his followers hundreds of years later, endangering others, which disrupts the hegemony Muhammad himself wanted.

*partially adapted from a collection of proses I wrote for an ed-tech talent pool pre-interview form, 2024

[60b3r]

As a biotech-educated biology teacher, I curated two short ethics case study about mosquito eradication, adapted from the works of Slater (2009), Leake & Armijo (2020), and Wienhues (2022) for use in my classrooms. The activity could be delivered in two to four sessions, and I suggest parliamentary debating as a method of evaluation.

Mosquitoes actually are not replaceable in any ecosystem that naturally has them and that includes replacing them with any of the non biting species because these are the traits that make them so core to food webs:

Tiny

Can use every single pool of moisture to raise generations no matter how dirty and stagnant and low in oxygen

Can fly

Males get by on just sugars

Females take protein from larger animals to manufacture thousands more eggs

All these things combined allow thst ecosystem to make huge volumes of insects from conditions barren to most other macroscopic life. You might think there are other insects that seem to make huge massive swarms out of nothing but there's really nothing that hits all the same qualities *except other insects that also suck blood.*

It's the precise combo of being able to "prey" on things millions of times larger and breed in nothing but a few drops of filthy rainwater or the moisture in a rotten log. That's the most efficient combination for anything that size to multiply that rapidly where nothing else can even survive, except of course the things that can move in because they eat them :)

[60b3r]

A good boss senses leadership, a shitty boss senses competition. A good boss values integrity, a shitty boss wants naivety. A good boos engages in debates, a shitty boss demands obedience. A good boss sees determination, a shitty boss sees annoyance. A good boss gets good talents, a shitty boss gets cheap labor. A good boss take the blame for mistakes, a shitty boss seeks a scapegoat. A good boss commends achievements, a shitty boss seeks praise.

[60b3r]

The Chaos

by Gerard Nolst Trenité (1993)

the first 58 lines of the poem... and the last 6 lines.

Dearest creature in creation Studying English pronunciation, I will teach you in my verse Sounds like corpse, corps, horse and worse. I will keep you, Susy, busy, Make your head with heat grow dizzy; Tear in eye, your dress you'll tear; Queer, fair seer, hear my prayer. Pray, console your loving poet, Make my coat look new, dear, sew it! 10 Just compare heart, hear and heard, Dies and diet, lord and word. Sword and sward, retain and Britain (Mind the latter how it's written). Made has not the sound of bade, Say - said, pay - paid, laid but plaid. Now I surely will not plague you With such words as vague and ague, But be careful how you speak, Say: gush, bush, steak, streak, break, bleak, 20 Previous, precious, fuchsia, via Recipe, pipe, studding-sail, choir; Woven, oven, how and low, Script, receipt, shoe, poem, toe. Say, expecting fraud and trickery: Daughter, laughter and Terpsichore, Branch, ranch, measles, topsails, aisles, Missiles, similes, reviles. Wholly, holly, signal, signing, Same, examining, but mining, 30 Scholar, vicar, and cigar, Solar, mica, war and far. From "desire": desirable - admirable from "admire", Lumber, plumber, bier, but brier, Topsham, brougham, renown, but known, Knowledge, done, lone, gone, none, tone, One, anemone, Balmoral, Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel. Gertrude, German, wind and wind, Beau, kind, kindred, queue, mankind, 40 Tortoise, turquoise, chamois-leather, Reading, Reading, heathen, heather. This phonetic labyrinth Gives moss, gross, brook, brooch, ninth, plinth. Have you ever yet endeavoured To pronounce revered and severed, Demon, lemon, ghoul, foul, soul, Peter, petrol and patrol? Billet does not end like ballet; Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet. 50 Blood and flood are not like food, Nor is mould like should and would. Banquet is not nearly parquet, Which exactly rhymes with khaki. Discount, viscount, load and broad, Toward, to forward, to reward, Ricocheted and crocheting, croquet? Right! Your pronunciation's OK.

Don't you think so, reader, rather, Saying lather, bather, father? 270 Finally, which rhymes with enough, Though, through, bough, cough, hough, sough, tough?? Hiccough has the sound of sup… My advice is: GIVE IT UP!

[60b3r]

Menyoal Hukuman Mati

Ini adalah komentar dan refleksi saya terhadap obrolan soal hukuman mati untuk koruptor antara EK, PM, BB, dan ED; dikutip dari percakapan pagi ini, Kamis 19 Oktober 2023 di grup WhatsApp Indonesian Bioethics Forum.

PM: hukuman mati itu sangat unethical karena melanggar human life, human rights, human dignity.

EK: Korupsi sangat lebih lagi unethical-nya. Alasannya banyak, just name them... sejuta. Sewaktu seseorang melakukan korupsi, dia juga nggak memikirkan orang lain kok ? Cruel, inhumane, etc.

Context: Amnesty International holds that the death penalty breaches human rights, in particular the right to life and the right to live free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Both rights are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN in 1948.

PM: Kehidupan anugerah Tuhan, jadi hanya dia yang berhak mengambilnya. Kalau ini diingkari berarti ateis, itu sebabnya di negara komunis banyak hukuman mati.

EK: Apakah setelah dipenjara berubah? Apakah dia menjadi manusia yang bertobat dan berubah perilakunya?

Sebaliknya yang terjadi, dalam penjara pun dia masih melakukan penyuapan kepada yang bisa disuap untuk mendapatkan privilege kenyamanan seperti di luar penjara, mendapatkan keringanan hukuman dari tahun ke tahun. Ketika hukumannya selesai dijalani, dia masih boleh mendaftarkan diri sebagai pejabat publik.

Di mana letak keadilan bagi orang lain yang bersusah payah mengusahakan hidup yang paling minimal sekalipun untuk bisa mengenyam tumbuh kembang dengan sehat, memperoleh pendidikan yang berkualitas, dan menikmati pekerjaan yang halal serta dapat menunjang kehidupannya sampai dia meninggal dunia?

Korupsi adalah kejahatan kemanusiaan yang paling berat dan jahat. Untuk memberantas korupsi sampai ke akar-akarnya, tidak dibutuhkan teori yang muluk-muluk. Hanya diperlukan ketegasan dan kemanusiaan terhadap the majority of people.

BB: Komunisme adalah ideologi politik yang didefinisikan dengan ringan sebagai suatu paham pemerataan stratifikasi sosial dan kepemilikan finansial kaum buruh dan tani (proletar) dengan kaum pengusaha (borjuis) lewat pendekatan ekonomi kesejahteraan dan perjuangan rakyat kecil, sehingga tercipta sebuah persamaan dan kesetaraan hak dan kewajiban. Sedangkan ateisme adalah sebuah pandangan filosofi yang tidak memercayai keberadaan Tuhan dan dewa-dewi.

Seorang ateis bisa saja memiliki pandangan liberal, sekuler, kapitalis, atau juga komunis. Oleh karena itu, tidak semua ateis adalah komunis dan tidak semua komunis adalah ateis. Sementara itu di India, komunisme bukan hanya dirangkul, tetapi juga dipimpin oleh muslim, di Amerika Latin, Komunisme-Marxisme mempengaruhi ajaran Katolik sehingga terbentuklah Teologi Pembebasan.

ED: Memberi hukuman itu untuk mendidik, memberi efek jera dan menyadarkan akan kesalahan. Jika tujuannya balas dendam maka tidak etis. Apalagi jika membalas dendamnya sampai kepada keluarganya dihabiskan. Hukuman mati menurut saya tergantung jenis kesalahannya (beratnya dan efeknya bagi masyarakat)

Respons saya:

1. Tentang hukuman mati dan argumen penolakan hukuman mati.

Kalau mau 'siksa' koruptor untuk efek jera, maka pilihan saya adalah hukuman seumur hidup, miskinkan, masuk maximum security prison. Kalau hukuman mati itu justru terlalu humane buat seseorang yang bikin banyak orang 'setengah mati'. Itu adalah langkah berpikir yang lebih logis daripada sekadar 'pokoknya tidak boleh membunuh'. Setelah eksistensialisme, kita bisa berdebat bahwa 'setengah mati' (hidup tapi hak hidup layaknya dicabut) itu lebih menyiksa daripada mati. Kalau seseorang mati, dia kan kehilangan rasa sakit. Bagaimana dia refleksi kesalahan yang telah ia perbuat?

Bayangkan penjahat yang biasanya punya jabatan tinggi, bisa memerintah, mengatur-atur orang lain, memiliki kekuasaan besar, tiba-tiba dia menjadi powerless, sendirian di dalam sel, tanpa punya kuasa apa-apa atas orang lain bahkan dirinya untuk bebas melakukan apa-apa. Wah, tentu menderita sekali bukan? Bisa jadi membuka peluang mereka untuk bisa merefleksikan tindakan kejahatannya. Lantas bagaimana dong kalau masih bisa? Kan tidak fair. Iya. Tapi kan berarti masalahnya adalah napi masih punya kuasa di balik tembok sel, karena apa? Karena sistem penjaranya yang kurang ketat. Maka, perlu reformasi manajemen lapas untuk hal itu.

Hukuman seumur hidup itu lebih menyiksa. enak bener dia bikin orang2 menderita, 'setengah mati', eh dia tiba2 dipenggal/didor wis ngono tok udah bye-bye. Hukuman seumur hidup, terisolasi, batasi pergerakannya, bikin dia merasakan itu seumur hidupnya, lebih menyiksa. Coba lihat contoh penjahat lain yang menyebabkan banyak kerugian, dan juga dihukum mati: pengedar narkoba. Apa iya, dengan membunuh pengedar itu kita menurunkan angka pecandu obat dan organized drug trafficking crime?

2. Tentang kerangka etika life and dignity secara agama vs. sekuler.

Kerangka etika di dunia ini ada banyak. Untuk membedah suatu masalah, yang dipakai bukan hanya cuma principlism, alias 'pokoknya ga boleh gitu'. Kalau principlism melulu yang dipakai, ilmu etika nggak akan pernah maju-maju. Justru masalah-masalah etika harus bisa diperdebatkan, misalnya sesuai asas manfaat (consequentialism).

Perdebatan di ilmu etika bukan untuk menstandarkan semuanya. Itu tugas hukum positif, salah satu turunan hasil perdebatan etika. Kalau mau menstandarkan semua tingkah laku, paling mudah dan siap sedia ya ikut norma agama saja, beres. Penjurunya kan cuma satu yakni kitab suci agama yang seringkali diklaim infallible (padahal ya nggak juga, kalau secara sosio-antropologi agama kan bikinan manusia.)

Maka seharusnya saya bisa berkontribusi ke perdebatan seperti ini: Sesuatu yang hidup, dia layak hidup, kalau dia punya nilai manfaat. Sesuatu yang hidup tapi tidak/kurang bermanfaat ya bisa diperdebatkan nilai life dan dignity-nya.

Contoh, kucing nan lucu dan imut, kalau hidup membuat manusia bahagia. Apakah eksistensi kucing lucu membawa manfaat? Ya. Maka kucing layak hidup. Tapi kalau terlalu banyak kucing-kucing, mereka bisa jadi akan jadi hama lingkungan (pests), korek-korek sampah, berak sembarangan, mencuri makanan, sarang kutu, vektor penyakit, dll. Maka hak hidup bahkan hak bereproduksinya (si kucing-kucing ini) sebaiknya dicabut. Di sini ada ethical consideration untuk forced sterilization atau diburu/tembak. Dari diskusi ini baru dilahirkan Peraturan Daerah, misalnya, yang mengikat dan wajib dilakukan.

Begitu juga terhadap manusia, karena manusia adalah hewan. Standar moralnya boleh jadi sama (Peter Singer). Masak manusia mau dikecualikan dari ethical consideration? Kalau misalkan terbukti secara ilmiah dan signifikan secara statistik koruptor dia pasti beranak koruptor, atau misalkan diketemukan kecenderungan koruptor memiliki kelainan gen yang heritable, alias korupsi karena nature, maka sebaiknya dia dibunuh karena akan menyengsarakan lebih banyak orang lagi, saya mungkin saja setuju (argumen ini namanya New Eugenics). Tapi kalau koruptor tumbuh karena sistem (nurture) yang jelek, birokrasi yang ruwet, budaya suap-menyuap yang marak, dan kebiasaan pungli, maka seharusnya sistemnya-lah yang diperbaiki agar ada efek deterrence.

3. Tentang komunisme, ateisme, dan hukuman mati di negara-negara komunis yang menerapkan state atheism

Ateis harusnya mulai dipisahkan dari komunis karena penyetaraan itu menutupi banyak fakta sejarah. Banyak orang yang saking bencinya dengan ateis, membunuhi komunis, dan sebaliknya, orang yang saking bencinya membunuhi ateis yang komunis. Pelekatan dua label ontologis ini memang perlu dikaji ulang. Masalahnya, bukan disitu letak inti permasalahan yang berusaha di-highlight oleh diskusi ini.

Latar belakang kenapa komunis disandingkan dengan ateis adalah kemalasan orang beragama yang tertindas untuk bangkit melawan penindasnya. Silakan baca serial Jalan Kiri di blog ini. Karena itu, setiap negara komunis biasanya menggunakan klausul state atheism di konstitusinya, untuk menjaga revolusi proletariat tetap berlangsung dengan tegak dan konsisten.

Orang tertindas, kalau beragama, mereka menghibur diri dengan 'wes ana dalane dhewe, diparingi gusti allah' yang justru kontra-revolusi. Makanya oleh Marx, agama disebut candu, bikin malas, bikin bodoh, bikin abai. Agama dimusuhi oleh komunisme bukan karena kader-kader komunis itu semuanya ateis, tetapi secara pragmatis tidak sejalan dengan perjuangan kelas dan tujuan politik ideologi tersebut.

Apakah di negara komunis lalu hukuman mati dilakukan karena mereka menerapkan state atheism? Apakah mereka tidak menghargai hidup karena mereka tidak mengenal konsep Tuhan Sang Pencipta? Belum tentu ada hubungan langsung disana. Yang jelas, dasarnya komunisme ini adalah summum bonum, untuk kebaikan yang seluas-luasnya. Sangat utilitarianis. Sehingga, life si penjahat itu tidak dianggap sakral bukan karena mau anti-Tuhan, tapi sesederhana ada banyak life orang lain yang sedang dipertaruhkan di penegakan hukum tentang korupsi, yang menyebabkan diambil keputusan mengorbankan satu untuk kepentingan banyak.

4. Tentang tata cara berargumen secara baik, bisa mencontoh historical dialectical materialism.

Kalau kita lihat sejarah, nilai hidup itu sendiri itu sangat rendah. banyak dikorbankan demi yang lebih tinggi itu nilai progress kehidupan. Padahal, tanpa ada kehidupan (life), kita tidak akan bisa menghidupi kehidupan itu (live). Jadi kalau misal ada yang menyebutkan hidup itu sendiri yang utamanya harus dilindungi (Giorgio Agamben) karena tanpa hidup, progres kehidupan pun tidak akan ada, itu sah-sah saja. Kalau jalan berpikirnya begini saya terima.

Maka kalau membuat prinsip etika, tidak boleh hanya 'pokoknya nggak boleh', tapi harus ada alasannya, justifikasinya harus ada. Saya nggak peduli kamu siapa atau ideologi kepercayaannya apa, kalau kita berbicara etika nggak boleh pake 'pokoknya agama saya bilang begini.' Harus ada justifikasi dan justifikasinya masuk akal (logical) dan bisa diterima (sound). Tak heran, banyak sekali orang-orang menyebut kemalasan berpikir yang dimiliki kebanyakan orang beragama sebagai salah satu masalah yang harus diselesaikan oleh institusi keagamaan.

Maka dari itu saya suka sekali memakai pendekatan nilai-nilai etika sekuler, yang tidak 'tercemari' influence agama apapun. Usaha pendekatan humanis itulah yang pada akhirnya beranak jadi tesis Master saya, yang mengangkat pandangan humanis sekuler untuk merespons aborsi, eutanasia, dan rekayasa genetika. Masalah-masalah etika yang sarat beban moral, baik yang sejak lama sudah menjadi perdebatan, maupun menyambut teknologi masa depan, yang harus segera kita mulai perdebatan etikanya sebelum ada banyak moral hazard yang timbul akibat ketidakpastian hukum.

[60b3r]

xkcd: Purity

[60b3r]

Robohnya Surau Kami

by Ali Akbar Navis (Kisah, 1955)

Kalau beberapa tahun yang lalu Tuan datang ke kota kelahiranku dengan menumpang bis, Tuan akan berhenti di dekat pasar. Maka kira-kira sekilometer dari pasar akan sampailah Tuan di jalan kampungku. Pada simpang kecil ke kanan, simpang yang kelima, membeloklah ke jalan sempit itu. Dan di ujung jalan nanti akan Tuan temui sebuah surau tua. Di depannya ada kolam ikan, yang airnya mengalir melalui empat buah pancuran mandi.

Dan di pelataran kiri surau itu akan Tuan temui seorang tua yang biasanya duduk di sana dengan segala tingkah ketuaannya dan ketaatannya beribadat. Sudah bertahun-tahun ia sebagai garin, penjaga surau itu. Orang-orang memanggilnya Kakek.

Sebagai penjaga surau, Kakek tidak mendapat apa-apa. Ia hidup dari sedekah yang dipungutnya sekali se-Jumat. Sekali enam bulan ia mendapat seperempat dari hasil pemungutan ikan mas dari kolam itu. Dan sekali setahun orang-orang mengantarkan fitrah Id kepadanya. Tapi sebagai garin ia tak begitu dikenal. Ia lebih dikenal sebagai pengasah pisau. Karena ia begitu mahir dengan pekerjaannya itu. Orang-orang suka minta tolong kepadanya, sedang ia tak pernah minta imbalan apa-apa. Orang-orang perempuan yang minta tolong mengasahkan pisau atau gunting, memberinya sambal sebagai imbalan. Orang laki-laki yang minta tolong, memberinya imbalan rokok, kadang-kadang uang. Tapi yang paling sering diterimanya ialah ucapan terima kasih dan sedikit senyum.

Tapi kakek ini sudah tidak ada lagi sekarang. Ia sudah meninggal. Dan tinggallah surau itu tanpa penjaganya. Hingga anak-anak menggunakannya sebagai tempat bermain, memainkan segala apa yang disukai mereka. Perempuan yang kehabisan kayu bakar, sering suka mencopoti papan dinding atau lantai di malam hari.

Jika Tuan datang sekarang, hanya akan menjumpai gambaran yang mengesankan suatu kesucian yang bakal roboh. Dan kerobohan itu kian hari kian cepat berlangsungnya. Secepat anak-anak berlari di dalamnya, secepat perempuan mencopoti pekayuannya. Dan yang terutama ialah sifat masa bodoh manusia sekarang, yang tak hendak memelihara apa yang tidak dijaga lagi.

Dan biang keladi dari kerobohan ini ialah sebuah dongengan yang tak dapat disangkal kebenarannya. Beginilah kisahnya.

Sekali hari aku datang pula mengupah Kakek. Biasanya Kakek gembira menerimaku, karena aku suka memberinya uang. Tapi sekali ini Kakek begitu muram. Di sudut benar ia duduk dengan lututnya menegak menopang tangan dan dagunya. Pandangannya sayu ke depan, seolah-olah ada sesuatu yang yang mengamuk pikirannya. Sebuah belek susu yang berisi minyak kelapa, sebuah asahan halus, kulit sol panjang, dan pisau cukur tua berserakan di sekitar kaki Kakek. Tidak pernah aku melihat Kakek begitu durja dan belum pernah salamku tak disahutinya seperti saat itu. Kemudian aku duduk di sampingnya dan aku jamah pisau itu. Dan aku tanya Kakek, “Pisau siapa, Kek?”

“Ajo Sidi.”

“Ajo Sidi?”

Kakek tak menyahut. Maka aku ingat Ajo Sidi, si pembual itu. Sudah lama aku tak ketemu dia. Dan aku ingin ketemu dia lagi. Aku senang mendengar bualannya. Ajo Sidi bisa mengikat orang-orang dengan bualannya yang aneh-aneh sepanjang hari. Tapi ini jarang terjadi karena ia begitu sibuk dengan pekerjaannya. Sebagai pembual, sukses terbesar baginya ialah karena semua pelaku-pelaku yang diceritakannya menjadi model orang untuk diejek dan ceritanya menjadi pameo akhirnya. Ada-ada saja orang-orang di sekitar kampungku yang cocok dengan watak pelaku-pelaku ceritanya. Ketika sekali ia menceritakan bagaimana sifat seekor katak, dan kebetulan ada pula seorang yang ketagihan menjadi pemimpin berkelakuan seperti katak itu, maka untuk selanjutnya pimpinan tersebut kami sebut pimpinan katak.

Tiba-tiba aku ingat lagi pada Kakek dan kedatangan Ajo Sidi kepadanya. Apakah Ajo Sidi telah membuat bualan tentang Kakek? Dan bualan itukah yang mendurjakan Kakek? Aku ingin tahu. Lalu aku tanya Kakek lagi. “Apa ceritanya, Kek?”

“Siapa?”

“Ajo Sidi.”

“Kurang ajar dia,” Kakek menjawab.

“Kenapa?”

“Mudah-mudahan pisau cukur ini, yang kuasah tajam-tajam ini, menggorok tenggorokannya.”

“Kakek marah?”

“Marah? Ya, kalau aku masih muda, tapi aku sudah tua. Orang tua menahan ragam. Sudah lama aku tak marah-marah lagi. Takut aku kalau imanku rusak karenanya, ibadatku rusak karenanya. Sudah begitu lama aku berbuat baik, beribadat, bertawakal kepada Tuhan. Sudah begitu lama aku menyerahkan diri kepada-Nya. Dan Tuhan akan mengasihi orang yang sabar dan tawakal.”

Ingin tahuku dengan cerita Ajo Sidi yang memurungkan Kakek jadi memuncak. Aku tanya lagi Kakek, “Bagaimana katanya, Kek?”

Tapi Kakek diam saja. Berat hatinya bercerita barangkali. Karena aku telah berulang-ulang bertanya, lalu ia yang bertanya padaku, “Kau kenal padaku, bukan? Sedari kau kecil aku sudah di sini. Sedari mudaku, bukan? Kau tahu apa yang kulakukan semua, bukan? Terkutukkah perbuatanku? Dikutuki Tuhankah semua pekerjaanku?”

Tapi aku tak perlu menjawabnya lagi. Sebab aku tahu, kalau Kakek sudah membuka mulutnya, dia takkan diam lagi. Aku biarkan Kakek dengan pertanyaannya sendiri.

“Sedari muda aku di sini, bukan? Tak kuingat punya istri, punya anak, punya keluarga seperti orang lain, tahu? Tak kupikirkan hidupku sendiri. Aku tak ingin cari kaya, bikin rumah. Segala kehidupanku, lahir batin, kuserahkan kepada Allah Subhanahu wataala. Tak pernah aku menyusahkan orang lain. Lalat seekor enggan aku membunuhnya. Tapi kini aku dikatakan manusia terkutuk. Umpan neraka. Marahkah Tuhan kalau itu yang kulakukan, sangkamu? Akan dikutukinya aku kalau selama hidupku aku mengabdi kepada-Nya? Tak kupikirkan hari esokku, karena aku yakin Tuhan itu ada dan Pengasih dan Penyayang kepada umat-Nya yang tawakal. Aku bangun pagi-pagi. Aku bersuci. Aku pukul beduk membangunkan manusia dari tidurnya, supaya bersujud kepada-Nya. Aku sembahyang setiap waktu. Aku puji-puji Dia. Aku baca Kitab-Nya. Alhamdulillah kataku bila aku menerima karunia-Nya. Astagfirullah kataku bila aku terkejut. Masya Allah kataku bila aku kagum. Apa salahnya pekerjaanku itu? Tapi kini aku dikatakan manusia terkutuk.”

Ketika Kakek terdiam agak lama, aku menyelakan tanyaku, “Ia katakan Kakek begitu, Kek?”

“Ia tak mengatakan aku terkutuk. Tapi begitulah kira-kiranya.”

Dan aku melihat mata Kakek berlinang. Aku jadi belas kepadanya. Dalam hatiku aku mengumpati Ajo Sidi yang begitu memukuli hati Kakek. Dan ingin tahuku menjadikan aku nyinyir bertanya. Dan akhirnya Kakek bercerita lagi.

Pada suatu waktu, kata Ajo Sidi memulai, di akhirat Tuhan Allah memeriksa orang-orang yang sudah berpulang. Para malaikat bertugas di samping-Nya. Di tangan mereka tergenggam daftar dosa dan pahala manusia. Begitu banyak orang yang diperiksa. Maklumlah di mana-mana ada perang. Dan di antara orang-orang yang diperiksa itu ada seorang yang di dunia dinamai Haji Saleh. Haji Saleh itu tersenyum-senyum saja, karena ia sudah begitu yakin akan dimasukkan ke dalam surga. Kedua tangannya ditopangkan di pinggang sambil membusungkan dada dan menekurkan kepala ke kuduk. Ketika dilihatnya orang- orang yang masuk neraka, bibirnya menyunggingkan senyum ejekan. Dan ketika ia melihat orang yang masuk ke surga, ia melambaikan tangannya, seolah hendak mengatakan ‘selamat ketemu nanti’. Bagai tak habis-habisnya orang yang berantri begitu panjangnya. Susut di muka, bertambah yang di belakang. Dan Tuhan memeriksa dengan segala sifat-Nya.

Akhirnya sampailah giliran Haji Saleh. Sambil tersenyum bangga ia menyembah Tuhan. Lalu Tuhan mengajukan pertanyaan pertama.

‘Engkau?’

‘Aku Saleh. Tapi karena aku sudah ke Mekah, Haji Saleh namaku.’

‘Aku tidak tanya nama. Nama bagiku, tak perlu. Nama hanya buat engkau di dunia.’

‘Ya, Tuhanku.’

‘Apa kerjamu di dunia?’

‘Aku menyembah Engkau selalu, Tuhanku.’

‘Lain?’

‘Setiap hari, setiap malam. Bahkan setiap masa aku menyebut-nyebut nama-Mu.’

‘Lain?’

‘Ya, Tuhanku, tak ada pekerjaanku selain daripada beribadat menyembah-Mu, menyebut-nyebut nama-Mu. Bahkan dalam kasih-Mu, ketika aku sakit, nama-Mu menjadi buah bibirku juga. Dan aku selalu berdoa, mendoakan kemurahan hati-Mu untuk menginsafkan umat-Mu.’

‘Lain?’

Haji Saleh tak dapat menjawab lagi. Ia telah menceritakan segala yang ia kerjakan. Tapi ia insaf, pertanyaan Tuhan bukan asal bertanya saja, tentu ada lagi yang belum dikatakannya. Tapi menurut pendapatnya, ia telah menceritakan segalanya. Ia tak tahu lagi apa yang harus dikatakannya. Ia termenung dan menekurkan kepalanya. Api neraka tiba-tiba menghawakan kehangatannya ke tubuh Haji Saleh. Dan ia menangis. Tapi setiap air matanya mengalir, diisap kering oleh hawa panas neraka itu.

‘Lain lagi?’ tanya Tuhan.

‘Sudah hamba-Mu ceritakan semuanya, O, Tuhan yang Mahabesar, lagi Pengasih dan Penyayang, Adil dan Mahatahu.’ Haji Saleh yang sudah kuyu mencobakan siasat merendahkan diri dan memuji Tuhan dengan pengharapan semoga Tuhan bisa berbuat lembut terhadapnya dan tidak salah tanya kepadanya.

Tapi Tuhan bertanya lagi: ‘Tak ada lagi?’

'O, o, ooo, anu Tuhanku. Aku selalu membaca Kitab-Mu.’

‘Lain?’

‘Sudah kuceritakan semuanya, O, Tuhanku. Tapi kalau ada yang lupa aku katakan, aku pun bersyukur karena Engkaulah Mahatahu.’

‘Sungguh tidak ada lagi yang kaukerjakan di dunia selain yang kauceritakan tadi?’

‘Ya, itulah semuanya, Tuhanku.’

‘Masuk kamu.’

Dan malaikat dengan sigapnya menjewer Haji Saleh ke neraka. Haji Saleh tidak mengerti kenapa ia dibawa ke neraka. Ia tak mengerti apa yang dikehendaki Tuhan daripadanya dan ia percaya Tuhan tidak silap.

Alangkah tercengang Haji Saleh, karena di neraka itu banyak teman-temannya di dunia terpanggang hangus, merintih kesakitan. Dan ia tambah tak mengerti dengan keadaan dirinya, karena semua orang yang dilihatnya di neraka itu tak kurang ibadatnya dari dia sendiri. Bahkan ada salah seorang yang telah sampai empat belas kali ke Mekah dan bergelar syekh pula. Lalu Haji Saleh mendekati mereka, dan bertanya kenapa mereka dinerakakan semuanya. Tapi sebagaimana Haji Saleh, orang-orang itu pun, tak mengerti juga.

‘Bagaimana Tuhan kita ini?’ kata Haji Saleh kemudian, ‘Bukankah kita di suruh-Nya taat beribadat, teguh beriman? Dan itu semua sudah kita kerjakan selama hidup kita. Tapi kini kita dimasukkan-Nya ke neraka.’

‘Ya, kami juga heran. Tengoklah itu orang-orang senegeri dengan kita semua, dan tak kurang ketaatannya beribadat,’ kata salah seorang di antaranya.

‘Ini sungguh tidak adil.’

‘Memang tidak adil,’ kata orang-orang itu mengulangi ucapan Haji Saleh.

‘Kalau begitu, kita harus minta kesaksian atas kesalahan kita.’

‘Kita harus mengingatkan Tuhan, kalau-kalau Ia silap memasukkan kita ke neraka ini.’

‘Benar. Benar. Benar.’ Sorakan yang lain membenarkan Haji Saleh.

‘Kalau Tuhan tak mau mengakui kesilapan-Nya, bagaimana?’ suatu suara melengking di dalam kelompok orang banyak itu.

‘Kita protes. Kita resolusikan,’ kata Haji Saleh.

‘Apa kita revolusikan juga?’ tanya suara yang lain, yang rupanya di dunia menjadi pemimpin gerakan revolusioner.

‘Itu tergantung kepada keadaan,’ kata Haji Saleh. ‘Yang penting sekarang, mari kita berdemonstrasi menghadap Tuhan.’

‘Cocok sekali. Di dunia dulu dengan demonstrasi saja, banyak yang kita peroleh,’ sebuah suara menyela.

‘Setuju. Setuju. Setuju.’ Mereka bersorak beramai-ramai.

Lalu mereka berangkatlah bersama-sama menghadap Tuhan.

Dan Tuhan bertanya, ‘Kalian mau apa?’

Haji Saleh yang menjadi pemimpin dan juru bicara tampil ke depan. Dan dengan suara yang menggeletar dan berirama rendah, ia memulai pidatonya: ‘O, Tuhan kami yang Mahabesar. Kami yang menghadap-Mu ini adalah umat-Mu yang paling taat beribadat, yang paling taat menyembah-Mu. Kamilah orang-orang yang selalu menyebut nama-Mu, memuji-muji kebesaran-Mu, mempropagandakan keadilan-Mu, dan lain-lainnya. Kitab-Mu kami hafal di luar kepala kami. Tak sesat sedikit pun kami membacanya. Akan tetapi, Tuhanku yang Mahakuasa setelah kami Engkau panggil kemari, Engkau memasukkan kami ke neraka. Maka sebelum terjadi hal-hal yang tak diingini, maka di sini, atas nama orang-orang yang cinta pada-Mu, kami menuntut agar hukuman yang Kaujatuhkan kepada kami ke surga sebagaimana yang Engkau janjikan dalam Kitab-Mu.’

‘Kalian di dunia tinggal di mana?’ tanya Tuhan.

‘Kami ini adalah umat-Mu yang tinggal di Indonesia, Tuhanku.’

‘O, di negeri yang tanahnya subur itu?’

‘Ya, benarlah itu, Tuhanku.’

‘Tanahnya yang mahakaya raya, penuh oleh logam, minyak, dan berbagai bahan alam lainnya, bukan?’

‘Benar. Benar. Benar. Tuhan kami. Itulah negeri kami.’ Mereka mulai menjawab serentak. Karena fajar kegembiraan telah membayang di wajahnya kembali. Dan yakinlah mereka sekarang, bahwa Tuhan telah silap menjatuhkan hukuman kepada mereka itu.

‘Di negeri mana tanahnya begitu subur, sehingga tanaman tumbuh tanpa ditanam?’

‘Benar. Benar. Benar. Itulah negeri kami.’

‘Di negeri, di mana penduduknya sendiri melarat?’

‘Ya. Ya. Ya. Itulah dia negeri kami.’

‘Negeri yang lama diperbudak negeri lain?’

‘Ya, Tuhanku. Sungguh laknat penjajah itu, Tuhanku.’

‘Dan hasil tanahmu, mereka yang mengeruknya, dan diangkut ke negerinya, bukan?’

‘Benar, Tuhanku. Hingga kami tak mendapat apa-apa lagi. Sungguh laknat mereka itu.’

‘Di negeri yang selalu kacau itu, hingga kamu dengan kamu selalu berkelahi, sedang hasil tanahmu orang lain juga yang mengambilnya, bukan?’

‘Benar, Tuhanku. Tapi bagi kami soal harta benda itu kami tak mau tahu. Yang penting bagi kami ialah menyembah dan memuji Engkau.’

‘Engkau rela tetap melarat, bukan?’

‘Benar. Kami rela sekali, Tuhanku.’

‘Karena kerelaanmu itu, anak cucumu tetap juga melarat, bukan?’

‘Sungguh pun anak cucu kami itu melarat, tapi mereka semua pintar mengaji. Kitab-Mu mereka hafal di luar kepala.’

‘Tapi seperti kamu juga, apa yang disebutnya tidak dimasukkan ke hatinya, bukan?’

‘Ada, Tuhanku.’

‘Kalau ada, kenapa engkau biarkan dirimu melarat, hingga anak cucumu teraniaya semua. Sedang harta bendamu kaubiarkan orang lain mengambilnya untuk anak cucu mereka. Dan engkau lebih suka berkelahi antara kamu sendiri, saling menipu, saling memeras. Aku beri kau negeri yang kaya raya, tapi kau malas. Kau lebih suka beribadat saja, karena beribadat tidak mengeluarkan peluh, tidak membanting tulang. Sedang aku menyuruh engkau semuanya beramal kalau engkau miskin. Engkau kira aku ini suka pujian, mabuk disembah saja. Tidak. Kamu semua mesti masuk neraka. Hai, Malaikat, halaulah mereka ini kembali ke neraka. Letakkan di keraknya!’

Semua menjadi pucat pasi tak berani berkata apa-apa lagi. Tahulah mereka sekarang apa jalan yang diridai Allah di dunia. Tapi Haji Saleh ingin juga kepastian apakah yang akan dikerjakannya di dunia itu salah atau benar. Tapi ia tak berani bertanya kepada Tuhan. Ia bertanya saja pada malaikat yang menggiring mereka itu.

‘Salahkah menurut pendapatmu, kalau kami, menyembah Tuhan di dunia?’ tanya Haji Saleh.

‘Tidak. Kesalahan engkau, karena engkau terlalu mementingkan dirimu sendiri. Kau takut masuk neraka, karena itu kau taat sembahyang. Tapi engkau melupakan kehidupan kaummu sendiri, melupakan kehidupan anak istrimu sendiri, sehingga mereka itu kucar-kacir selamanya. Inilah kesalahanmu yang terbesar, terlalu egoistis. Padahal engkau di dunia berkaum, bersaudara semuanya, tapi engkau tak mempedulikan mereka sedikit pun.’

Demikianlah cerita Ajo Sidi yang kudengar dari Kakek. Cerita yang memurungkan Kakek.

Dan besoknya, ketika aku mau turun rumah pagi-pagi, istriku berkata apa aku tak pergi menjenguk.

“Siapa yang meninggal?” tanyaku kaget.

“Kakek.”

“Kakek?”

“Ya. Tadi subuh Kakek kedapatan mati di suraunya dalam keadaan yang mengerikan sekali. Ia menggorok lehernya dengan pisau cukur.”

“Astaga! Ajo Sidi punya gara-gara,” kataku seraya cepat-cepat meninggalkan istriku yang tercengang-cengang.

Aku cari Ajo Sidi ke rumahnya. Tapi aku berjumpa dengan istrinya saja. Lalu aku tanya dia.

“Ia sudah pergi,” jawab istri Ajo Sidi.

“Tidak ia tahu Kakek meninggal?”

“Sudah. Dan ia meninggalkan pesan agar dibelikan kain kafan buat Kakek tujuh lapis.”

“Dan sekarang,” tanyaku kehilangan akal sungguh mendengar segala peristiwa oleh perbuatan Ajo Sidi yang tidak sedikit pun bertanggung jawab, “dan sekarang ke mana dia?”

“Kerja.”

“Kerja?” tanyaku mengulangi hampa.

“Ya, dia pergi kerja.”

[60b3r]

"when one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

— Robert Pirsig, author and philosopher.

[60b3r]

How I Became An Agnostic #5: Secularization

The process of societal modernization is a process of functional differentiation and emancipation of the state, the economy, and science from the religious sphere. If we want a world free from superstition and irrationality, we need to recognize that logical and scientific argument must take over humanity. Secularized individuals are now more likely to moderate their behavior in response to more immediately applicable consequences rather than out of concern for afterlife consequences. We also need to recognize that deeper emotions chain people to religion, which is such a potent source of security and reassurance in the face of a potentially unpredictable and threatening world. The importance of religiosity persists most strongly among vulnerable populations, especially those living in poorer nations, facing personal survival-threatening risks. Feelings of vulnerability to physical, societal, and personal risks are a key factor driving religiosity. The process of secularization, a systematic erosion of religious practices, values, and beliefs, has occurred most clearly among the most prosperous social sectors living in affluent and secure postindustrial nations.

Secularization and democratization are mutually reinforcing processes, relying on a separation of religion and state. In expressly secular states like India and Indonesia, the need was to legislate for toleration and respect between quite different religions, and likewise, the secularization of the West was a response to drastically violent intra-Christian feuds between Catholicism and Protestantism. Moreover, the clergy have largely lost their authority over the public and are no longer able to dictate to them on such matters as birth control, divorce, abortion, sexual orientation, and the necessity of marriage before childbirth. The contemporary debate over these issues is symbolized by the potential schism within the Anglican Church surrounding the consecration in the United States of an openly gay bishop, heated debate about the legalization of euthanasia in the Netherlands, and the enforcement of strict Sharia laws for the punishment of adultery in Nigeria. Long-term processes of societal development are transforming these basic cultural values, moving publics toward greater moral liberalism on issues of sexuality and toward pursuit of opportunities for self-fulfillment outside of the workplace and economic sphere. Secularization is not taking place only in Western Europe, it is occurring in most advanced industrial societies, including Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Canada. Even in Europe, there has been a lesser but perceptible trend toward secularization; the trend has been partly masked by massive immigration of people with relatively traditional worldviews and high fertility rates from Middle East countries as well as by relatively high levels of economic inequality; but when one controls for these factors, even within the European Union there has been a significant movement toward secularization.

Through human development, as lives become more secure and immune to daily risks, the importance of religion gradually fades away. Vulnerable populations experiencing considerable uncertainty and risk in their lives, and in the lives of their family and community, regard religion as far more important, and therefore participate far more keenly in spiritual activities, than those living without such threats. As lives gradually become more comfortable and secure, people in more affluent societies usually grow increasingly indifferent to religious values, more skeptical of supernatural beliefs, and less willing to become actively engaged in religious institutions, beyond a nominal level of formal religious identities, participation in symbolic ceremonies of birth, marriage, and death to mark life’s passages, and enjoyment of traditional holidays. Religion thrives when the majority seek the aid and protection of supernatural powers because they are impoverished, as in the third and second world countries. Cross-national data on welfare spending and religious participation show a strong negative relationship between these two variables. Income inequality, a widely available proxy for personal insecurity, can be compared with other macro-scale causes of religiosity in a multinational analysis. Income inequality, and hence personal insecurity, is found to be an important determinant of religiosity in diverse sample of nations.

Secularization includes the decline of religious authority and its ability to influence society. Rather than using the proportion of irreligious apostates as the sole measure of secularity, secularized individuals increasingly look outside of religion for authoritative positions. Religion has diminishing authority on issues such as birth control, religion's authority is declining, and secularization is taking place even if religious affiliation may not be declining for example as in the United States. With rising levels of existential security, the publics of virtually all advanced industrial societies tend to move toward more secular orientations. Growing acceptance of divorce, abortion, homosexuality, gender equality, and the spread of secular norms have led to the political mobilization of those with traditional religious orientations. But this does not indicate that fundamentalists are becoming more numerous in high-income societies. Quite the contrary: precisely because their numbers are declining, people with traditional religious values see key religious norms as eroding, and they have become more active, making religious issues increasingly salient. Atheism and secularity have many positive correlates, such as higher levels of education and verbal ability, lower levels of prejudice, ethnocentrism, racism, and homophobia, greater support for women's equality, child-rearing that promotes independent thinking and an absence of corporal punishment, etc. At the societal level states and nations with a higher proportion of secular people fare markedly better than those with a higher proportion of religious people.

Stay tuned for future updates. Also read another posts in the series: Background Reason for Nones Political Analysis Societal Construct and Psychoanalysis Questions and Checkpoints

[60b3r]

Beyond assignments...

by Teguh Wijaya Mulya

Many lecturers here believe that student assignments/exams or study load must be heavy and difficult, because students need all those assignments/exams to accomplish the learning objectives, and later, to compete in the labour market. Those who complained are just lazy or below-average students. Is that true, or is there something more to it?

When deciding what kind and how many assignments/exams in a single course, do you think lecturers consider the time a student need to work on those assignments/exams, including the time for group meetings and replying group chats? Or about the diversity of students' ability to complete an assignment/exam? Do you think all lecturers sat together to combine and calculate study load of all the courses in a particular semester?

It is often mentioned that 1 credit equals 50 mins in the class + 50 mins working on assignment + 50 mins independent learning per week. If a student takes 22 credits in a semester, it means 150 mins x 22 credits = 55 hours are required to study per week. FYI, the law stated that a full-time work is 40 hours/week; beyond that, can be considered exploitation or modern slavery.

I'm afraid there is an assumption that your time is not a valuable resource, or to be precise, student's life beyond studying & campus-related activities is not important. There is a widespread assumption that students are supposed to work on their assignments (and reply chats/emails too) on weekends and public holidays. In many democratic countries, wages are paid per hour to respect people's time as a valuable resource.

This approach to education declares that your study is above almost everything else in your life. Living a healthy and balanced live is not important at all. Your happiness and well-being are not important. Getting good grades is more important. I think such approach to education is inhumane.

Heavy study load often resulted in shallow or instrumental learning, and even plagiarism. Too many assignments made students don't have the time and energy for an in-depth engagement with literature or an issue. It kills the love and passion for learning. It hinders students to be life-long learners. In short, learning to get a degree, a degree to get a job, a job to get more money. Meaningless and lifeless life starts here.

Students' failed attempts to protest over the heavy study load further perpetuate power imbalance between lecturers and students. The faculty and lecturers can do whatever they want or believe is good, without considering students' voice and everyday struggles.

Education is therefore about obedience to those in power. Education is not about enactment of democratic values, or learning to treat human beings humanely. It is about achieving externally-imposed goals necessary for securing a high-paying job. Unsurprisingly, many employers exploit their employees without feeling guilty at all. I bet those employers had too many assignments when they studied.

[60b3r]

Tridharma Perguruan Tinggi Dosen

Merespons tulisan Didi Achjari, Masih Menarikkah Menjadi Dosen di Indonesia? dikutip dari obrolan curhatan saya di grup WhatsApp Indonesian Bioethics Forum.

Saya sebagai Gen Z, cita-cita ingin jadi dosen, skillset dan kualifikasi lulusan Bioetika, tapi sulit cari kerja karena untuk posisi-posisi pengajar Bioetika tersebut, Perguruan Tinggi masih lebih memilih cari yang dokter untuk kemudian disekolahkan Bioetika dan/atau carinya yang memiliki kualifikasi linear. Padahal bioetika kan lintas disiplin. Padahal Bioetika tidak mesti kedokteran. Lagipula, apa maksud dari "harus linear"? Memangnya ada S1 Bioetika?

Beban dosen yang mengemban tridharma perguruan tinggi juga masalah. Kan itu tridharma perguruan tinggi, kok dosennya yang menjalankan fungsi? Kan mestinya yang tajamnya penelitian, bisa dikurangi jam ngajarnya, dan sisi lain juga yang doyan mengajar, penelitiannya di corresponding author saja. Status quo, ketiga pillar itu diemban satu orang. Pantesan burnt out.

Saya sih sampai sekarang tidak bosan untuk belajar dengan guru2 senior disana-sini, bagaimana berbakti buat ilmu pengetahuan dan negeri. Tetapi jika perut belum terisi nasi, siapakah yang akan mensponsori perjuangan saya menjadi guru baru kelak nanti?

Saya ada guru yang saya hormati, beliau kalau mengajar di kelas bikin ngantuknya minta ampun, amat membosankan, dan ujiannya tidak niat (pilihan ganda 20 nomor untuk ujian tengah semester). Akan tetapi, kalau urusan penelitian beliau sangat rajin. Bisa memeriksa puluhan naskah PKM selama sehari.

Satunya lagi ada pengurus komite olimpiade sains nasional. Lama malang melintang di kalangan OSN Biologi dan Kimia. Sangat suka mengajar, kuis-kuisnya sangat kreatif berupa beragam case studies, kala mengajar mahasiswa diajak debat dan diskusi. Tapi beliau malas penelitian minta ampun. Sampai sekarang dia hanya S2 saja, dan publikasinya sedikit.

Ini contoh kalau sebenarnya dua model dosen ini diklasifikasikan dan ditugaskan dengan baik di Perguruan tinggi, ya bisa mereka mengurus ketiga pilar perguruan tinggi dengan bagi tugas. Kolaborasi, kata Prof. Anita Lie. Akan tetapi, saat serdos kok seolah-olah tuntutannya bukan begitu? Seakan-akan semua Tridharma Perguruan Tinggi ini harus diemban oleh seluruh individu dosen? kalau begitu, ganti saja titelnya menjadi Tridharma Dosen.

Si dosen yang pertama ini, sekarang putus asa karena hobi penelitiannya diisi dengan kuliah-kuliah receh ketemu para mahasiswa baru yang masih bodoh yang harusnya dipegang dosen kedua. Dosen yang kedua, beliau frustrasi karena kecintaannya dia membangun pondasi keilmuan mahasiswa baru dengan mengajar mata kuliah pengantar harus ditarget mengirimkan proposal PKM, yang harusnya cocok di-handle oleh dosen pertama.

Mereka berdua sempat saya sambangi karena saya mau curhat soal bagaimana peluang karir jadi dosen, eh mereka pada akhirnya malah mencegah saya jadi dosen karena "masih banyak cara lain mengabdi kepada masyarakat yang tidak dehumanisasi".

[60b3r]

Job seeking is (dehumanizing): the interview.

Ahh, searching for jobs... one of the most tedious and ridiculous experiences in human existence. At first, I was enthusiastic and applying for teaching jobs I was truly interested in. I scoured for "biology teacher" and "science teacher" jobs from prominent national and international school network. Now, weeks later, I have realized how low my standards have gotten. At this point, I would be excited to get a call from a shady, small schools in the middle of nowhere. I'm pretty sure that's the goal of many employers... hopelessly shuffling the cards until your standards get so low that you'll take their low-paying, high-workload, crappy job. If this sounds grudged or too cynical, it's because I am. The job-hunting process is emotionally draining and the institutions know this. They took advantage of unsuspecting teachers and researchers in it.

After supplying personal information for internet-based loan-sharks to tinker with, then we get to the interview stage. If only the recruiter had an especially convenient commuting experience to office this morning or maybe if their significant other serviced them an exceptionally great spank-bang session last night, they might be in a good enough mood to schedule me for an interview. Or, like most occasions, my application will go forever unnoticed, and the job listing will stay up for weeks/months on end because apparently most of employers are resume hoarders. Employers can make you spend two and half an hour filling out an application online (and on paper). They will look at it for 2 seconds at most before moving on, or maybe a mere 5 seconds if they decide to call you in.

Now, we're scheduled for an interview. I was told to arrive early (but also not too early, since they may start late). Interviews was described like a matching process similar to dating, where two parties mutually decide if they're right for one another—but the steep power imbalance suggests otherwise. They pose the questions and may ask anything, which I can't do anything about (for instance if they, and surely they will, ask something discriminatory against my beliefs and ethnicity). My answers are scrutinized—an honest self-assessment is a beginning to more deprecating questions, while narcissistic promotion and extraordinary bullshit is rewarded. Insincere eagerness is too evident, so instead I had to continually hype myself up for each new possibility of reprobative travail and suffer the resulting agony for each rejection letter (that is, if any).

There's little to no expectation that employers will have rational reasons for deciding for or against one particular applicant—they may even be racist, engage in blatant nepotism, or go with their bias, and we have no recourse whatsoever. Even where there is a legal recourse written in law, the evidentiary standards are such that you could never possibly prove a claim. There was also this one school that—written at the end of the pre-interview form I filled and almost sent—claimed that they did not engage in discriminatory practices against different races, skin, colour, and nationality; but the form explicitly required me to fill in my ethnicity and my church denomination I belonged to. Just before I signed over it and sent it, I spotted it and requested a cancellation to continue my application to the next process. Such a shameful practice.

I am not going to lie, there were a few promising interviews where it seemed to go really well (including one where I rode over to where I am relocating, sat down with like 5 people over 2 hours and talked about the curriculum and it’s teaching philosophy and whatever working culture they wanted me to believe) and when I sent a follow up to them—the people that I spent hours preparing for interviews with and clearing my schedule for—don’t even have the decency to tell me they decided to go with another candidate. Like, you spent hours interviewing me, it takes less than a few seconds to replace the placeholder in an email template with my name and press send. After someone has went through several interviews, taking a moment to notify them whether they got the job (or not) is nothing compared to the amount of time and gas money the candidate has wasted. It's a basic human courtesy. If you can't complete such a menial task as that, then anyone who applied and got rejected probably dodged a bullet.

If bullshit was being written down, all possible bullshit in job interviews would be an entire library of Nalanda and Alexandria combined. Jargons like "I am very passionate about this dead-end position and very enthusiastic about making a fucking career out of this minimum wage job. My hobbies include providing phenomenal typing of a 50-page lesson plan you won't even read, participating in organizing religious event on school weekends, and memorizing the School Values and the names of the Foundation caretakers". Once the interview is over, you have to give them the firmest handshake (because apparently that is a great indicator of how well you will perform on the job) and thank them for their time (which they were actually paid for). Then, you are to be scheduled for another interview with Julius from Head of Curriculum... then another interview with Sarah the Vice Executive Principal... then you are to hear back from them by the end of the week, then... nothing.

Sometimes, if they do send a rejection letter, they are kind enough just to tell that my application is denied because there were no vacancy left open for such position. The worst letters are the ones that tell you how they think while my CV is superb and how I am a good fit for such position, but there were just all these other better applicants that best matched their needs—by that I am sure they offered these poor souls less than my previously requested pay—and then complain about how hard it was to choose between them. One could generously interpret that "being overqualified" as "letting you down easily" and to make me not lose hope in another job-seeking endeavor, but to which I suspect is more about assuaging the guilty conscience of whichever person wrote the formal letter. They also seem to have no obligation to ever communicate with me again—employers ghost would-be employees with regularity. They never seem to catch up, even when they said they would hold on to my CV, in case in the future, they have an open position to fill.

I suspect the job search everywhere bears the marks of the basic reality of our society: capital rules over humanity and is not ruled by it. Every worker is expendable and replaceable. The reserve army of the unemployed academics is real, and keeps down wages to reward meaningful research. With over hundreds of applicants for every position, of course the process is dehumanizing. Even in the present alleged "education technology boom," this remains the case. While some people suggest it, starting your own education institution is not an option—you must persuade the bank to lend capital or god-knows-how-many philanthropists to donate, and the vast majority of small schools like some preparatory courses program convened in a garage fail within a few years. In any case, small institutions are far more likely to engage in the most petty and disgusting conduct towards workers: wage-theft, unpaid overtime, arbitrary management. I once worked for this type of institution, and I survived it saying never again. The students paid the office 80 bucks for 90 minutes of my tutoring, while I only got paid 20 bucks for it, not even a gas subsidy!

[60b3r]

Job-seeking is (tedious): the paperwork.

One thing that demonstrates the utter worthlessness of the capitalist form of "freedom" is the job search. Education institutions like schools and universities are not an exception for this, since they operate like a business, albeit under the label of foundation. It's your freedom to beg employers for a job, and their freedom to reject you. If you lose, you starve. If they lose, they can always restart the hiring process, load their wage slaves with more tasks, or outsource the task out to even more underpaid and overworked honorary teachers.

I will start with the online application process. First, I need to make an online account in order to apply to a job I probably won't even hear from. Now, my profile requires a 16-character long password that contains at least 1 capital letter, 1 number, 1 unique character, 1 strand of unicorn hair and 1 toenail of a dragon. I'm glad my potential future employer is looking out for me and protecting my account from hackers who spend their day applying jobs for unsuspecting teachers with only a day's catering budget in their bank account. Somehow, they also do not keep a good method of ensuring that the personal details I provided during the registration process confidential. It seems like every now and then, whenever one of their IT guy left the job, they changed the recruitment and procurement management system as well. That didn't take into account the possibility of the former IT guy running around in the wild carrying sensitive information about your previous applications, which can be dangerous if fallen into malicious agents.

Also, I'm tired of hearing the Paleozoic advice of "dress up nice and turn in your resume in person." In the internet age, this usually does nothing except make you look like a confused dinosaur. Most of the time, all you're doing is handing your resume to a clueless reception officer who knows zero shit of what to do with it. The rare occasion that this actually works is when it is a tiny local course or homeschooling or you have connections to some higher-ups who already work in a small university.

After my account is made, I can finally attach the Word document containing my cover letter/resume... and also re-type my entire resume in separate boxes. You want to know my education, skills and previous experience? Why can't you check the resume that you already made me provide? Just a thought. Oh, and as if I haven't spent too much time already, they also require me to do an 150-question personality analysis (that probably won't even been seen by human eyes). One of the school I've applied to even gave me a mandatory simple addition questions (like 420+69) and write only the last digit as an answer. That useless test lasted for 45 minutes and the computer auto-generated the questions. HR departments seem to have a huge array of tests that are designed more to function as a literal stress test rather than actual performance benchmarking.

The curious part, even when it was just another paperwork to fill out before an interview (let alone the actual salary negotiation, which was yet to be scheduled) they have the audacity to ask for: a copy of my ID, my social security number, my tax-filling number, my bank account number, and to top it all off, my mother's maiden name. What the actual fuck are you trying to do here, getting a familial background check of potential candidates, or gaining access to stupid teachers' empty bank accounts? They also seem to be so kaypoh when it comes to the number of siblings I have. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with my professional and academic capability to perform teaching and research, does it?

I've also replied to job postings where after you send off your online resume through a website and asked a couple of screening questions, they required you to come in physically and fill out a goddamn paper application that had the exact same information as my resume, plus they also require me to sign a statement of faith acknowledging that their school is a closely-affiliated religious school and I would be okay with that. Well yes, I might be okay with you teaching my future students religion (since that is none of my business) but please leave the Bible teachings outside my evolutionary biology class. This has happened with every single interview I've had after my first interview at a Catholic school, which was surprisingly minimal in terms of such childish religious propaganda.

It's beyond infuriating to come there and force a respectful tone after you've handed them the email with the resume, filled out the online application which included basically another full typed resume, only to be told that they require an in-person paper application WITH the signed statement of faith as well. Since you seem to only want someone with a belief in Jesus AND specifically follow your tenets of your church ONLY, why don't you just come to the church board you own and paste your job ad there, above all things?

While most will talk about how universities and schools are in shortage of talent, that capitalism in the management promotes individuality and protects minorities, ironically valuable individuals and underrepresented minorities cannot find actual work. Employers everywhere look for a uniform type of employee: fun and extraverted (but not too loud or close to the students), smart only in "the right way", diverse (but not really crossing the school values), striving for leadership (but somehow complacent enough to be shoved around), blind to the pointlessness of careerist struggles, and conformist to an extreme. A good employee intuits what is expected of them, and acts with blind loyalty. Least of all is a good employee an individual. How can we progress our education if the teachers and lecturers working across the industry are procured in such cruel ways?

[60b3r]

Catching up with life.

It's been over five years since I graduated from university, and here I am, once again, applying for jobs like a robot. I have sent over 4 to 5 job applications per week, tweaked my CV individually once a month, and hand-crafted my cover letter uniquely for each jobs I applied to. To top it off, I have been doing this for 2 years combined. Assuming that is not an overstatement, I have been sending over 300 job applications to different schools, universities, and even across other industries. With this overkill—yet seems to useless—Masters degree, it does not serve as a selling point, since it is being considered inconsistent with the common practice prevalently found in Indonesian universities, that one's Masters degree should be linear in order to work in academia as a lecturer. I even had to consider dropping my Graduate degree and went with my Bachelors degree to apply for jobs. People kept saying that biotech is the future, that the sciences are dawning all over, technology grows at light-speed, but all I experience is frustration and anguish. People kept telling that I am overqualified, that there's no way I am always between jobs with such emotive motivation and carefully curated skills and my beautifully AI-tweaked resume. I’m seriously starting to consider giving up this life and trekking into the wild to make my new life, Randall Clark-style. Here I want to reflect back on my past few years' endeavor and remind myself that job-seeking is such a dehumanizing process and something must be done to fix this. But before that, a quick background on my life so far. Consider this as a short, catching-up telltale.

Right after graduating in 2018, I was so motivated to fix the education system. I applied to teaching jobs and got myself a first formal job teaching Biology and caring for a dormant Science Club back in my alma mater. Why not apply for the industry sector, you ask? There's not enough room for Biotech graduates in Indonesia, and despite what people say about the unique nature of the niche, most of the positions can either be filled with Chemical Engineering graduates, or just General Biology graduates. There's not enough value created by pursuing Biotech degree, apart from continuing in academia as a researcher. After one year, I didn't renew my contract and decided to pursue for higher education, which I thought it was necessary to create a bigger impact. I thought back then, "Here I am, teaching young generation Biology and the art of life, some of them might be doctors or environmental engineers, yes, but majority of them won't even need these stuff." I said that to myself, exactly like I was thinking back then when I was their age and learning mathematics. it was 2019 when I decided to pursue MSc/PhD Biotechnology abroad, to allow myself to engage with wider masses upon completion. This time, high-schoolers, next up, college students, or so I thought. But life is a bitch, and then we all gonna die anyway.

Luckily at that time, right after my resignation was granted, I got myself three Letters of Admission: from two different universities in The Netherlands and one from Sweden. I'd then applied for several scholarships program, one of them being the notorious LPDP. The task of simply qualifying for the first round of paperwork selection was very tedious and stressful. It was my first time dealing with a plethora of documents to prepare, and I could say the tears and blood was even worse than the process of getting an LoA from the three campuses. After two more selection stages, long story short, I didn't qualify after the interview process, and I plunged myself in depression. A month later, I collected myself to start over, and this time, applied for jobs in the edtech startups. My thoughts were somehow I could work for a while, save enough money while still creating impact, and fund my Masters off my own deposits. Well again, fortunately I told myself at that time, some unicorn companies contacted me, and somewhat early that year, precisely February 2020, I was called into one of the big edtech company to attend an interview. I scrambled to book a ticket and a homestay for 2 days and... Oh boy. Three days before my departure, Jakarta shut down the borders and Covid ruined my lifelong dream of studying abroad. Interview cancelled, plane ticket burnt, and that hotel bed never touched my back. No job, no credit, eat shit. All 2020 I cried myself to sleep.

The anxiety caused by the uncertainties was so dreadful, I fantasized going for a program—the one in the Netherlands—anyway. Talk about coping using unrealistic expectation. So I emailed the admissions office and requested to postpone my first semester to October 2020 or March 2021 (they granted the former but refused the latter). I even paid for the dorm room in the Netherlands, when I was very certain that this was just another viral outbreak that's gonna resolve on its own after several months (that was also a false hope). Then, my family business took a major hit due to lockdowns imposed by the local government, and everyone went nuts. All plans go bust, and out of nowhere, suddenly, all homeschool students I have been teaching stopped responding to my calls. All types of businesses from across all sectors took a hit. Purchasing power bottomed out. Monetary circulation grounded to a halt. In the midst of all this blazing hellfire that is a financial crisis, it was in the middle of 2020 when I applied for student loan to get myself into a campus in Jogja. I thought "Well, it can't be that bad, right, I can still go to Jogja and pursue another Masters here, domestically, without going abroad and waste lots of money." So did everybody else thought, when we all first had our online classes in October 2020. But fast forward to early 2022, It's like everyone skipped two years of their life, staring at the screen for several hours drying out eyeballs and get nothing from classes other than just one or two classes that are actually elective subjects, not among the core courses.

I greeted 2021 with much hope, a hope that someday I will be able to meet my classmates and hunt for Jogja food later in the day after classes. I would have scoured through the libraries of the renown, and I would have also joined several student councils during my studies. But no. Not even once we got a call from campus saying our classes would go from distanced learning to on-site learning. I spent 2021 lurking around Malang trying to find a closure, visiting many natural places where I used to enjoy, gulping so many unhealthy foods down my throat to ease the numbing pain, even engaged in some risky behavior of ████████████. The year ended with more student debt, an unfinished thesis proposal, a broken heart, and still, no single job interview landed. Yes, I even went through Masters fully online (including all of the phases of research). I spent all 2021 mourning the hundreds if not thousands of what-ifs while drafting my thesis proposal. A small ember light up in the darkness, I got myself a job replacing a science teacher in Surabaya during her maternity leave. I got the contract extended just before I finished my thesis defense, and I am stuck in Surabaya for another year of inconsecutive work experience. Not even a single time I ever stepped my soles on campus grounds in Jogja during my enrollment there. The only chance I got to be closer than ever to my supposed campus building is during my awards ceremony where I returned my graduation robes.

I got paid three times the amount I got when I was working in my alma mater. I got myself a small room not too far away, and after selling my family's car, I even got a small discount since I am not using the provided parking space anymore. Plus, after over half a year, I can save more than I could usually save because there are no more gas-hungry beast that is my 1.5L turbocharged CVT Medium SUV. The school itself was decent, I got mediocre lunch everyday and to be honest there are less paperwork than the previous jobs I had been working on, but oooh the lab equipment and the learning materials are very lacking. I requested for some upgrades here and there, and they didn't even bat an eye. I have to struggle and come up with weird hyper-crearive plans to deliver the lesson, which by the way are not just biology, but also physics, chemistry, and geography. I enjoyed most of my time teaching, but considering a majority of students would leave the school and continue somewhere else, the school management decided to cut over half of the staff earlier this year. By the time of writing, I still need to finish my contract, though. Fortunately, I got some leeway since there are less classes to teach now after Cambridge exams has passed. This is where the fun begins. Not another job hunting. So, wish me luck friends.