Banning on Porn Sites: Tendentious and Utopian

Minister of Communication and Information, Mr. Tifatul Sembiring, is going to block all regional and international porn sites. He hoped that this blockning would finish before Ramadhan (Muslim’s holy month). However, this agenda shows three questions to discuss. First, why this agenda is lifted up in Ramadhan? Second, could this program run effectively? And finally, with the cost up to 1 billion rupias, is it not can be said as a money wasting?

Tendentious

Actually, from my opinion, it can be said that this agenda is really tendentious. May be this opinion is very subjective and this will be my task to explain how tendencious is this program.

Firstly, the qousteion that have to be answered is about the time when this agenda was lifted up. Thejakartapost site cited the reason that came from Tifatul himself. He said that it should be finished in order to not to affect (Muslims) from executing their religious obligation. From this statement, it clearly shows that this agenda were purposed to exclusively protect Muslims who will execute their fasting in Ramadhan. Why don’t he run this agenda when neither the Christians are going to celebrate easter, the Buddhas are going to celebrate Waisak, nor the Hindus are going to celebrate Nyepi? Instead of concern on its firstly purpose to improve the moral of Indonesians, the subjective tendency is dominant in the purpose of this agenda.

Furtehrmore, if he were aware with the moral decadent in Indonesia, especially after the occasion about porn videos, he ought to block all the porn videos a long time ago before Ramadhan. Thus, this eplanation brings to the question about why not this agenda not lifted up a long time ago? Is it only a campaign to lift up the images after a few days ago he made some Christians angry with the statement about porn videos and Jesus crucifixion? Is it only an agenda to repair his images on society? If the answer is yes, it can be certainly forseen that it will absolutely fail

Effectiveness

The second matter that is going to surface is about effectiveness of this blocking. The Indonesians ISP Association in thejakartapost site said that technical challenges would make it nearly impossible for Indonesai to ban internet porn sites.

This statement clearly shows that however the efforts that are deployed in order to ban all the porn sites, they are never can press the technology development that will always give many chances for people to access porn sites, eventhough they have already banned. The banning to porn sites never permanent. It just exist just a few days or a few months and after a new technology appear at surface, they should realize that all the effort that had been deployed are certainly futile.

Beside the matter about how long it can exist, it should be asked whether this agenda can improve the morality of Indonesians or not. From my opinion, this agenda will fail to attain this purpose. Instead of banning the porn sites, it will be better to use persuasive approching in order to give them moral responsibility. This task should be done firstly from family.

The next qouestion is about the cost to complete this agneda. Does it proper to say that this agenda just a money wasting? When we cannot predict certainly about how long this agenda will run effectively and we should use 1 billion rupias, does it can be conceieved rationally? Furtehermore, the corruption wlll be always taking place in Indonesia, especially wherever there is a great cost project.

From all my eplanations, I can summarize that this agenda just a subjective utopia program. It takes a big cost, cannot guarantee about how long it can exist and also how success they can improve the moral responsibility of Indonesians; and let we see whether this agenda will be run or not and if the asnwer is yes, we have to evaluate about the succesfulness about this program and the minister should take responsibility if the result is fail.

Advertisements

Ahmadiyah: A Human Right Crisis

The existence of Ahmadiyah fellowers seem always under threat especially when they live in a region where mayority of the society inside are Muslims. ‘Astray sect’ is always labelled to them. Furtherrmore, the implication is they are being marginalized by the other Muslims, eventhough they called themselves as Muslims.

Talking about violence upon Ahmadiyah fellowers in this whole world, it has been happening until now. Many news had reported about unhumane treating upon Ahmadiyah fellower including demolishing upon their mosque so they could not do their rituals. In addition, those acts were done by extremist Muslims groups who had a standard about their truth, so they felt those acts were absolutely right.

The Jakarta Post daily newspaper on Tuesday, Juli 13 2010, reported a news talking about Ahmadiyah’s mosque in Bogor that had been demolished by regional police. This act was done in order to save the mosque from the attacking with force that would come from Islamic groups.

The same incedent also happened in Pakistan. The Jakarta Globe daily newspaper on Juli 9 2010 also showed an Aftab Alexander’s article that also talked about vioence upon Ahmadiyah fellowers. In his article, he wrote down about an incident that happened about a month ago in Pakistan while 95 Ahmadiyah fellower were killed and the other 100 persons injured when they were being attacked in their mosque at Lahore by Muslims extremist groups

About validity

Based on those phenomenas, it seems to be a timeless habitual for extemist Muslim groups attacking upon Ahmadiyah fellowers wherever they are. The main purpose of this article is not a case why Ahmadiyah is labelled as an ‘Astray sect’ so they are always under threat and have to be ready anytime for the attack; let it be the internal affair among them with the other Muslims. On the other hand, the aim of this article is to concern about validity of the violence upon Ahmadiyah fellower.

Which regulation that allows someone to kill someone else just based on unidentical opinion? Moreover when religion side taking up the steer, is it true that religion teaches its fellowers to destroy them who has different in belief? I think that there is not any regulation which proove this such action; so what kind of regulation does they rely to?

It is becoming clear now that their action became valid if their opinion was also prevail in all Ahmadiyah fellower, but reality shows the opposite. Every people has its own opinion and they cannot insist theirs unto others in order to have the same. When the different opinions collide, the contradiction will appear as the result. Each opinion, then, tries to lower others and the opinion which posited as an inferior one will always been pressed. This simple explanation tells us that insisting one opinion unto others can potentially become cruel incident.

Talking about Ahmadiyah fellowers, it is clear that they have their own perception, not same as the common Muslims. However, this condition cannot be made as a reason to justify and also to kill them brutally. The crucial problem of this incident is the cricis of human rights, especially the rights for every people to live peacefully in this world without have to be killed brutally just because of diferrent perception about religion.

Based on the rights to live peacefully, it can be briefly said that the actions that has been done by the extremist Muslim groups are absolutely wrong; a fatally error, regardless of their opinion that judges the right for their action. They have cruelly contaminated the human rights, the rights for live peacefully, the rights to raise different opinion and the rights to be different than the common opinion. This plural world is not amenable for them. Egoism as well as their cruel action based on their own opinion has sucessfully blind them with the reality which shows plurality; and may be it seems better for them to make their ‘own world’ outside this plural world.

The human right cricis

We often hear about how government and also police institution have an important role to taking over this kind of conflict; so they have to be always  seriously urged to do this. They have to be recognized that chaos are happened in this world are just not about neither financial crisis nor global warming, in addition human right crisis takes place as well especially which concern about the freedom to choose religion and opposing common opinion. This crisis, then, cannot be regarded as insignificant occasion. Dialogue and increasing the effectivity of police apparatus should be always done in order to reduce the crisis because those actions are still untuil now believed as the way out.

In addition, justice has always to be straightened especially upon those who increase the crisis of human rights by violence. It becomes government responsibility to protect the minority and judges them who undertake violence upon anyone; eventhough they are majority and perform it in the name of God.

The Era of Postmorality

Morality has a long time been the standard in order to justify a person whether he is ‘good’ or bad.’ If he is ‘good’, then he can be said as a moral person; and on the other hand if he is ‘bad’, then he is called as an amoral person. From this point, it can be seen that morality itself has many standard dan universal values so it can be used to justify a person and giving him a label in his society.

However, morality nowadays seems to have lost its position in the mass of mankind. Some persons start to neglect and run away from the morality prison. The increase of cases such porn videos, homosexual and lesbianism show that they who neglect morality is going to raise up. They have their own values that have to be used as their own standard so they too can be called as a moral person, but not in the same way as a moral person who based their standard on common peception of morality.

Decadent person or new values

Starting from these phenomenas, there will be two crucial questions. First, is it a sign that human being nowadays are decadent human being, who don’t care anymore with morality so they do not again rely on case how to be a ‘good’ person based on the values of primordial morality? Second, or is it a sign that primordial morality nowadays have to make a revolution for itself and absorb some values that come from them who neglect primordial morality?

Answering these two questions objectively seems to be an utopia. There always be  contradiction between both of them. First, a person who do not obey to primordial morality cannot be justified as a wholly decadent person. He would be as it if only all the values of primordial morality exist in him. Since primordial morality does not exist in him anymore, it seems become unjust to justify them as a decadent person. On the other hand, if these phenomenas urge that primordial morality should make some revolution in its values, the chaos would happen. Since the primordial morality has its own conservative grasper, it can be an utopian work to change just one of its values. Furthermore, it also shows that adding new values for primordial morality is such an impossible work. Primordial morality should always to be genuine; changing is harmful.

Postmorality

Neither showing an era of decadent human being nor the urge to revolt the primordial morality values does not match to define this phenomena; so it seems for me that it should be better to define this phenomena as a postmorality era. Before showing all the postmorality symptomps, it is important to know that postmorality is not an antimorality. Being ‘post’ does not mean ‘anti’. Postmorality does not reject the concept of primordial morality. This which differeniate it from antimorality since antimorality always reject all the values in morality. Postmorality rather to use dialogue with primordial morality than to reject it.

The first symptomp of postmorality can be seen in postmodern architecture as well. Postmodern architect always reject the concept of ‘true’ architecture which justify whether the concept of building is good or bad. This idea came from the modern architecture that urged that architects should have a same fundamental notion to justify what is good or bad for a building. While postmodern architects try to design a building from many fundamental concepts so those who look at the building have difference perception, postmoralist also reject the fundamental notion that defines morality itself. Everybody has its own morality, so there will be so many perceptions as the excess of postmorality.

Furthemore, the second symptom of postmorality has its relevance with poststructural. When the poststructuralists negate the fundamental meaning that lay beyond every word, the postmoralists also rely not to the fudamental understanding about what is morality.

Both of those symptomps then give birth to plurality in primordial morality itself. This plurality can also be seen in postmodern art dan postmodern architecture as well. Morality now can be seen from other perceptions, not just from the primordial morality. Postmorality endows morality with new concepts.

The third symptomp is flattening of the world. It can happen because of every human has its own interpretation about morality. In primordial morality which act as common opinion, justification to human being  is labelled as moral and amoral person. This make such a sense that a moral person is ‘higher’ than amoral person. On the other hand, it cannot happen when postmorality taking up the steer. Everybody is permitted to label himself as moral person because their unique interpretation about morality. There is no common opinion about morality which can match to all human in order to justify them. The last is postmorality shows a never ending process to get a right definition of morality. Since morality cannot define itself perfectly, postmoralist acts as a dialogue process who try to give a final definition of morality eventhough this process is also an utopian work.