A Tale of Forbidden Romance! - "Veil of Love" Young Love #104 (June/July 1973)

If there was a contest for most bizarre romance comic book cover scenarios, the cover of Young Love #104 (June/July 1973) would certainly be a top contender.

As it would be unfair to taunt you with merely the house ad and subsequent cover image, I am happy to present the issue's feature story, "Veil of Love" from none other than Robert Kanigher, John Rosenberger and Vince Colletta!*

Lee, a former soldier who served in the "murderous jungles of Nam..." has a difficult time readjusting to civilian life in every aspect -- romance not excluded.


Despite frequent dates with gorgeous women, Lee is never able to fill the void.

That all changes when one night, Lee takes his motorcycle out for a ride in the country to get some air. He comes across a lovely young woman in a white bathing suit swimming. Intrigue instantly washes over him.


In attempt to find the mystery girl, Lee checks into the Lone Lake lodge where he believes she is staying. The next morning in the dining room Lee spots her, but she coolly rebuffs his attempts at small talk with complete and utter silence. Suzan Dale, the hotel's receptionist takes an instant liking to Lee. She cannot seem to get his attention though, for he is on a mission to capture the heart of mysterious Theresa Brand.

After the unsuccessful encounter in the dining room, Lee goes for a walk. He stumbles upon a man attacking Theresa and quickly steps in to take him down. A fight ensues and Lee puts the guy in a choke hold, nearly killing him with his bare hands. Theresa insists Lee stop -- which he does before going further into the woods to be alone.


After sitting on a log for hours, Lee is suddenly pounded on the head from behind with a tree limb by the guy who attacked Theresa earlier. As he swings at Lee he yells, "You caught me by surprise before -- I'll crack your skull wide open -- tough guy!" Theresa appears and fends off the guy and comforts the bleeding Lee. Theresa tells him that she is a nurse and will take him to the infirmary for a checkup. Lee's admiration for Theresa is only increased by her kind and caring attention to his wounds. Before the day ends, Lee tells Theresa he is in love with her. Silently, she walks away.


The next day Lee drops by the dining room to find Theresa. Suzan lets him know that Theresa skipped breakfast and was down at the lake swimming. Lee quickly changes into his swim trunks and heads on down to the lake. Once Lee arrives, he realizes he is on the wrong side of the lake and decides to take a short cut by diving and swimming out to her rather than walk around the long way. Lee misjudges the dive, and winds up caught at the bottom of the lake in a mass of thick weeds. As he struggles to free himself, Theresa swims down to help. Things look grim, but Theresa eventually frees Lee and brings him to shore.


Thankful and even more in love than ever, Lee tries to convince Theresa that his rescue was a miracle and therefore they belong together. She tells him to rest and meet her at the park bench at noon.


Lee complies with Theresa's request and meets her as instructed -- only to find out that she is Sister Theresa! Now, I know you saw that coming, but for Lee, Theresa's reveal comes as quite a shock!

Quietly and with a gentle, "God bless you..." Theresa walks off into her new life. Lee sits on the bench for what seems like an eternity, alone in his confusion. Somberly, Suzan appears to comfort Lee in his time of need.

Despite the slightly humorous cover, the 18-page "Veil of Love" is actually quite a sad and tender story. Both Lee and Theresa were looking for a connection. For him -- an emotional one, and for her-- something divine. The young nun seemed to have found her peace, but only one's imagination can determine whether Lee discovered his.

*The creative team that would later go on to create the equally as unusual romance story, Lady Cop!

Truth in Religion Class

This academic year, 2010/2011, for the first time I am assigned to handle religion subject in my workplace. As the material to discuss in class, I download those provided at T R U T H Since this is an international school, we are not limited to discuss only one religion. However, because the six students in the eleventh grade are Christian/Catholic, according the personal information they gave the school, I decided to discuss Christianity first.

In the first week, we discussed TRUTH. As you can see from the abovementioned website, TRUTH is divided into five ways, aesthetic truth, historical truth, moral truth, scientific truth, and the last one is religious or spiritual truth. After we discussed it in the classroom, I assigned my students to write around a one-hundred word paragraph to answer the question “What do you know about truth?”

In this post, I chose two writings of my students that I considered outstanding.

John:

In my opinion, truth is about reality and fact, something that is real and does exist. Why I say reality, it is something that is provable and shown and has truly happened with everyone agreeing in its existence; whether it is an event, an object, or a living being. Or Zeus.

In our current era, scientific truth is the most effective truth. Films are photos are no longer truth; mere words don’t always reach. Thanks a lot to photoshop. Other “truths” are not proving much, because modern era beliefs are far different from those the old era beliefs. Le prechaun, anyone?

However, the scientific truth has mostly brought down imaginations of the people; films get ridiculous, gets illogical, etc. for example, do aliens that are allergic to water exist? Will they attack earth which is ¾ water? Is this the truth? They are suicide.

Vanya:

The word ‘truth’ has actually lots of different meanings. When we hear ‘truth’ we generally think about facts that are proven and unbiased. As much as this definition is correct, it is not the only way we can define ‘truth’. Truth can also mean, especially in religion, something we believe in; or what we have faith in. For example, as a Christian, I may say that Jesus Christ is my ‘truth’, but there is no evidence that this is so; therefore non Christians may be skeptical about it.

In history, ‘truth’ has a slightly different meaning. Historians record what they think happened in the past from findings articles and artifacts. In a way, the historians create their own ‘truth’.

For me, though, personally, I think ‘truth’ is about what we know about ourselves, our beliefs, our world and our lives. It is what gives u a purpose to live.

Well, I must say that I enjoy this class perhaps because I consider my spiritual journey fulfilling enough. I want to share the similar stuff with those young students of mine.

Nana Podungge
PT56 06.20 070810

P R A Y I N G

“Praying is none other than communication with ourselves.”

I happened to find this statement in one note of one online buddy on FB several weeks ago. A spiritualist, this is how he labeled himself. At that time, using my ‘present’ point of view I could see the ‘truth’ behind this statement. I don’t consider myself as a spiritualist though. As one can find in my profile information on FB, I wrote ‘a secular Muslim’ to label myself, although in practice, I am more to agnostic or deist. Anyway, what is labeling for?

In communicating with myself I can write in my diary, blogs, or even write to my loved ones – my other half, my good friends, even recently in statuses of my FB. I sometimes need my loved ones to reply what I have written. However, just writing to them something has been very fulfilling.

Or maybe not in the form of writing? For those who find writing difficult thing to do, just talk to ourselves, in our bedroom, in the restroom, on our way to somewhere (make sure still be alert to the traffic), when swimming, at the office (when you can spare time being alone).

Indeed, praying can be done anywhere and anytime. :)

PBIS 11.50 270410

Fundamentalist Secularism

This article started from my old post entitled "My Spiritual Journey" that I reposted in my FB a few days ago. A dear good friend commented jokingly, "what a spiritual snob you are..."
I responded, "I am absolutely not a spiritual snob. An intellectual snob, well, yes you can say that again!"
She replied, "Well, yes, first cognitive then affective ..."
Jokingly I asked her, "Spiritual snob is different from religious snob, isn't it? You know, in our country, there are abundant religious snobs who believe that they are 'ahlul jannah' and the rest are 'ahlun naar'."
However, since she tried to be careful -- offending people in the networking sites can be considered a crime in Indonesia recently, and no longer just a misdemeanor -- she continued discussing this topic via personal message, or more popularly known INBOX on FB. And she introduced me to a (for me) new term, "fundamentalist secular".
My curiosity on this term made me do googling. And ... here is the article I promised her to write.

Term 'fundamentalist secularism' comes from two terms, 'fundamentalism' and 'secularism'. I will start from giving definition of terms 'fundamentalism' and 'secularism.
Wikipedia encyclopedia defines 'fundamentalism' as a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life. The term has been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations.
Furthermore, Karen Armstrong defines fundamentalist movements as 'embattled forms of spirituality, which have emerged as a response to a perceived crisis" -- namely the fear that modernity will erode or even eradicate their faith and morality. This concern is shared mostly by Fundamentalist Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
Secularism, according to Wikipedia encyclopedia, is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs. In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and freedom from the government imposition of religion upon the people, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions. In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence

So, what is fundamentalist secularism?

Tobias Jones, the author of “The Dark Heart of Italy”, in http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jan/06/comment.religion stated that "Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians*". He cited an example of the hijab ban in French schools. The government doesn't give any space for their citizens to practice their religion freely. Another example cited by Jones was when the government considered the wearing of crucifix or a veil or a turban as offensive to other faiths.
It reminded me of a topic discussed when I was in college. In 1620 the early immigrants left England and sailed to North America, on the ship 'Mayflower'. In the 'newfoundland' they formed Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts. They did this because they could not practice the religions they adhered to freely in the home country. However, when they succeeded establishing a new 'country', they did the same thing: they forced the settlers to follow the religion of the chosen 'ruler'. When a group of people didn't accept the rule, they had to move to another area, or they would be hanged to death.
Does fundamentalist secularism only exist in the western countries?
I observe that this secularism thrives everywhere, including in Indonesia. Indonesian government is not a secular one. Indonesia is not a Muslim country either although it has MUI that obviously has interfered the citizens' lives by issuing some ‘useless’ fatwas, although some provincial governments have issued some 'unfriendly' (and sadly misogynist) Islamic (or other religious) bylaws. However, I guess there are abundant people (I know via internet) in Indonesia claiming themselves as secular, thinking that the government should separate itself from any religions' teachings, the government should respect citizens' freedom either to adhere a religion or not. Secular people -- I am one example -- do not mix their religious beliefs with their daily routine. They also believe that people must respect each other's religions, no judging that other people will go to hell only because -- let's say -- they are not praying five times a day (for Muslim) or not going to church (for Christians) etc.
Referring to my post "My Spiritual Journey" where the main theme is "there is no such chosen (or best) people (to go to heaven)", I recently have recognized that these secular people -- perhaps I am also included in this case -- start to ridiculously think themselves as the "best" one. They start to laugh at other people who adhere their religions rigidly, they consider people praying together to alleviate their sufferings as fool. They have lost their empathy. They no longer respect other people's faiths.
From some examples above, let me conclude the definition of ‘fundamentalist secularism’. It refers to the concept that government or other entities are separate from religion so rigidly or strictly that until a certain rank it eradicates the existence of religions, or more hostile it regards religions – and their adherents – evil.
As a secular Muslim, I want to end this article by citing one famous verse in Alquran, "lakum dinukum waliyadin" -> your religion is for you, my religion is for me. In a wider sense, it can be interpreted as “whatever faith (that I consider having broader sense than ‘religion’) you have, or even if you are agnostic, deist, nihilist, or atheist, keep remembering that difference is beautiful, respecting other people is necessary, being empathetic to other people is awesome.

Nana Podungge
-- the secular Muslim --

PBIS 12.12 190210

* (Totalitarianism = a form of government in which the state controls all phases of the people's lives. Totalitarianism allows only one party, headed by an absolute leader. He maintains his power over the party and the rest of the people by force and violence. Freedom of religion does not exist. => "The World Book Encyclopedia)

Religion

The disappointment I got from the religion I have adhered since I was a little kid -- due to the unfair treatment towards women and got the 'answer' from the feminism ideology -- easily made me feel 'awakened' when I came to read articles quoting anthropologists' statement that religion was a mere creation of human beings.

(Have you heard what African American said in the nineteenth century? "We were of opinion that Adam was the first white man in the world. He brought injustice to the Black people." You can relate this statement tot the fact when the White enslaved the Black for centuries in America. Worse still (for Muslim people especially) one lecturer of mine said that the Arab people (in which we can find those people who feel that they are the chosen ones since the three celestial religions were passed down in their areas) were the ones who brought the slavery to American continent. I believe Muslim people still remember the story of Bilal -- the first slave who converted to Islam. It shows that Arab countries had practiced slavery many centuries earlier before America -- the so-called country that always supports equality among human beings -- did this really inhumane act.)

Anthropologists also stated that Adam was NOT the first human being in this world.
I believe that human beings have two contradictory characters in them -- good and evil. What will make a person good or evil depends on whether he or she is able to control those two sides; whether they will listen to their intuition to be good people or their greed to be evil.

Some super genius people realized this and they wanted to 'help' maintain the peace in the world by creating the so-called religion complete with the teachings, including the belief in heaven and hell. The teachings brainwashed people's mind that they will go to heaven if they do good to others meanwhile they don't forget to worship the Almighty. Contradictorily, if they do bad things -- let us say creating bad impacts toward society -- plus keep forgetting to worship God, these people will go to hell. Heaven is portrayed as a place where all comforts exist while hell is on the way around. This makes people -- who are easily brainwashed -- so scared if they will go to hell.

One teaching in Islam (I don't know other religions' teachings, so as one example I took one teaching in Islam, the religion I have adhered since I was a little kid, and I still choose to adhere after I baptized myself as a secular, since if you live in Indonesia, it is a must to adhere one religion to be printed in your identity card LOL) is about praying five times a day. Surah Al-ankabuut verse 45 stated "praying five times a day will prevent human beings from doing evil things." This verse made Muslim people brainwashed that the avoid doing evil things, they NEED to pray five times a day. In another word we can say that they are not really confident that they will not do harmful things to others if they do not pray five times a day regularly. They do not believe in themselves that they will not do evil thing if they do not rely on one teaching in the religion -- PRAY. And they are also brainwashed that those who do not pray five times a day regularly have lower rank because they are believed to be prone to do evil. In other words it can be stated that human beings are not trusted that they can use their common sense and have high self control to do good or bad without applying what is stated in that verse. In Arabic, this is called 'hablum minannas' -- relation among human beings.

In 'hablum minallah' -- relation between human beings and the Almighty -- who needs to pray or to be worshiped? Many Muslim people think that the Almighty created human beings to worship the Almighty. It means that the Almighty is believed to be angry when people in the world do not worship the Almighty. Those people forget that in this case they have humanized the Almighty!!! The Almighty will get offended if human beings do not pray to the Almighty and will ask those people who do not pray to move out of the earth and other planets in the Milky Way.

Surah Al-ankabuut verse 45 is closely related to Surah Al-maa'uun verses 1-7. This can be translated as "those who pray five times a day will be doomed if they do it only for show off, and they are reluctant to help others." It is clearly seen that the Almighty has given more emphasis to 'hablum minannas' than to 'hablum minallah'.

However, we can find more people thinking that this teaching --praying five times a day -- is more to 'hablum minallah', more people do this only because they are scared to be put into hell. And also more people believe that they are the chosen ones because they pray five times a day while they still do evil thing to others. It is because they are brainwashed that their praying five times a day will 'erase' their so-called misdemeanour.

Going back to the main topic of this post. Those super genius people who created religions to help maintain the peace in the world were just creatures who could not always predict what would happen in the future. Many people who learn their Holy Books without trying to find relations among the verses to come to a thorough understanding -- that must control people's negative side and maintain the peace among human beings -- even come to an interpretation that ruin the peace. They believe that their religion is the rightest -- so that they feel that they are the chosen ones -- and they have rights to diminish other people.

Can we control our negative side in ourselves by relying on our common sense without those so-called holy verses who were just created by human beings?

-- Nana Podungge, the secular --
PBIS 11.30 02.02.2010

Change Your Perspective: Join Student Exchange (2)

Yesterday I attended a farewell as well as welcoming party of AFS Semarang Chapter. As last year, my ‘duty’ was to give comments to students’ presentations. However, in this short article, I will not write about the students’ performance, but I will write a little about one returnee’s experience when he was in America.
This particular student—a male—is from one Islamic boarding school which is quite well-known from Central Java. The interesting thing was during one year in Uncle Sam’s country, he was sent to a Christian (or Catholic, I am not really sure about it). Before he left, people around him were a bit doubtful to let him go; with a similar reason of Eric’s parents (whose experience I wrote in this blog of mine too a year ago): they were worried if the so-called ungodly country would change the poor boy’s faith and he would be a devil’s followers. (Eric was sent to Norway which is said to have the highest percentage of non-believer citizens in the whole world.)
As Eric, this new returnee narrated his amazing experience how people in the whole Christian school did not marginalize him only because he was the only Muslim. Even they showed big interest on what Islam is, its teachings, bla bla bla, and especially it’s ‘jihad’. Why this experience is amazing for him, I believe, is caused by how Indonesian people (in religion’s area) show ‘the majority rules’ and ‘the minority follows’. (One very clear example in this case is during Ramadhan month how selfishly the majority asks the whole country to respect this month without reserve. All restaurants must be close in the morning without respecting other people who are not fasting, who perhaps need to go to a restaurant.)
Going back from America, this returnee is of course expected to tell his folks that the so-called ungodly country has taught him a very valuable lesson: the majority must respect the minority.
This story reminded me of one workmate who told me about one niece of hers. This niece was selected to go abroad after winning the selection of students exchange. At first, her family was not sure that she would get the chance since she was wearing ‘jilbab’. Therefore, then I explained that—in my opinion—the committee of this students exchange intentionally seemed to choose students whose religious familial background was strong: such as those who study in Islamic boarding school. They are expected to open their eyes that the teaching of their teachers as well as parents that religion is the only principle to make life better is not always right; that people whose religious ‘knowledge’ is strong will make good people (‘good’ here means will not do any harm to other people) can be biased.
What do the committee expect from this? The returnees will be moderate and will not be easily brainwashed by those fundamental Islamic teachings, let’s say to kill other people in the name of God. The returnees will respect people who do not always turn to religions when facing their lives because there are always other ways out.
Ever seen this T-shirt?


PT56 14.14 200709
P.S.: my post about Eric is here http://afeministblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/change-your-perspective-join-student.html

Change Your Perspective: Join Student Exchange

I have got an answer to my question to myself a year ago, “Why are the five students selected to go abroad by AFS committee all studying at Islamic boarding school?”
I have been looking for the answer for a year when out of the blue I got the answer. The story is like this.
On Saturday July 19, 2008 I was invited by Yayasan Bina Antar Budaya (The Indonesian Foundation for Intercultural Learning) Chapter Semarang to attend the farewell as well as welcoming party. Farewell party is to let go the selected students abroad; while welcoming party is to welcome some students having come back from abroad. The program was held for two days at Bandungan, not far from Semarang. On my way to Bandungan, I was together with Erik, one student who just came back from Norway. Leo, one volunteer, drove his car, while listening to my chat with Erik, and once in a while asking questions to Erik or giving comments.
Among several questions I asked Erik, I asked one crucial question: about religion.
“So, how is the religiosity life in Norway, Erik?”
To my surprise, Erik seemed very enthusiastic with that question.
“I assume that 85% of Norwegian people are atheist.” He directly answered.
Then, he went on telling us …
At first, his father—who works for Religion Department—minded his going to Norway. Erik himself was very disappointed to be selected by AFS committee but was sent to a country he chose the last one to visit. (In fact, it was Erik’s own mistake because he misunderstood the instruction when ranking which country he wanted to visit very much). Before letting Erik go, his parents took him to one relative in Kudus who happened to be one ‘ulema’ they believed could foresee what would happen. Guess why? His parents were worried if Erik would be a non-believer too after getting in touch with atheist people for a year. Fortunately, the relative gave green light to Erik’s parents to let him go.
“Honestly I got mentally ‘slapped’ by my foster parents there when they said, “Erik, you are a Muslim because you were born in Indonesia. We are non-believers because we were born here in Norway. I believe if you were born in Norway, you would be a non-believer too. Likewise, if we were born in Indonesia, we would be Muslim too because it is a religion adhered by the majority Indonesian people.”
My experience living there among non-believer people taught me something contradictory from I used to believe: “Atheist people are not criminals. What people say that atheist people have chaotic life because their life is not divided by the rigid five pray times a day is absolutely not correct. Their life is fine, and they are obviously good people. My foster parents did not know me at all before I arrived there, but they took care of me very well, as if I were their own son. Not recognizing God in their life does not necessarily mean they become heartless people. I have learned something very different from what my religious teachers used to teach me.”
B-I-N-GO!!!
The number of imbeciles in Indonesia has decreased one number: ERIK.
I expect that the other students sent abroad together with Erik (all from one famous Islamic boarding school in Sukoharjo) underwent similar experience in understanding different perspective about religiosity/spirituality.
Absolutely I have been expecting that this number will decrease now and again so that we Indonesian people all will live side by side peacefully regardless different religions, ethnic, etc.
*****
During ‘talent show’ that night, I was sitting next to a woman whose daughter went back from Belgium a year ago. One of our ‘chats’ was also about this religiosity thing. I assume that the daughter got similar ‘enlightenment’ as Erik so she had courage to debate her mother when the mother said, “Atheist people must have chaotic life because they don’t have ‘something’ to hold on –GOD. In Indonesia here there are many religious people but still people do crimes, such as corruption. Moreover in a country where people don’t believe that there will be life after death where everyone must be responsible with everything they do in this world.”
A very narrow-minded way of thinking, do you believe? This becomes the daughter’s responsibility to ‘teach’ the mother a new perspective in viewing life. As stated in the motto of AFS program: CHANGE YOUR PERSPECTIVE IN VIEWING THE WORLD.
PT56 12.40 220708

My Naivete

To be raised in a very strict religious family and sent to Islamic (although only) elementary school is one of my big burdens in this life, I assume. The bigger burden is when I successfully (I suppose so) gave myself ‘enlightenment’ to get rid of the blind Islamic teachings and doctrines (you can read my post I entitled “My Spiritual Journey” in http://afeministblog.blogspot.com (in English) or http://serbaserbikehidupan.blogspot.com (in Bahasa), I still (have to) live surrounded by those people who are blindly indoctrinated. The most recent case of Al Qiyadah even showed that the majority of Muslim in Indonesia—not only those living around me—is still blindly indoctrinated.
When I involve myself in the lively discussion (especially about religion) with my cyber friends in one mailing list, I feel my burden get lighter. However when I keep in touch with people around me—with their judgmental eyes when looking at me—I always feel like thumped to a very hard rock! And since I lack masculine soul—I don’t like direct confrontation—I would rather be quiet.
Referring to Sobrino, one liberal theologian from Latin America, (cited by one member of JIL), three important aspects in enlightenment are: human agency, critical (and intellectual) thinking, and public reasoning. I somewhat doubt if people around me—and also Muslim people in Indonesia generally—will really be enlightened so that they will respect what other people believe if they keep thinking that religion is not dialectical. Their reasoning has been silenced and will always be dumb with the government (plus the media)’s strong support. When their reasoning is silenced, how can they think critically? That means their role as an agent does not function well either.
And I must say that I am really impatient to wait a miracle to come so that I will really live humanly and peacefully, without being judged unfairly.
PT56 23.50 021107

Al-Qiyadah

I have recently been wondering what America would be like now if it had not been ‘colonized’ (instead of ‘rediscovered’) by Columbus at the end of the fifteenth century; if the welfare of people in England had been good after that, if Puritans—and some other so-called ‘deviant’ religious sects—had been welcome well by the country so that they did not need to escape from their homeland.
Todd and Curti in their book “Rise of the American Nation” (1972: 24-25) mentioned five reasons for many English people—as well as other Europeans” to migrate to the New World:

Conflict over religion
Search for religion freedom
Search for political freedom
Widespread unemployment
Economic ferment

The first and second reasons can be categorized into one similar problem, and so can the fourth and fifth reasons; while the third reason shows the hostility of the citizens toward the government. King James I (1603-1625) and King Charles (1625-1640) ruled without Parliament because they believed in “the divine right of kings”. (1972:25)
The recent condition in Indonesia reminds me of the not conducive situation in England during the sixteenth and seventeenth century. The somewhat chaotic situation in adhering religion in Indonesia lately—due to the most contemporary so-called deviant Al Qiyadah Al Islamiyah and some other sects such as Ahmadiyah before—in fact is not far cry from the ugly condition in England several centuries ago. This is also accompanied by the rising poverty line due to widespread unemployment and the soaring prices of anything. The difference is it (still) happens in Indonesia in this “modern” time while “modern countries” are supposed to support tolerance and freedom to choose which religion to adhere. It shows that Indonesia fails to fulfill one of the tenets to be a modern country.
Lately, some newspapers (I read) have headlined Al Qiyadah—that is categorized deviant sect unfairly by the government. The way the newspapers write the news and even in the editorial—the dictions, the tone, etc—shows that they also take side to the government and Al Qiyadah becomes the culprit. That means the government is strongly supported by the media (forgive my limited reading because I don’t read a lot of newspapers published in Indonesia) to dictate the majority of Indonesian citizens’ attitude.
Coincidently not long ago one mailing list I join—RumahKitaBersama—talked about adhering a religion and practicing its teachings blindly—one of its longest thread if I am not mistaken. One of its discussion is about the arrogance of Muslims’ claim that Islam is the most perfect religion, the last one that complete its two ‘older siblings’—Jewish and Christian. I threw a question, “When Christian was believed by its adherents to complete Jewish, this upset the Jewish. When Islam is believed by its adherents to perfect Christian (and Jewish)’ teachings, this offended both religions. Will one day a new religion emerges, and it is said to complete the previous three Abrahamic faiths, will Muslim get angry?” The answer was: “the new religion perhaps will not have time to grow since it will easily and quickly be labeled ‘deviant’ and killed afterwards.”
And there it was: out of the blue Al Qiyadah emerged and its prophet Abussalam alias Ahmad Moshadded became a new celebrity.
When Professor Kenneth Hall—my guest lecturer when I was studying at American Studies Gadjah Mada University—said that the social life of Indonesia was left behind America around 50 years, can we say that Indonesia is left behind England several centuries in the not conducive situation in adhering religions?
PT56 11.11 021107

Epitaph ...

Several months ago while discussing “epitaph” in Poetry Analysis Class, a student said, “Wah ... it must be very expensive Ma’am. My neighbor has an undertaking business. He told me the longer the name of a person is, the more expensive the tomb is because the cost is counted per letter. Moreover if the family wants to engrave poem on the tomb. I assume this thing is especially only for rich people. Luckily here in Java, people don’t have a habit to engrave epitaph.”
As far as I know, in Indonesia, people can find tombs with epitaph mostly in Manado, North Sulawesi where people know there are many people with mixed blood (Indonesian and Dutch) so that it is concluded that the habit of engraving epitaph comes from Dutch people that used to live in Manado and marry women there. If it is related to the beginning history of America, the Puritans left England to look for a new place to live in where they could embrace any religion and practice the rituals they believed, some moved to Holland. They must have brought this engraving tomb from England to Holland, (and then from Holland, they brought it to Indonesia, especially in Manado) while those migrating to the New World brought it there too.
Around a year ago, someone from one mailing list I joined asked other members to write epitaph he would engrave on his tombstone after he died. I wrote one, and sent it to the mailing list. This in fact attracted one good friend of mine, a member of that mailing list too. He said, “People don’t need to engrave anything on my tombstone later because I will ask my body burned.”
As a Muslim, of course I never have an idea for such a thing. However, his comment made me think more deeply. One habit of Javanese people before Ramadhan month—a sacred month where people fast—is to visit their family members’ graveyard. People do it again after Idul Fitri comes. To do this habit, someone sometimes has to go to a quite far distance, let’s say from Jakarta to Semarang (around 500 km away). To me, it sounds impractical.
What is the point to visit a graveyard? If only to send pray to the deceased, people can do it from anywhere, no need to visit the graveyard, as if the deceased really dwelled there, so that he/she would directly see who come to visit. I suppose we believe that what is buried is only flesh and bones that will quickly rot while the ‘soul’ of the deceased will not dwell there.
I remember when I was in elementary school, my teacher said that it was necessary to visit graveyard so that people would always remember that they would die one day, so that they would behave in the world because later after they die, they’ve got to be responsible with everything they do. I also learn that sending pray to the deceased is more important than just visiting the graveyard bringing bouquet or offerings. And again, to send pray can be done from anywhere, right? no need to go to the graveyard?
Is it right those corruptors (or other criminals) don’t remember that one day they will die and they have to be responsible their crimes in the world in front of God? Is it right that those who regularly go to visit graveyards behave better because it means they always remember one day they will die?
My friend who said that he wanted his body to be burned must belong to the practical type so that he will not bother his offspring to engrave his tombstone that will cost much money, or to visit his graveyard (imagine if his graveyard is in Indonesia while his offspring live in another part of the globe).
Anyway, in studying literature, it is always interesting to learn about epitaph. By the way, around a year ago, a blog friend of mine from England said that people there no longer think of writing an epitaph to be engraved in tombstone (it has been a tradition there anyway), but they start to select what kind of song/music played in their burial.
PT56 17.07 161007

Teaching religions to kids = an abusive act?

Wednesday October 3, 2007 was the first day of this term at my workplace. At 15.00-17.00 I got a quite high level, High Intermediate 2 (there are four levels for High Intermediate). One common thing that happens in a quite high level on the first day of a term is the small number of students coming to class. Out of four students on the attendance list, there were only two students coming, both of them were male; one is a senior high school student, in the second grade, while the other one is a college student, in his fifth semester.
Since not many students came, and it was the first meeting, we had free topic to talk. I started asking where they studied. The senior high school student—let’s call him ‘Ale’—is studying at SMA Kolese Loyola, one very well-known private high school for the good quality in Semarang. He also told me that he graduated from Bernardus elementary school and Domenico Savio junior high school, both are Catholic schools and both are oftentimes favorite schools for Chinese descendants. Referring to his school and his (ex) schools, I easily made a conclusion that he is Catholic. He is Javanese though, not Chinese.
I got surprised when I asked him whether there were some Muslims studying at SMA Loyola because he told me that he was a Muslim. “Loyola is a Catholic school Ma’am but perhaps there are around 30 percents of the students who are not Catholic. They are Muslim, like me, or Buddhist, Christian, or Hindu.”
His ‘consistency’ in studying in Catholic schools (elementary – junior high – senior high schools) reminded me of one family in my neighborhood whose parents sent most of their children to Catholic schools. In fact that made the children convert to Catholic. (I wrote about this family in one of my posts. You can check it at http://afeministblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/absolute-truth.html) Therefore, I asked whether his parents already anticipated the possibility of his to convert to Catholic. He said, “My parents forced me to study at that Catholic elementary school for the good quality of education although I remember at the very beginning I protested. However, they strongly warned me not to convert. That’s why they also obliged me to learn to recite Alquran, to pray five times a day, and since I am a boy, they encouraged me to pray Maghrib and Isya in the mosque close to my house.”
“Will you tell me whether you have ever been marginalized at school since you belong to the minority group?” I asked Ale. I remember one visitor in my blog who wrote that it was indeed unfavorable condition to belong to the marginalized—whether due to religion adhered or ethnic group—in Indonesia. I have never experienced it since I belong to the majority.
Surprisingly, he said that he never got mocked or marginalized at school. He learned Catholic as one compulsory subject to take at school as knowledge, not different from other subjects, such as Math, Geography, Biology, Physics, etc. It means this ‘knowledge’ about another religion would not threaten his faith is Islam, the religion he has adhered since he was born, not because of choice, but because his parents asked him to follow them. One wise thing he learned from his Catholic teacher was, “There are many ways to get close to God. We are free to choose which way it is, no way is wrong.” That impressed me very much since I remember when I was at elementary school, my teacher said, “Islam is absolutely the only right way to get close to God, to enter heaven later. Other religions—or faiths—will make you go to hell.”
In fact, one (not really—for me) surprising thing was when he was even mocked in his reciting Alquran class. His teacher intimidated him—a little boy who just wanted to obey what his parents asked him to—to study at Catholic school. Sometimes, in the mosque that he visited everyday to pray Maghrib and Isya together with other Muslims, he was also cornered by other kids, “Hey, you are Catholic, aren’t you? So why do you pray here?” Oftentimes mocked by his reciting Alquran teacher and his friends at that class, Ale just kept quiet, didn’t respond. He was split into two, his parents who forced him to study at Catholic schools and his surrounding who did not want to understand his situation. And he was just a little and helpless kid at that time.
****
Coincidently not long time ago, I read one discussion in one mailing list I join about the possibility of adhering (or teaching) a religion for kids is an abusive act (referring to Dawkins’ accusation). The way parents or teachers teach little children about religion is not much different from the fact that the existence of God is analogous with “Big brother is watching you”. In order to make a kid obey the religion’s teachings, parents or teachers use doctrines, such as “Don’t steal. God is watching you.” “Don’t commit sin because God will always know that. Consequently, you will go to hell—a special place God has prepared for sinful people.” You can name many other DON’TS that are related to “Big brother is watching you.”
Meanwhile, in another mailing list I join, some time ago there was a discussion about adhering a religion and practicing its teachings blindly. Lots of people believe that religion is not dialectical. Therefore, they just swallow any doctrines stuffed into their brain, without questioning because their logic has been silenced during their childhood. They don’t dare to think that those doctrines they learn from ulemas (expert in Islam) are possibly the result of those ulemas’ own interpretation that they daringly say, “These are what God says…”
I will not draw any conclusion in this writing of mine. I invite anybody to share their opinion for this topic: teaching religion to kids is an abusive act that will kill their logic. This will create people who practice their religious rituals blindly if they don’t develop their horizon. (Is there anybody or anything to blame? I assume we had better stop looking for scapegoat, though.)
PT56 23.00 171007

'Aurat'

In some mailing lists I join, people are still discussing ‘hotly’ about ‘aurat’. (aurat means parts of bodies that are supposed to be covered.)
What is ‘aurat’?
When I was in elementary school (I attended an Islamic elementary school), I was taught that ‘aurat’ for women is most parts of their bodies, except face and palms, while for men, ‘aurat’ is ONLY from their navel to exactly above knees. It means parts of women’s bodies that are allowed to be seen are only their face and palms. Meanwhile, people can freely see men’s full head, neck, shoulders, chest, upper belly, arms, hands, and legs from knees below.
Why should women cover most parts of their bodies?
It is stated that women’s bodies—hair, neck, ears, etc—will easily turn men on. I suppose all men—creatures having penis since birth—are considered heterosexual in Islam, because people say that Islam only recognizes two kinds of sexes: male—again, all creatures having penis, and female—all creatures having vagina and breasts. If a man is turned on because of seeing a woman’s parts or her whole body, he will probably do some ‘unexpected things’, such as whistling, staring, touching, etc. Therefore, ‘to protect’ women from those unexpected acts, they are to cover (or ‘imprison’?) their whole bodies under loose clothes. This is also ‘to protect’ men in order that they will be ‘saved’ from temptation to do ‘immoral acts’. To protect men here of course means different from ‘imprisoning’ that I mentioned earlier.
I am of opinion that definition of ‘aurat’ here is closely related to the fact where Islam ‘was born’, that was in Arab. When it is related to two previous celestial religions ‘born’ before that—Christian and Judaism—that were believed by most Muslim people as “Islam in different forms” or “Islam which was not perfected yet by Muhammad”, these two religions were also born in Arab, where the people ‘originally’ wore kinds of clothes covering most parts of their bodies.
It reminded me of one question from one chat friend—a Californian male, a non believer—several years ago, “If Islam had not been born in Arab, but in Indonesia, more specific again, in Papua, where the ‘original’ people only wore ‘koteka’, do you think ‘aurat’ in people’s bodies that have to be covered would be the same—all parts of our bodies?
After reading more books and articles about human beings’ history from the very old time—at the very beginning of human beings’ life in the earth—in my effort to get rid myself of indoctrination I got from my elementary school teachers, I found out that there was time where men and women were equal, there was no separating domain—domestic and public spheres—an era where perhaps people did not know the existence of celestial religions. In that era, seemingly both men and women wore the same kind of clothes, not covering much, no imprisonment toward women, no protection given to men—from temptation to expose their sexual desires. Therefore, I do agree if people say that ‘aurat’ is very cultural. Regulation to cover ‘aurat’ is only to imprison women, and to spoil men, so that they will be able to avoid doing ‘immoral’ things. (Have you ever heard that heaven later will be full of men, on the contrary, hell will be full of women.)
In conclusion, I completely agree that this ‘aurat’ thing is just for fooling us around, just a joke. That’s why I also agree when one woman in one mailing list complained why only men are protected from sexual temptations, why women are not protected from the similar things. Aren’t there any women who get easily turned on when they see men’s naked chest, or muscular arms/biceps?
PT56 13.31 160907

A Lesson in Life

One workmate of mine used to work in Lombok island, located in the eastern part of Indonesia. She told me since she was in college, she had set her heart on living in this exotic place. People who have visited Lombok island usually say that this island is even more beautiful than Bali, the most visited place in Indonesia nowadays by foreign tourists, because it is more serene, pristine, and “original” than Bali.
After living there for some years, she went back to Java island. I forgot why she didn’t just go on living there. If I am not mistaken she said that she felt “enough” to have experience living in that remote area and she had to go back to the most populated island in Indonesia, Java island, the “center” of everything, education, entertainment, shopping, etc.
Around three years ago she got married, not because of love, but because being married was “the must-passed step” in someone’s life to be considered “normal” and “happy” by other people. So “cheated” was she in the consensus of patriarchal society that she believed that everything would be alright after she got married. She would no longer be besieged by questions from society, “When will you get married?” She was in the middle of thirties at that time.
Before getting married, she barely had time to know her husband-to-be because they didn’t know for a long time before deciding to get married. This was the result of religious teaching that a man and a woman had better get married as soon as possible, without any time for courting to know each other better. They would have much time to do that after getting married. The main reason for this teaching was to avoid doing sinful things, such as touching, kissing, and intercourse before they became legal husband and wife.
I still remember after the first weeks she got married, she said that it was the best decision to get married soon so that both she and her husband were “legal”, they could do anything they wanted (read  touching, kissing, until intercourse) without any barrier, without feeling sinful because violating religion’s teachings.
FYI, after getting married, she somewhat retreated herself from me, she was not as open as before. We still sometimes had a private talk, but she did not talk as much and as open before she got married.
A couple of weeks ago, she told me two distinct things.
First, suddenly she said that she missed her days when she lived all alone in Lombok island. “I was lonely at that time, but I enjoyed my time being alone. I sometimes feel so burdened to be a mother and a wife. Now I set my heart on spending some time again there in Lombok, all alone, leaving hubby and my two children. I deserve to get my freedom don’t I?”
As a person who still enjoys my “freedom” (I mean not involved with anybody but Angie, my daughter), I don’t want to provoke her though. LOL. Even in this situation I still miss my time when I was pursuing my study in Yogya, where I lived really all alone. I still sometimes want to live some days without Angie’s begging me to do this and that for her.
However, from what both she and I feel, I can conclude that we all sometimes need some time to be alone; one thing that is still considered weird in Indonesia, especially for women. Although men are mostly understood when they want to leave the family, women are forced to be tied closely to the family, if they want to be categorized into “good women”.
What I can do to this friend of mine is just giving her support, “Yes, despite our being social creatures, we also deserve to enjoy being alone. Just do what you think you need to do. Take a break for some time from your job, and enjoy your freedom.”
Second thing she said was, “Now I realize that the Islamic way to get married is not always good. It is even oftentimes misleading.”
“Islamic way to get married? What do you mean?” I didn’t catch what she meant.
“Well, you know in our religion we are taught that it is a big sin to be close to someone—different sex—before he legally becomes our husband, to avoid adultery. We are taught to get married as soon as we meet someone who really attracts our attention. To know him more after getting married is more beautiful because there will be no barrier between us. But what about if after getting married we find out that in fact he/she is not like what we want. We will regret very much. We can file divorce, yes, but isn’t it better that we know each other well first, then we get married, to avoid the possibility to get divorced because our spouse turns out to be not like what we want?”
I smiled to hear her say so. She obviously belongs to the type of person who doesn’t easily believe in what people say before she proves it by herself, by undergoing it in her life.
I am of opinion that religions are created by some brainy people to help other people; to help make this world run better. However then in the process, the good teachings have been messed up by selfish people; even the teachings are used to marginalize a group of people. And as we know, unfortunately, many religions are even abused by people to corner women. And some of the teachings are even abused to create a big gap among people so that they hate each other.
Going back to my friend who inspired me to write this article. :) We used to be close with one more friend, she moved to another town to follow her husband four years ago. Among three of us, she was the most innocent and child-like. Her marriage has taught her a lot about the real lesson in this life.
PT56 17.00 290707

Science versus Religion

The following was from my friend’s blog, Phillip Brown from England, before he deleted his blog some months ago. I have been intrigued by the debate of science versus religion due to my upbringing. I was brought up in a very religious family, no question about my religion as an absolute truth but believed. That was what I got when I was little (and teenager too). After I grew up, my readings (an inevitable risk/impact of readings various sources?) made me question all indoctrination I got in the past.
Here is one example of my reading.

One of the best discussions I have ever heard about the contrast between the way science works and the way religious faith doesn't!
--------------------------------------------------
There is something attractive about absolute beliefs, but we cannot afford ourselves the luxury of waiting for evidence on some issues, says Lisa Jardine in the first of her weekly opinion columns.
Sometimes, if you're lucky as a historian, you find a bit of evidence which illuminates a big idea. That happened to me this week in the Pepys Library at Magdalene College, Cambridge.
The thought uppermost in my mind was how odd it is that non-scientists think of science as being about certainties and absolute truth. Whereas scientists are actually quite tentative - they simply try to arrive at the best fit between the experimental findings so far and a general principle.
The manuscript I found was a ship's journal kept by a 17th Century English sea captain, who had offered to carry some state-of-the-art scientific equipment on a voyage to the west coast of Africa and back - two new pendulum clocks.
The job he took on was to test the clocks to see if they kept accurate time in spite of being tossed up and down and generally shaken about at sea. I'll come back to how he got on in a moment.
Science, as I say, is not doctrinaire. Strongly held religious beliefs, however, are.
This week John Mackay from Queensland Australia, a passionate advocate of Creationism, has been touring halls and chapels in the UK attacking Darwin's theory that the human race has evolved gradually from the apes over millions of years.
Mackay maintains that Genesis is literally true, that the earth is only a few thousand years old and that the exquisite organization of nature is clear proof that God's hand lies behind all of creation. Mackay had hoped to debate the matter here in Britain with leading scientists. If evolution is "true", the Creationist challenges - step up and prove it.
Notorious rogue
There is something rather attractive about absolute beliefs. We all find them comforting: give up chocolate for Lent and you are taking a small step towards God's approval. Uncertainty is much more unsettling.
One of the reasons why we find it difficult to make up our minds about climate change and global warming is that the data is so complicated. Glaciers are melting, holes are detected in the ozone layer, emission of greenhouse gases is rising, yet we have just gone through an unusually cold winter and spring is unseasonably late arriving - it is hard to get alarmed.
Even a passionate advocate of the prospect of impending ecological disaster like the government's chief scientific advisor Sir David King, cannot go so far as to say: "It will be so, that is the absolute truth of the matter."
It is a basic requirement of scientific method that a tentative explanation has to be tested against observation of the natural world. And from the very beginning scientists have been suspicious whenever the data fits the hoped-for results too closely.
Which brings me back to my clock-testing sea-captain, and the ship's journal I was reading this week in Cambridge. I was looking for documents relating to attempts by the 17th Century Dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens to develop a pendulum clock which would enable mariners to find their longitude at sea (their precise east-west position on the globe).
In 1664, shortly after the first proper scientific research institute, the Royal Society, had been established in London its president, who was an admirer of Huygens's work, offered to organise a series of sea-trials to be conducted by the English navy, using two of his pioneering clocks.
Captain Robert Holmes, commander in charge of the Navy ship the Jersey, agreed to take the clocks along with him on a nine-month voyage down the west coast of Africa. He would keep the clocks wound and in working order, take regular measurements, make the necessary complex calculations and supply detailed documentation in support of his findings.
When he got back to London in 1665 Holmes presented his report to an expectant Royal Society. The clocks had performed spectacularly well. Indeed, he declared, they had actually saved the expedition from disaster.
Astonishing
On the return journey, Holmes had been obliged to sail several hundred nautical miles westwards in order to pick up a favourable wind. Having done so, the Jersey and the three ships accompanying her sailed several hundred more miles north-eastwards. At which point, the four captains found that water was running worryingly low on board.
Holmes's three fellow-captains produced three competing sets of calculations of their current position based on traditional reckoning, but all agreed they were dangerously far from any potential source of water.
Not so, declared Holmes. According to his calculations - based on the pendulum clocks - they were a mere 90 miles west of the island of Fuego, one of the Cape Verde islands. He persuaded the party to set their course due east whereupon, the very next day, around noon, they indeed made landfall on Fuego, exactly as predicted.
London was abuzz with excitement. The Fellows of the Royal Society were elated, and immediately rushed Holmes's account of how the pendulum clocks had saved the day into print. Orders began to be placed for the revolutionary new timekeepers.
But the inventor himself, Christiaan Huygens was not so sure. And his reason for being more cautious than his London colleagues was precisely the fact that the clocks had proved so astonishingly accurate.
"I have to confess", he wrote to the Royal Society. "That I had not expected such a spectacular result from these clocks. I beg you to tell me if the said Captain seems a sincere man whom one can absolutely trust. For it must be said that I am amazed that the clocks were sufficiently accurate to allow him by their means to locate such a tiny island."
Well, Robert Holmes was not 'a sincere man'. In fact, he was a rather notorious rogue. History remembers him as the man whose thuggish and piratical behaviour towards the Dutch merchants along the Guinea coast in the 1660s directly caused the second Anglo-Dutch war.
Tampering
So the Royal Society asked an official from the Navy Board, Samuel Pepys - the same Pepys who wrote the diary - to check the evidence Holmes had provided against the day-by-day entries in his ship's journal. Well, that was the journal I went to look at in Cambridge this week.
Low and behold, it turns out that Holmes had falsified his evidence. The pendulum clocks had proved no more accurate for calculating longitude than conventional methods. The ships had been well and truly lost, the mariners had been extremely lucky to make landfall on the island of Saint Vincent before their water entirely ran out.
Holmes thought that by tampering with his evidence he would please the scientists at the Royal Society. Instead, the too-precise nature of the match between his data and the results they wanted alerted them to the fact that his testimony was unreliable.
And Huygens was right to be sceptical. His pendulum clocks never did prove accurate enough at sea to solve the problem of finding longitude. A scrupulous scientist like Huygens would rather be disappointed, than accept dubious evidence to provide pat confirmation of a pet theory.
That continues to be true in all areas of scientific investigation today. Which is why no scientist will take up the creationist Mackay's challenge to "prove" the truth of Darwin's theory of evolution in a public debate. They know they cannot present a strongly held view based on a body of supporting evidence with the absolute certainty of a revealed truth.
The most today's Royal Society is prepared to say is that a belief that all species on earth have always existed in their present form, and that the earth is "not consistent with the evidence from geology, astronomy and physics". And that is probably not enough to satisfy ordinary thoughtful citizens without a scientific training.
Because most of us want more certainty, we're on the side of the 17th Century's ship's captain, believing the experiments ought to prove the scientific theory once and for all. Unfortunately, where arguments about the ecology are concerned, time is not on our side.
We cannot afford ourselves the luxury of waiting for evidence which clinches the theory. We are going to have to learn how to participate in debates which are not about certainties. We have to decide right now whether we should sacrifice our right to cut-price air travel in order to cut carbon emissions. A public understanding of science has never been more important.

S-NET 14.39 230607

FANATIK

Below is the Bahasa Indonesia version of my previous article "FANATIC". One mailing list respectfully asked me to translate it into my mother tongue. :)

Ketika pertama kali berkenalan dengan ideologi feminisme tahun 2003, aku begitu terpesona dengan ide-ide yang terkandung di dalamnya (karena aku menemukan jawaban atas pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang menghantuiku bertahun-tahun, yang karena indoktrinasi agama yang sangat kuat yang kuterima sejak kecil membuatku tak berani berpikir bahwa sebenarnya ide perempuan adalah makhluk nomor dua setelah laki-laki hanyalah hasil bentukan konstruksi sosial dan bukanlah diciptakan oleh Tuhan) sehingga aku tak bersedia membaca buku-buku/artikel-artikel yang tidak ditulis dari perspektif feminis. Dengan sengaja aku menghindari berbagai macam tulisan yang ditulis untuk mengukuhkan status quo budaya patriarki. Sebelum aku memutuskan untuk membeli sebuah buku/novel/jurnal, aku harus memastikan dulu bahwa buku/novel/jurnal tersebut ditulis oleh para penulis feminis, atau paling tidak bebas dari bias gender.
Karena itulah seorang teman dekatku menertawakanku atas tindakanku yang menurutnya menggelikan ini. “Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa hati kecilmu sendiri masih merasa khawatir bahwa kamu akan menemukan ideologi lain lagi yang akan mematahkan kepercayaanmu pada ideologi feminisme.” Katanya.
Tatkala membeli buku-buku yang berkaitan dengan Feminisme dan Islam, kebetulan aku menemukan buku-buku tulisan Fatima Mernissi dan Riffat Hassan (diterjemahkan kedalam Bahasa Indonesia dengan judul “Setara di Hadapan Allah”), Qasim Amin (judulnya diterjemahkan menjadi “Matinya Perempuan”), Nawal El Sadawi (novel berjudul “Perempuan di Titik Nol” dan bukunya yang berjudul “Perempuan dalam Budaya Patriarki”), dll. Dalam artikelnya yang berjudul “Menyikapi Feminisme dan Isu Gender”, Dr. Syamsuddin Arif ternyata melabeli mereka sebagai “Feminis Muslim Radikal”. Seradikal apakah ide yang mereka lontarkan kepada khalayak ramai? Menurutku tentu saja tidak seradikal Mary Daly ataupun Germaine Greer yang memutuskan untuk menjadi homoseksual yang sampai sekarang masih dianggap melenceng dari “norma sosial yang normal”.
Ternyata, dalam proses pembentukan diri menjadi seorang feminis, “perkenalanku” dengan ideologi feminisme telah memanjakan diriku sendiri dengan ide-ide liberal (dan mungkin pula “radikal”) untuk memenuhi karakterku sebagai seorang rebel (penentang) selain untuk mencari jawaban atas pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang telah memenuhi otakku semenjak kecil. Bila bagi banyak orang Indonesia kata LIBERAL dicurigai sebagai sesuatu yang berkonotasi negatif, di mataku kata ini menjadi begitu menarik untuk dipelajari. Hal ini membuatku membaca lebih banyak buku yang lebih bervariatif, termasuk buku-buku yang tentu bakal kena sensor oleh guru-guruku tatkala masih duduk di bangku Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (SD Islam), mungkin juga orang tuaku sendiri.
Keingintahuanku yang besar apakah Tuhan cenderung untuk memilih agama mana yang akan Dia ridhai perlu mendapatkan jawaban. Aku ingat chat yang kulakukan beberapa kali dengan beberapa orang yang tinggal di belahan bumi yang lain tentang “kebenaran absolut” atas satu agama, seseorang berkata, “Bagaimana mungkin seseorang akan percaya bahwa hanya agamanyalah yang benar? Dan pada saat yang bersamaan banyak orang lain lagi yang berpendapat sama, dari agama yang berbeda. Bagaimana mungkin begitu banyak orang mengklaim hal yang sama?”
Selain itu, keyakinanku bahwa Tuhan Yang Maha Esa itu benar-benar Maha Penyayang, dan bukan Maha Penghukum maupun Maha Pemarah telah mendorongku untuk membaca buku lebih banyak lagi.
Juga keyakinanku bahwa cara berpikir manusia yang sok tahu itu tentulah sangat jauh berbeda dengan cara berpikir Tuhan yang bukan makhluk, melainkan sang Khalik. Kita sering berpikir (atau menuduh) bahwa Tuhan Yang Maha Esa akan melakukan ini itu, sesuai dengan cara berpikir kita yang tentu sebagai makhluk sangatlah terbatas.
Dan, tanpa kusadari aku mulai meninggalkan sikapku yang menggelikan di tahun 2003 lalu itu. Aku tak lagi memenjarakan diri untuk mebaca buku-buku yang ditulis menggunakan perspektif feminis maupun yang ditulis oleh para Muslim fanatik yang dengan mudah menuduh agama atau keyakinan lain sebagai sesat hanya karena mereka tidak beragama Islam. Tentu saja pada saat yang bersamaan aku juga geli (dan kasihan) pada mereka yang beragama Non-Islam yang beranggapan bahwa Islam maupun agama-agama lain (yang tidak mereka peluk) sebagai agama yang sesat. Hal yang menyedihkan pula bagiku karena kemudian hal tersebut membuat mereka sibuk menjelek-jelekkan agama lain dan menghasut agar orang-orang tersebut untuk murtad.
Siapa tahu di atas sana Tuhan yang kita perjuangkan (dalam agama masing-masing) justru sedih melihat makhluk-Nya berperang untuk hal-hal yang sebenarnya tidak perlu sampai mengeluarkan darah, mengorbankan jiwa dan raga.
Atau seperti yang pernah kudiskusikan dengan seorang teman kerjaku yang beragama Kristen, “Eh, siapa tahu ya Tuhan di atas sana malah menertawakan kita yang merasa sok paling benar dalam agama kita.”
Aku tak lagi memenjarakan diri dengan bacaan-bacaan tertentu karena:
1. Aku memiliki keyakinan yang kuat bahwa keberadaan ideologi feminisme membantu mengurangi penindasan yang dilakukan kepada kaum perempuan. Selain itu, ideologi ini juga membantu melepaskan beban berat di pundak laki-laki yang dipaksa untuk menjadi pencari nafkah utama dalam budaya patriarki.
2. Aku memiliki keyakinan yang kuat bahwa Tuhan tidak pilih kasih atas umat-Nya yang beragama tertentu. Aku tetap memilih untuk beragama Islam karena aku pun memiliki keyakinan yang kuat pada agama yang telah kupeluk sejak aku lahir. Satu hal yang tentu sangat berbeda dibandingkan kondisiku di waktu lalu: aku Islam karena orang tuaku beragama Islam, seolah-olah aku tidak memiliki pilihan lain. Saat ini aku Islam karena pilihanku sendiri.
Namun aku bukanlah seorang fanatik. Aku bukan seorang feminis fanatik. Banyak teman perempuan yang kukenal lewat milis maupun dari blogging yang mengatakan mereka tidak perlu merasa menjadi seorang feminis hanya untuk berpendirian bahwa perempuan setara dengan laki-laki. Yang penting mereka tahu hak-hak dan kewajiban laki-laki dan perempuan. Aku juga bukan seorang Muslim yang fanatik yang harus memusuhi (meskipun hanya dalam hati, apalagi ditunjukkan dalam tindak tanduk yang nyata dalam kehidupan sehari-hari) orang-orang lain agama.
Sekitar satu tahun yang lalu aku menemukan satu pepatah bijak mengenai fanatisme ini di salah satu blog seorang teman dari Inggris:
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Seseorang yang fanatik adalah seseorang yang tidak dapat mengubah cara berpikirnya, dan tidak akan mengubah topik pembicaraannya.
Kataku sendiri, seorang fanatik hanya mempertontonkan kesempitan nalarnya.
Sir James Dewar mengatakan,
Minds are like parachutes; they only function when they are open.
Otak itu seperti parasut; dia hanya berfungsi tatkala terbuka.
Seorang fanatik membiarkan nalarnya terus tertutup yang berarti otaknya tak berfungsi dengan baik.
PT56 11.30 210607

F A N A T I C

When getting to know the feminism ideology for the first time in 2003, I was so impressed in it that I did not want to read any books/articles etc that are written not from feministic perspective. I intentionally blocked my mind from other kinds of writing, avoided reading writings that adore the status quo of patriarchal culture. Before I bought books/novels/journals etc, I had to make sure first that they were written by feminist writers, or at least, free from gender bias.
Laughing at this ridiculous attitude of mine, my close friend said, “It means that you are still worried if you found a new ideology (again) that would break your faith in feminism.”
When buying books on Feminism and Islam, I happened to find books written by Fatima Mernissi and Riffat Hassan, Qasim Amin, Amina Wadud, Nawal El Sadawi, etc that just a month ago I found out those people were labeled “radical Muslim Feminists”. Pay attention to the word RADICAL. People mostly refer the word into something negative, just like radical feminists who choose to be lesbians, and in fact until now homosexuals are still considered to deviate the norm.
My getting to know feminism ideology spoiled myself with more liberal (and perhaps people label it radical) ideas to fulfill my rebellious character, besides to find the answers of my own questions since I was a kid. When (some) people in Indonesia suspect the word LIBERAL as something negative, I find it intriguing. This made me read more various books, the ones that were easily red-penciled by my elementary school teachers (and perhaps my parents too). For example, whether there is something very wrong with Syekh Siti Jenar’s ideas so that this particular character was forbidden to talk about in my community.
My curiosity whether God really takes side to a certain religion needs to be answered. It obliged me to be more open-minded and broad-minded.
Without my awareness, I started to leave the “ridiculous attitude” of mine in 2003. I don’t imprison myself to read only books written by feminists, or books written by fanatic Muslims who easily judge other religions or faiths as rubbish because the adherents do not worship the Omnipotent Allah.
Why is that?
The answer is because I have strong faith that feminism exists to help women who are jailed in patriarchal culture consensuses.
I also have strong faith that Allah doesn’t take side to any religion or faith so that people do not need to feel arrogant that their religion is the absolute truth. I keep being a Muslim because of my strong faith in this religion that I have adhered since I was born.
But I am not a fanatic. I am not a fanatic feminist. I am not a fanatic Muslim either.
I found a good quote in one blog the other day:

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

A fanatic—in my opinion—just shows narrow-mindedness.
PT56 09.50 140607

P R A Y I N G

Thursday June 14, 2007
This morning I woke up around 5pm, turned on the computer, not to work on something using it but only to recharge my MP4 player. After praying Subuh (one pray Muslim do in the very early morning/dawn time), I was busy in the kitchen, to prepare something for breakfast, etc.
Finishing in the kitchen, I did my other morning household chores.
At ten to seven I was ready to take Angie to school. Unfortunately when I went to the garage, I found out that one of the tires of my motorcycle flat.  Since I had no much time left to take my motorcycle to the nearest garage, I decided to borrow my youngest sister’s motorcycle to take Angie to school.
One problem solved. I could take my motorcycle to the nearest garage later.
However, I couldn’t go to the Paradise Club fitness center because I had to go home right away since my sister would go to her office before 8am.
On my way home, I dropped by at one small temporary stall close to my house selling some traditional porridge, some Javanese salad (we call it as ‘gudangan’ and ‘pecel’, depends on the sauce we pour on it), and some other traditional Javanese food, such as ‘gethuk’ (made from cassava), ‘ketan’ (made from special rice), etc. Since there were some other buyers there already, I had to wait in line.
Not long after that, a man came. He carried quite a big pan. After serving one customer, suddenly the seller served that man (and ignoring some other female customers who had been waiting in line there for some time). She said, “Here is the only man coming here. It’s not good for a man to wait, so let me serve him first.” Nobody complained. I didn’t complain either because it even made me curious why the seller had to give the first priority to that man.
I came up to two possible answers.
1. The seller got indoctrinated that men had to be served first, or to be given the first priority because men are THE ONE, while women are THE OTHER. It means women have to be the second: second served, second priority, etc. She considered this consensus as the “decision” of God, not as social construction.
2. The seller believed that women love gossiping, and men are not supposed to know “women’s talks”. That’s why she served the man first so that he would leave the spot as soon as possible.
I very rarely go to such a place or some other small (temporary) stalls that sell vegetables, meat, etc. However, when I found some women sitting around the stall I dropped by, lingering after the seller served them, I thought that probably they were there gossiping.
After everybody else was gone, and I was the last customer there, the seller served me. She said, “Some time ago, nobody came here. I was very unhappy and at my wits’ end. What if nobody came to buy my merchandise? So, I was sitting on the bench, praying to God, mentioning God’s Asmaul Husna* many times. And alhamdulillah (thank God), many customers came after that.
I didn’t say anything. I just smiled.
On my way home, I remembered one topic discussed in one mailing list I join, whether God listens to our pray and then approves it, what if the two soccer teams play in a game, whose pray (from which team) will be listened and approved by God, etc.
I remembered someone wrote in the mailing list that he went to Church, to pray to God, not to beg something, but to thank God for all things he has got in his life. “I pray to God not for begging but for thanking,” said he confidently.
I remembered my elementary school teachers and also my parents’ advice to pray to God when I want something. “God will listen to our pray and approve it. Don’t get arrogant that when you achieve something it is all caused by your own effort, but always thank God for that.” bla bla bla … And I didn’t know yet at that time that abundant non-believers reach their dream without praying to God, but only because they believe in themselves, in their own effort and hard work.
I remembered my discussion with one workmate of mine some years ago. “When we have problems Ms. Nana, we had better go to God and pray. God has promised that God will always listen to our pray and approve it, if we have good thinking that God will do it. If, before praying we are already pessimistic that perhaps God will not approve it, God will not do it. So, believing that God will approve it is very important.”
I responded, “Don’t you know sir that our strong belief that God will approve our want will hypnotize us to work hard to make our own dream come true? So it is all back to us, our own effort, our own will.”
He smiled and said, “That’s very true too Ma’am.”
Well, I must say that this male workmate of mine belongs to person who loves peace so I suspected that he said that only to avoid friction between us. LOL.
=================
*Asmaul Husna = 99 other names of Allah in Islam. Muslim people are indoctrinated that by mentioning some special names of Allah in different occasions will help them make their dreams come true.
PT56 08.45 140607

The Dangers of Monotheism in the Age of Globalization

http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=5211
Thursday, March 30, 2006
The Dangers of Monotheism in the Age of Globalization
By Jean-Pierre Lehmann

Is there a link between monetheistic religions and intolerance and hostility ?? As Jean-Pierre Lehmann argues, monotheistic religions have caused much turmoil throughout history — and continue to do so today. What is needed is a new global ethical and spiritual role model, and in his opinion, the best candidate to fill that spot is India.
Many in the West and elsewhere were shocked that an Afghan man, Abdul Rahman, was facing possible execution for having converted to Christianity. This is a crime, we were told, punishable by death according to Shariah law, which is the law of the land in Afghanistan, as well as in a good number of other Muslim countries. And even now that Mr. Rahman has safely arrived in Italy, where he was granted asylum, the episode is a telling example of the intolerance that is often the result of strict monotheism. To be sure, Christianity was even worse in its own heyday, not only because “heathens” were exterminated in all sorts of diverse forms, but also those whose Christianity (for example, the Albigensians in the 12th and 13th centuries) was deemed to be “heterodox.” Also, the Spanish conquistadores in Latin America, in collusion with the Church authorities, burned a good number of infidel American Indians. Declining hostility Generally speaking, however,
over the course of the last couple of centuries or so, as the political clout and influence of the Christian churches has waned, the execution, torture and imprisonment of infidels and heretics has greatly decreased. Today, there are a good number of converts to Islam living in Christian countries — and they have encountered relatively little hostility. Religious collusion The idea that Christian civilization (a fairly loose term) renounced religious persecution simply because the power of the churches declined is, of course, belied by the Holocaust. Despite being carried out by secular authorities, the Holocaust took place in Christian countries — and with the silent connivance of the established Christian churches.
A quite vivid illustration is that of the fascist Ustaše movement in Croatia, which was in close cahoots with the Catholic Church. The Jews who were brought to the concentration camps were far worse off than Abdul Rahman, who — before he found refuge in Italy — had been told he would not be executed if he converts back to Islam. The Jews at Auschwitz were not given a similar option. Violent records Although both Christianity and Islam each have their strong points, without doubt, on balance their historical record would show more liabilities, more warfare, more intolerance, more persecution, than truly positive assets. The number of people killed in the name of these two religions must be far greater than the numbers killed for any other cause. Furthermore, in this first decade of the 21st century, religion plays a far more prominent role than it used to. Hijacking the faith In the case of the three monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam have all been hijacked by their respective fundamentalists. I am a great believer that the progress of civilization requires the gradual eradication of all forms of established religion.
Not by force, I hasten to add, but by the evidence of history, the rationality of man and the persuasion of humanist secularism. In Western Europe, where the vast majority of the population is no longer Christian in anything but name, sadly humanism has not taken hold. Filling the void An addiction to money, or psychoanalysis or drugs — or a combination of the three — tends to prevail. Whatever has the upper hand, it is definitely not humanism. So it would seem people have a natural desire for religion or something that can be substituted for it — if not god, then mammon. Polytheistic acceptance In recognizing this reality, therefore, it would seem that perhaps rather than eradicating religion per se, we should instead eradicate monotheistic religion in favor of polytheistic religion. If you have only one god, and you believe that god is all powerful and omniscient, and you come across someone who does not agree, then you may feel it is your duty to kill him.
If, on the other hand, you believe there are hundreds, indeed thousands of gods, and that none can be totally almighty or omniscient, then you are likely to be far more tolerant. Intolerant tendencies The great pre-Christian civilizations of Greece and Rome had no religious wars and had a far healthier view of their frolicking gods and goddesses than the intolerant monotheistic Christianity that later came to dominate Europe. Polytheistic religions also tend to have a far more positive and healthier attitude to sex, which is seen as a good thing, than do the monotheistic faiths, where there is a much stronger tendency to equate sex with sin. Militant Christianity As concerns the United States, militant Christianity is clearly in ascendance, indeed it has one of its own in the White House. According to a recent Pew survey, 15, 14 and 20% of the U.S. population said they would have reasons not to vote for a presidential candidate who was Catholic, Jewish or Evangelical Christian.
However, when that candidate was an atheist, the percentage, at 41%, was substantially higher. This is extremely worrying and does not portend well for the future. While it would seem that religious Americans are more tolerant as concerns their respective religions, they remain brazenly intolerant of atheists. Perhaps the most encouraging development in this early 21st century is the emergence of India as an increasingly global force, economically, politically and culturally. Managing multiculturalism There are many anomalies, problems and injustices in Indian society — and some of these, such as the caste system, have been perpetrated by religion. But India is a microcosmic reflection of how globalization can work, especially in its generally remarkable ability to have managed multiculturalism to such a brilliant extent. Diverse Unity India’s one billion plus population is the most heterogeneous in the world.
There are far more ethnic, linguistic and religious groups than in, say, the European Union. Yet, a far greater degree of unity has been achieved among India’s disparate ethnicities than among the tribes of Western Europe. Thus, though Fareed Zakaria in "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy" has rightly pointed out that democracy can more often than not be the problem rather than the solution in inter-communal relations — witness Iraq! Perhaps the greatest achievement of India is to have maintained a very robust democracy in an extremely multi-ethnic environment. Contrast that with Egypt, for example, which used to have a highly multi-ethnic make-up, but which has now been mostly dissipated. Hardly Utopia Of course India is not Utopia. No place is — and no human is perfect. Against the remarkably inspirational preaching of non-violence of Mahatma Gandhi, India has opted to become a nuclear power.
Nehru’s alleged egalitarianism notwithstanding, India has the dubious distinction of having the world’s greatest number of illiterates, especially among women. So, yes, there are failings galore and there are also, alas, Hindu fundamentalists. A global ethical role model? But in a global environment desperate for ideas, philosophy and religion, India is the most prolific birthplace of all three — because of the great synergy of democracy and diversity, and the much greater degree of self-confidence that Indians now feel. Indians and members of the enormous Indian Diaspora — over which the sun never sets — are the thought leaders in economics, business, philosophy, political science, religion and literature. The planet needs quite desperately a sense of moral order, spirituality and an ethical compass. The Indian religious and philosophical traditions can provide a great deal of all three. It was in a recent conversation with an Indian religious guru that I was also pleased to discover I could adhere to his religious tenets, while maintaining my secular convictions. No imam or priest would allow me that. More than a global economic force The planet also needs an alternative geopolitical force to the American Christian fundamentalist brand of hegemonic thinking that the Bush Administration has generated — and that is not likely to evaporate even after his departure from office. Europe is an inward-looking and, in many ways, spent force. China is a dictatorship. The Islamic world is going through an awkward moment — to put it mildly. Hence the importance of the role India must play in this respect — both because of its innate qualities and because there is no other serious contender. The 21st century better become the century inspired by the virtues of Indian polytheism — or else we are headed for disaster.