“How
do you know that God didn’t speak to Charles Darwin?”
“I know, because God tells me to oppose the evil teachings of that man.”
“Oh, God speaks to you.”
“Yes.”
“He tells you what is right and wrong.”
“Yes.”
“And you act accordingly?”
“Yes.”
“So you, Matthew Harrison Brady, through oratory or legislature or
whatever, you pass on God’s orders to the rest of the world! Well, meet the
prophet from Nebraska! Is that the way of things? Is that the way of
things? God tells Brady what is good. To be against Brady is to be against
God.”
In the end, Henry Drummond, the defense lawyer, using the logic of the
Bible itself, successfully proved that Matthew Harrison Brady had gone too
far. Amid his passionate preaching and offenses against evolution theory,
the former US secretary of state used religious symbols and doctrines more
as he wished instead of in accord with their generic meanings.
Put simply, in the very famous movie Inherit the Wind — based on American
legendary Monkey Trial in 1925 — we learn that the religious issue, as it
is taken into the public domain packed with political interest, will only
end with the exploitation of the religious symbols, attributes, doctrines
and the followers themselves.
The politically ambitious Brady might not have been interested in enriching
himself or his family.
Yet, his passion for studying religion as a door through which he could
easily reach the masses with a conservative stream made him blind to the
real world.
He stepped into very dangerous territory where he could say what was right
and wrong, which is the position of the saints or prophets.
Here, whatever he did would be defended by any means. His followers would
look at and support him as if he was a prophet himself.
And we know, in conclusion, that absolutism can be a big problem. With its
dealing with absolutism, religion might bring about calamities to human
beings, especially when the preachers cannot control their ambitions.
In Indonesia, we are seeing how the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) is
struggling to reimage itself. With its religious features, the party has to
deal with the rise of the tide once the public’s conviction loosens.
The latest survey by SMRC shows that its electability is at a level of 2.7
percent, and that is mostly because the party represents religious symbols.
What strikes people more clearly is what is happening to its party leaders.
Under the influence of
absolutism embedded in a religion, people tend to evaluate them, more
unintentionally, in black and white terms.
In religious language itself, it is said that “a leader puts a foot on the
verge of paradise and another foot on the verge of hell.”
He can easily slip into either of them depending on his endeavor (qadar) and, to a significant extent,
his fortune (qada).
In the most recent case of the former PKS chairman, who has been alleged to
have improperly used his power in his party to take advantage individually
or “congregationally”, we see that he looked to be innocently controlling
his fortune. This could be more clearly seen in the efforts of his followers
and party members to reimage their party.
Compared to what happened to Matthew Harrison Brady in the story, we can
note two tragic things. First, in a party where the most influential men
have “religious power” beside their other normal human capabilities, law
and order are potentially based on “religious absolutism” as they
understand it.
Here then, dissenting opinion and doubting inquiries can be easily
understood as a signal of faithlessness.
Consequently, the correction over what a leader understands and says can
become very taboo. As such, different from what happens in secular or
non-religious parties where power depends more on secular issues such as
financial capability or social status, the leaders of political parties
with substantial militancy like PKS are more powerful.
Second, leaders can easily find themselves trapped in corruption because
they think they are still on the right path while they actually have gone
astray.
It is simply because the line differentiating the rights and wrongs is
blurred by their ascribed “religious power”.
It is like a pilot experiencing disorientation: He thinks he is still at a
safe height and particular speed, while in fact he is already close to the
ground or sea.
To the masses, making cults of certain individuals gives them spiritual
security but unfortunately at the same time it makes them less critical of
what “idolized” men do.
They tend to spontaneously reject any issues discrediting their leaders
because it relates to their own protected existential security provided by
their understanding of religion.
So, in the end, we should never idolize a man too much. Isn’t it taught
that a prophet himself can make a mistake, simply because perfection is
owned by God Himself? ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar