Spirituality and religion (and morality): everlastingly sectarian

Religions

Here I go. So contentious, even the mere mention of those words trigger the delicate snowflakes out of most people. Obviously, I should boost the triggering by defining what spiritual and religion are.

Spirituality has a myriad of definitions. Some see it as the synonym for religiosity. Others see it as a process of fathoming either the universe, the self or both. Others also see it as a guide to find meanings in one’s lives, intrinsic and acquired. Some even believe it is the state of being irreligious. Predictably, they are all personal and abstract. Different case with religion.

Yes, some people do have equally personal and abstract definitions for it. In multiple occasions, Reza Aslan described religion as a language to describe the ‘indescribable’ and the divine. I used to define religion as the literal bridge between the earthly and the spiritual; some people I know still believe that. But, it’s also possible to shape more clear-cut characterisation.

Religion can be understood as a set of ideas and rituals to achieve what the worshippers deem as ‘spirituality’. It can also be seen as a tool for social control, consciously and subconsciously coaxing every reachable feature of a society. Such characterisation is observable in real life. It’s very apparent how universally-accepted definitions are unrealistic. But, instead of reducing our sectarianism, we are increasing it.

Fanaticism. One of mankind’s greatest and most harmful sins. We are extremely in love with our own convictions. Anything that negate them even in the slightest will be dealt with staggeringly-fierce hostility. Seeing the title, you know what kind of fanaticism I’m referring to here. I’ll begin with the one that I used to be guilty of as well: thinking religiosity and spirituality are literally the same thing.

I had that mindset because I was so in love with restrictions. I believed not religiously restraining ourselves in every single aspect of life was a sign of serious moral decay. Of course, I was a hypocrite as my lifestyle was very self-indulging. I also willingly ignored what the other sides had to say.

We often reject the existence of the unendurably suffocating nature of strict religiosity. Even religiosity as a whole can appear so for many people. Like it or not, religiosity has harmed countless individuals, physically and emotionally; the injuries are difficult or even impossible to heal. It’s easy to hate on the so-called ‘infidels’ when you’re not the one being harmed.

We cannot simply dismiss those traumatised people as ‘haters who don’t want believers enjoy profound spirituality’. Our positive experiences are unique to us and not to be used to ‘evaluate’ fellow human beings. Before you accuse me of atheism (as if that was a bad thing in the first place), I’m not completely siding myself with non-believers.

In fact, I still consider myself religious. I also loathe the idea that true spirituality is inherently irreligious. Some unbelieving individuals miserably fail to realise how their positive experiences with irreligiosity are unique to them. I believe them when they say religions repress them. But, I can’t listen to them when they say believers love being repressed.

Some of us genuinely feel religiosity is liberating, not suppressing. Often times, we feel empty and go astray in the world. Religion can be an emotionally-benevolent counsellor, bestowing us the liberty from the worldly abyss and sense of lost. It has nothing to do with loving oppression which, believe it or not, we also loathe as ungodly immoral.

It also has nothing to do with our loathe of reason and science. Some of us still love both. We still use them to understand our earthly surroundings and to intellectually challenge ourselves. Their duties are different from the ones of our beliefs. For us, they cannot be fused together. But, they can make great allies that enrich our innermost lives.

The segments above show my attempt to articulate the contention of spirituality and religion, as objective as I possibly can. Just kidding! I’m neither a journalist nor an academic. I barely made efforts to filter my own biases. So, that being said, I should continue by recounting my personal experiences and pretend they are universally relatable. Let’s start with the ignorance and hypocrisy of my fellow believers.

‘You are not spiritually enlightened!’

‘You are an atheist!’

‘You are immoral!’

There you go. Three of the most common sentences my fellow believers have said to me. If you are open-minded enough, you would immediately notice the problematic nature.

Once again, they’re unable to acknowledge their experiences’ lack of universality. The annoyance become harmful when they start ‘evangelising’. When I said ‘evangelising’, I meant harassing and guilt tripping their victims who have no time for narrow-mindedness.

Also, they use the word ‘atheist’ as an insult. The notion that disbelieve is related to lacking enlightenment and morality is ill-founded. In fact, many atheists have proven themselves to be more enlightened and more moral than those self-righteous believers. Many great thinkers, scientists and artists of the contemporary world are atheists. I’ve never heard of atheists who kill in the name of atheism. Never.

I should be more detailed with this farcicality. I always disclose my Islamic identity and agnostic theism (yes, that’s a thing). Even then, I only do so when it’s relevant to the topic of conversations. I’m muted about my spiritual life. I did try to explain in full details. But, I ended up babbling incoherent assortment of words and feeling extremely naked for exhibiting an intimate aspect of my life. This shows how my spirituality is both inexpressible and private.

Sermons, inspirational stories, joint rituals. Inspiring to me, they are not. Why would they be so? As an individual, I’m free-spirited enough to not fall for superficiality, gooey sentimentality, cliches and guilt-tripping. Free-spirited enough to know what’s spiritually good by myself, without getting dictated by humans who have skin-deep judgment of the true me. Of course, that makes an outcast out of me.

Some people I know believe spirituality is all about bragging and getting easily awed. Don’t do either one and they will accuse you heresy or, in my case, atheism. They think they are shaming me for being a bad person. But, in reality, they are shaming me simply for being different. As always in the case of religious people, there’s hypocrisy.

Those believers are the same ones who condemn extremists for their intolerance of human differences, for their supposedly ‘heretical’ and ‘ungodly’ treatment of fellow human beings. Yet, they shame people like me for having the gut to call ourselves believers. What can I expect living in a country where religiosity is almost inborn?

I have never met openly anti-religious individuals offline. Only met them online. Because of that, my negative experiences with them are lesser in quantity. But, the annoyance and nastiness still disturb my psyche. Yes, like religious people, they can also be hypocrites and zealots.

The hypocrisy arises every time they label religiosity as irrational. Admittedly, there’s a truth in the accusation. But, it’s very hard to take them seriously when they themselves suffer from scientism. They believe science is an authority figure who has all of the absolute truths on its hands. That’s not what science is.

Science is a set of instruments and theories used to methodically study the observable and measurable universe through experimentation; if repeatable, its results may end up as new scientific theories. My definition is unabashedly schematic. But, that’s the best I can do. Besides, if you compare mine with the ones you find on google, you can tell I make out the nitty-gritty.

In principal, science does not manifest and believe in absolute truths. Science is indeed the best medium out there to grasp our material world. But, it is not perfect. The instruments and theories which shape its foundation are – and need to be – upgradeable. If the new ones are more orderly and more sound, why stick with the old ones? Perpetual self-enhancement. That what makes science beautiful.

In case you forgot, what is now pseudo-science wasn’t so long time ago. Geocentrism, astrology, numerology, phrenology, alchemy. At one point in human history, they were all regarded as scientifically valid. Science started as philosophy. But, thanks to all the refinement brought by dedicated and inquisitive scientists, they were all replaced by more solid disciplines. It’s a history rejected by those so-called ‘rational’ disbelievers.

For them, science is an entity whose essence is fixed from the very beginning and will remain so. Those individuals accuse believers of zealotry towards their own beliefs, not realising they are guilty of the same thing. They refuse to acknowledge the existence of critical-minded believers. Yes, we do exist. Believe it or not, some of us are not fanatics. Irrational and hypocritical. Add self-righteousness to the disbelievers and the set is complete!

I will dedicate the next segment on anti-religious atheists. Judging from my personal experiences (emphasise on the word ‘personal‘), they are the non-religious individuals who are guilty of this sin the most.

Again, like believers, some of them love to claim higher moral standing. As stated before, I’ve never heard of atheists killing in the name of atheism. But, if you want to claim something that loaded, make sure that it is an actual reality.

Just give me one evidence that supports such assertion. No, the atrocities committed by believers is not it. The sins of your enemies do not warrant your supposed morality. How you treat your fellow human beings does. Oh and I can prove that immoral atheists exist. Just take a look at communist countries. You know, those officially atheistic countries.

They were good in discriminating, imprisoning and killing anyone not in line with government-approved ideals. As religiosity was not one of them, religious people were among the victims. At certain periods, they were treated like atheists in Muslim countries. Surely, you cannot deny this part of human history.

Yes, I know it’s history. I know we should move on instead. But, history isn’t meant to be forgotten; it’s meant to be a testimony of the true human nature, a testimony in which we can learn a lot from. If you’ve learned from it, you would not quantify a person’s morality from the identity he/she associates with. If you equate atheism with morality, you are on the same league with those religious zealots. No, I won’t stop making that comparison.

Even though I’ve interacted with many anti-religious pricks online, I’ve received only encountered one attack targeted personally to me. One person premised how people have used religions to justify their acts of inhumanity. Therefore, he concluded that every person who still observe a religion willingly tolerate or even partake in inhumanity itself. Yes, he actually said that.

That’s what we call Guilty By Association, which is an actual fallacy and that invalidates his argument. No, I’m not committing fallacy fallacy which refers to invalidating true conclusions based on false premises. In this person’s case, his true premise was followed by a false conclusion. But, this is not what agitates me the most.

He also carried out a nasty ad hominem against me. What he said seemed impersonal. But, he blurted that out while we were having a one-on-one conversation and he specifically said the word ‘you’, insinuated that I also tolerated and partook in religiously-motivated inhumanity. Well……..

People who actually know me will immediately scream ‘bullshit’. I’ve condemned so many forms of religious bigotry and violence. Often times, I’m very vulgar with my condemnation to the point of aggravating religious apologists, who declare non-existing perfection of their religions and religious communities.

Also, I’ve done many bad things in my life, motivated by nouns that end with ‘-phobia’. But, not once I harmed my fellow human beings in the name of Islam. Not even when I was a backward-minded believer! Once again, my religiosity is personal and it never dictated how I treated others. So, what he said about me was false. Yet, his words affect me to this day.

I don’t know why I’m still hurt. I am indeed insecure about myself. But, when it comes to my morality, I am the complete opposite. I also welcome the possibility of me being the immoral one; if you hate self-righteousness, it’s hypocritical to announce yourself as entirely and absolutely moral. Once I detect a hint of immorality in me, I should thrive to eliminate it. Maybe the exasperation I’m having right now is the result of the insult itself.

Well, not really. I’ve been called with many things in my life. Being a loser means abundance of verbal abuse is expected in one’s life. But, admittedly, a handful of them are extremely hurtful. I haven’t found the ‘hurt’ factor yet. But, I often assume the insulters aren’t just trolls. They are genuinely mean-spirited individuals who have deep-rooted desire to make me see myself as a subhuman they think I am.

But, in the end, my own religiosity and spirituality are and will always be my personal matters. No one, not even powerful religious organisations, have the right to intervene. My morality does affect others. But, as long as I’m willing to clean mine every time it gets dirty, I don’t think I have anything to worry about at the moment.

Two simple steps to raise ideal children

11783-dad-daughter-angry-yelling-discipline-wide.1200w.tn

*puts on a mask*

  1. Obtains a monstrous ego

As a parent, you should root it in your mind that everything is about you and you only. Your children must be the personal projections of yourself. Your thoughts and feelings must also be theirs. If they end up different from you, you’re a failure.

They should listen to literally every single one of your words. Whatever the messages you are trying to make, yours are and will always be worthier than God’s. Your children must be morally held responsible for their verbal retaliation. Their words are and will always be more ungodly than the Devil’s.

     2. Abuse them

It only makes sense to utilise sadism on our own flesh and blood. Spanking and caning are among the most popular methods of disciplines. But, I find them too mild, too humane. We should aim higher and boy, do I have suggestions.

If they talk back to you, cut up their tongues and feed them to the dogs! If they make even the slightest menacing body languages, mutilate their limbs and throw acid to their faces! If they dare to think differently from you, do anything to cause them brain damage; cerebral hypoxia is the best method. If they dare to be non-heterosexual or to even have the most unassuming of erotic thoughts, rape them; mutilate their genitalia if you have to!

Wait, I am not done yet! Physical abuse is best served with emotional one. Manipulate them to believe they cause their own sufferings. Make them believe that you, the parent, are the only victim here; you are the only one who suffers! If they have the audacity to complain, call them out as ungrateful children as they really are!

Don’t worry. Societies are on your side. Just look at the internet. Dare some people to publicly denounce their parents, they will always be replied with honourable comments, rightly accusing them of their shameless lack of gratitude.

*takes off the mask*

Indonesia’s Spoiled Majority

MUI (Indonesia’s clerical council) has released a decree that prohibits employers from forcing Muslim employees to wear Christmas attires. It receives opposition from many members of the public, especially the non-Muslims.

Many of us are irritated by their complains. We think they’re disrespecting our Islamic way of life. We think they’re shoving their views down our throats. We think the decree only affects the lives of Muslims.

If you believe that, you’re ignorant about the religious life in Indonesia.

FPI (the Islamic defender front), following the recklessly-constructed decree, raided a few shopping malls in Surabaya. To hell with the Christians! There should be no Christmas celebration! That’s just one example. Without the FPI, Indonesians would still be “respected” anyway.

Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that the majority can suffer from discrimination, like black people under Apartheid South Africa and the Shias in Iraq whose government was controlled by the Sunnis. But, that’s not happening to Indonesian Muslims.

Events that are also attended by non-Muslims include Islamic prayers. The ministry of religious affairs is controlled by Muslims. There are lots of publicly-funded Islamic universities. TV schedules are re-arranged in every fasting month. We’re not only a respected majority, we’re also a spoiled one.

For many years, we’ve been having a higher status than the other religious groups in this country. As a result, we’ve become spoiled. Our self-indulgence makes us turn our backs against the discrimination faced by the minorities. Our self-indulgence makes us feel trampled when they ask for more sensible rights.

Our self-indulgence turns us into a shameless flock.

Mayoritas yang Manja di Indonesia

MUI membuat fatwa yang melarang tempat-tempat kerja mengharuskan karyawan-karyawan Muslim untuk mengenakan atribut-atribut Natal. Fatwa tersebut banyak mendapatkan tantangan dari masyarakat, terutama kalangan non-Muslim.

Banyak dari kita yang Muslim kesal dengan keluhan mereka. Kita menganggap mereka tidak menghormati kehidupan umat Muslim. Kita menganggap mereka memaksakan kehendak. Kita menganggap fatwa tersebut hanya memengaruhi kita sendiri.

Jika anda percaya itu, berarti anda bebal terhadap kenyataan kehidupan beragama di Indonesia.

FPI, mengikuti fatwa yang dibuat dengan ceroboh, melakukan razia hiasan natal di berbagai pusat-pusat perbelanjaan di Surabaya. Persetan dengan umat Nasrani! Tidak boleh ada perayaan natal! Itupun hanya satu contoh. Tanpa FPI pun, umat Muslim di Indonesia akan tetap “dihormati”.

Jangan salah. Saya juga percaya bahwa kalangan mayoritas dapat didiskriminasi, seperti orang-orang berkulit hitam di Afrika Selatan pada zaman Apartheid dan umat Syiah di Irak yang pemerintahnya dikuasai umat Sunni. Tetapi, hal itu tidak terjadi terhadap umat Muslim Indonesia.

Doa-doa Islami selalu dilakukan di acara-acara yang dihadiri umat non-Muslim. Kementerian agama dikuasai oleh umat Muslim. Banyak perguruan tinggi yang didanai langsung oleh pemerintah. Jadwal berbagai saluran TV dirubah setiap bulan puasa. Kita bukan hanya mayoritas yang dihormati, kita juga adalah mayoritas yang terlalu dimanja.

Selama bertahun-tahun lamanya, kita memiliki status yang lebih tinggi dibandingkan kelompok-kelompok agama lain di negeri ini. Akibatnya, kita menjadi sangat manja. Kemanjaan itu membuat kita membalikan badan terhadap diskriminasi yang dialami kalangan minoritas. Kemanjaan itu membuat kita merasa ditindas jika mereka meminta hak-hak lebih yang sewajarnya.

Kemanjaan itu membuat kita sebagai gerombolan yang tidak tahu diri.

Different types of Trump supporters

*puts on a mask*

The bigots:

They believe Trump will bring back the supposedly-existing natural superiority of the Aryans. Fuck those *insert various racial slurs here*. They don’t seem to mind that he’s an orange humanoid. They also believe he’ll strengthen the supposedly-natural hetero-normative idea that sexuality’s a moral choice.

The rights activists:

They praise him for his advocacy of equality and tolerance. They think him appointing white supremacists and homophobes isn’t a big deal. It’s a joke even. Obviously, the bigots will change their stances once in power. There are no such thing as powerful bigots.

The ones that are too desperate for changes:

They want changes no matter what. They don’t care if the new paths are leading us to a pile of diseased diarrhea belched out by an orange humanoid.

The business-minded ones:

They believe friendly business environment is the sole definition of humanity. Social justice is too worthlessly trivial. Thriving corporations is better than treating each other humanely. Therefore, it’s reasonable to vote for a four-times businessman.

The poor rural whites 1:

They are constantly neglected by those city slickers. They believe the man who was born rich, given a million dollar loan by his father, outsources jobs and has never experienced a single day in poverty is what they need. Nothing stupid about that.

The poor rural whites 2:
Again, the city slickers neglect them. That’s why they want to ruin their lives by deliberately voting for a destructive humanoid. Obviously, if you ruin the life of someone who neglects you, he/she would end up taking care of you. He/she would not have an actually good reason to neglect you.

The self-hating Muslims:

They feel they deserve nothing but mistreatment by their fellow human beings. They dream of getting all sorts of abuse, including waterboarding. It’s a BDSM kink of theirs. Don’t judge! Different strokes for different folks!

The America-hating Muslims:

They believe getting Trump elected is the best way to annihilate the power-hungry nation. No need to establish an army of exploitable Muslims who crave the sense of belonging and knows nothing about the extremist group they are joining.

*takes off the mask*

The problems with anti-Ahok demonstrations

Brainless Muslims

The alleged blasphemy never existed in the first place. It’s obvious how the incriminating video was edited by Buni Yani, a proudly irresponsible and victim card-playing human being.

The editing is so obvious, even for the untrained eyes. All you need is to use your brain. Well, if you have one, anyway.

Easily offended Muslims

Whether Ahok was being blasphemous or not, that’s irrelevant. If he was, so what?

Are we so fragile against criticism of our own religion? Do we really believe everyone must love Islam?

If Islam is really the truest and strongest of all religions, do we really need to defend it so aggressively to the point of making the complete opposite impression?

I am sure the people who got offended by Ahok’s so-called blasphemy love to offend the sentiment of other religious groups. The right of being angry is exclusively theirs.

Naming the December 2nd demonstration as a “peaceful act”

Demonstration was done in the first place because certain people possessed hatred against someone that they deem offend them.

Demonstrators were caught red-handed harassing reporters.

FPI, who is no stranger sectarianism and extremism, was involved in the demonstration.

They did their Friday prayer in the middle of the road, disturbing other road users. The prayer could have been done in mosques.

They also promise more demonstrations in the future. They won’t stop until Ahok is arrested for something he didn’t do.

Is it appropriate to call this divisiness “peaceful”?

The wrapped rice army

It’s not a secret in Indonesia. Many of us are willing to demonstrate for the sake of rice and small allowance. Whether they understand the message of the demonstration, it doesn’t matter. Just give them the rewards.

It is tempting to Indonesians who live in poverty. But, I know that many of us are willing to whore ourselves even for the smallest rewards.

Money-oriented news coverage

I am delighted about the two counter-demonstrations. They may not have any depth. They may be used as vehicles for political parties. But, that doesn’t matter. What matters is their explicit message about the beauty of Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (Unity in Diversity), especially in this increasingly sectarian age.

But, I am disappointed with the coverage by the media, both domestic and foreign, who focused too much on the anti-Ahok demonstrations and too little on the counter ones. Bad news thicken our pockets.

This kind of coverage unwittingly portrays those humans of hatred as the representatives of all mankind, as if their views are the only ones that matter. In the end, they are given more power the peace-loving and pluralist human beings.

Because of their great influence, the media has a responsibility for the society. But then, they think profit is more important.

Blasphemy legislation

I am one of the people who oppose it.

Even though I hate what people say about my religion, I also believe in individual freedoms. I cannot force others to love my religion like I do. I also have to learn to not get offended easily.

More often than not, a statement is considered as blasphemous…if it contradicts with the views of many. Figures like Quraish Shihab and Ulil Abshar Abdallah have such statements.

They never intended to be that way. What they do is having their own interpretations of the scripture. The problem rises when others disagree with them.

This legislation is dangerous because it prosecutes anyone who dares to think differently.

Naming the demonstrations as “defense of Islam”

Do you want to beautify our name? Show that we actually deserve respect.

Show the world that we are peace-loving.

Show them that we are intelligent and willing to have civilised conversations.

Show them that we are willing to treat everyone humanely, not matter what their backgrounds are.

But, that’s not what have been done. Some of us are aroused to do the opposite: being divisive, refusing conversation and even encouraging violence to each other…

…and all of those done in the name of Islam and Muslims.

If that’s how you live your life, don’t call yourself defenders of Islam. In fact, it seems you make efforts to taint the imagine of our religion and our people.

You should be the ones prosecuted for blasphemy, not Ahok.

Permasalahan Seputar Unjuk Rasa Anti-Ahok

Umat Muslim yang tidak menggunakan otak

Penistaan agama yang dimaksud sebenarnya tidak ada wujudnya. Sudah jelas video yang memberatkan Ahok itu disunting oleh Buni Yani, manusia yang bangga dengan ketiadaan rasa tanggung jawab di dalam dirinya dan sok menjadi korban.

Suntingan di video tersebut sangatlah jelas. Anda tidak perlu menjadi seorang pakar untuk melihatnya. Anda hanya perlu menggunakan otak. Jika anda punya, tentunya.

Umat Muslim yang gampang tersinggung

Apakah Ahok benar-benar melakukan penistaaan atau tidak, itu tidak penting. Jika penistaannya memang ada, terus kenapa?

Apakah kita sangat lemah terhadap kritikan terhadap agama kita? Apakah kita benar-benar berpikir bahwa semua orang harus menyukai Islam?

Jika Islam memang agama yang kuat dan paling benar, apa perlu kita bela dengan begitu agresif sehingga menimbulkan kesan yang sebaliknya?

Saya yakin bahwa orang-orang yang tersinggung dengan dugaan penistaan Ahok sering menyinggung perasaan umat beragama yang lain. Tetapi, hanya mereka yang boleh marah.

Menamakan unjuk rasa 212 sebagai “aksi damai”

Unjuk rasa dilakukan karena kebencian sebagian orang-orang terhadap seseorang yang dianggap meyinggung perasaaan mereka.

Para pengunjuk rasa tertangkap basah mengusik beberapa wartawan yang meliput mereka.

FPI, yang terkenal dengan konflik umat beragama ciptaan mereka dan penyebaran ajaran-ajaran ekstrem, terlibat dalam unjuk rasa ini.

Mereka melakukan Shalat Jumat di jalan raya, mengganggu kenyamanan pengguna jalan yang lain, walaupun itu bisa mereka lakukan di berbagai mesjid.

Mereka juga berjanji tidak akan berhenti berunjuk rasa sampai Ahok ditahan karena melakukan sesuatu yang dia tidak pernah lakukan.

Unjuk rasa yang mengikis kesatuan bangsa, itu yang pantas dianggap “damai”?

Pasukan nasi bungkus

Ini bukanlah suatu rahasia di Indonesia. Banyak dari kita bersedia berunjuk rasa hanya demi sebungkus nasi dan uang jajan. Apakah mereka paham dengan masalah yang diunjukrasakan, itu tidak penting. Yang penting adalah mereka dapat imbalan.

Itu tentu saja menggiurkan bagi banyak warga negara Indonesia yang hidup di bawah garis kemiskinan. Tetapi, saya juga tahu bahwa banyak dari kita yang bersedia menjual diri demi imbalan sekecil apapun.

Liputan berita yang mementingkan keuntungan

Saya senang bahwa dua unjuk rasa balasan telah dilakukan. Apakah mereka berbobot atau tidak, itu tidak masalah. Mungkin mereka ditunggangi oleh partai-partai politik. Tetapi, yang penting pesan mereka berpaku pada indahnya Bhinneka Tunggal Ika, apalagi kita hidup di zaman yang semakin berbau SARA.

Tetapi saya kecewa dengan liputan media, baik dari dalam dan luar negeri, yang terlalu terpaku pada unjuk rasa menentang Ahok dan jarang pada unjuk rasa balasan. Berita buruk mempertebal kantong, berita baik tidak.

Liputan yang cenderung terpaku pada manusia-manusia penuh kebencian seolah menggambarkan bahwa mereka mewakili kita semua, seolah-olah hanya sudut pandang merekalah yang pantas didengar. Pada akhirnya, mereka diberi kekuatan lebih daripada manusia-manusia yang cinta damai dan keragaman.

Karena pengaruh mereka yang besar, media seharusnya bertanggung jawab terhadap masyarakat. Tetapi, bagi mereka, kantong tebal jauh lebih penting.

Undang-undang penistaan agama

Saya adalah salah satu dari banyak orang yang menentang UU tersebut.

Walaupun saya benci dengan apa yang dikatakan banyak orang tentang agama saya, saya juga percaya dengan kebebasan individu. Saya tidak bisa memaksakan semua orang untuk menyukai agama saya. Saya juga harus belajar untuk tidak gampang tersinggung.

Sering kali, suatu pernyataan dianggap sebagai penistaan agama…hanya karena bertentangan dengan sudut pandang khayalak. Tokoh-tokoh seperti Quraish Shihab dan Ulil Abshar Abdallah mengeluarkan pernyataan-pernyataan yang dapat dianggap sebagai penistaan.

Mereka tidak pernah berniat melakukan itu. Yang mereka lakukan adalah mengkaji kitab suci Al-Quran dan membuat penafsiran mereka sendiri. Permasalahan muncul karena penafsiran mereka ditentang banyak orang.

UU ini sangatlah berbahaya karena orang-orang dapat dihukum hanya karena pola pikir yang berbeda.

Menamakan unjuk rasa sebagai “aksi bela Islam”

Mau mengharumkan nama umat? Buktikan bahwa kita pantas dihormati.

Tunjukkan bahwa kita adalah umat beradab yang cinta damai.

Tunjukkan bahwa kita adalah umat yang cerdas dan mau melakukan silang pendapat dengan terhormat.

Tunjukkan bahwa kita memerlakukan siapapun dengan cara manusia, apapun latar belakang mereka.

Tetapi, bukan itulah yang dilakukan. Sebagian dari kita terangsang untuk melakukan yang sebaliknya: memancing perpecahan, menolak silang pendapat dan bahkan menganjurkan kekerasan terhadap sesama manusia…

…dan itu semua dilakukan atas nama Islam dan Umat Muslim.

Jika itu adalah cara anda hidup, janganlah anda memanggil diri anda pembela Islam. Justru, anda terkesan berusaha keras untuk menjelek-jelekkan nama agama dan umat kita.

Andalah yang pantas dituntut atas penistaan agama, bukan Ahok.

The Brief Tale Of The Citrus Man

Infants cry in terror at his presence. Garden-gnomes connoisseurs think he is the only gnome they abhor. The devoutees believe he’s Satan’s novice. Incubi are shamefaced by him. Sciencemen think he is one rare and grotesque specimen. The more immoral he is, the more he is loved. His existence is a literal abomination.

He is the Citrus Man!

His power? Birthing minions seemingly out of nowhere. Some say they are plucked out fresh from the earth, with shrieks worse than the Mandrakes’. Some say he takes them out of their festering yet safe wardrobes.

He spews vomit and faeces on collossal quanta, burdening our heavily-plagued existence with more diseases. His minions delightfully gorge on them…for different reasons:

Some think his waste isn’t one at all. They earnestly believe it’s a delectable tonic. It’s sadly foreseeable, considering their deplorably impaired senses. Others do see it as waste. Their senses are perfectly functional. Yet, they’re still golloping it. They don’t understand others’ aversion against his filth. That’s not even the worse part.

They want him to be crowned, to be seated on the throne. His Highness, King Citrus Man. Oh, Lord. The aroma may have spread all over the earthly sphere. But, pity the ones who share a realm with him. Pity them who are smothered by his loathly residue.

Of course, others aspirants exist. Sadly, they are a diplomatic swindler, a Janus-faced healer and a sombrely unlettered sportsman. What an assortment.

Even with more honourable challengers, even if they are victorious, the Citrus Man has opened the Pandora’s box. It will take many suns to mend the world, to extinguish every single morsel of the unleashed degeneracy.

His existence is a literal abomination.

The dignified Indonesians

*puts on a mask*

Dignified how? Well, we have ancestral pride. We, the inlanders*, believe it’s appropriate to f*ck the outlanders. We can choose our ancestry. Before entering them, our souls can choose any bodies we want. Good people choose the ones of pure-blooded natives.

We also love light skin. This is why we also f*ck the Papuans. We take their resources, neglect their development and gets pissed when separatism happens. It’s their destiny to be our pet monkeys. We have to keep that stays rooted.

But, when other countries accuse us of those, we won’t admit it. Instead, we accuse other nations of it, even though they’re not. The world hates our dignity. As much it sucks, maintaining a good image is a priority. Revealing the truth’s optional.

I don’t know why Indonesia gets all the shit. If our traits are indeed bad, then explain why we are one of the best countries? We top the human rights and human development charts! We are a model country! The other best countries are similar to us! Those critics are just jealous haters. They always are.

*takes off the mask*

*A pejorative nickname for the natives during Dutch colonialism

Traits of bigots (that I have noticed so far)

1. They don’t see the harm in their bigotry.

They cannot see why dehumanising “the others” would be damaging. For them, bigotry is just a politically-incorrect hobby to kill time, like wildlife hunting.

2. Sometimes, they see the benefits in it.

They believe the dehumanisation would do good for everyone. “The others”, AKA “not humans”, would either cease to exist or change themselves and satify the bigots’ insecurity. It’s mutualism, they say.

3. They want others to be like them.

Naturally, those two traits release their inner activists. They are either confused or outraged that others don’t partake in their bigotry.

4. They play the victim cards.

They believe “the others” oppress them with the differences; again, it is all about insecurity. They also cry oppression when getting called out, whining about losing freedom.

5. They commit psychological projection.

Naturally, the victim card encourages it. They accuse their critics, not themselves, as bigots.

….

I labeled people as bigots, not realising I was also one. The awakening is a major slap to my face…and I know I will have it again. Of course, that doesn’t mean all of my negative views of “the others” are prejudicial; they may just be politically incorrect. Before finger-pointing, analysing one’s self first.