The (no longer) lost Jews of Manado
Nov 24th, 2010, in Society, by Guest WriterAs reported in the NY Times and Tablet magazine – the synagogue in Surabaya might have been forced to close by extremists, but elsewhere in the country, another Jewish community is rediscovering their roots.
As Santayana said, Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it — while historically Judaism fare better under Islam, and Good Friday passion plays culminate in abominable anti-Semitic pogroms, most recent anti-Semitic outbursts — whether in Europe, the Middle East, or the Far East — have been perpetrated… well, not by Christians.
There is an interesting, and positive, contrast, when comparing the interplay between Judaism and Christianity, in the Manado case, to that of the US Christian Zionists:
Increasingly strong pro-Jewish sentiments also appear to be an outgrowth of an evangelical and charismatic Christian movement that with the help of American and European missionaries has taken root here in the past decade. Some experts regard this movement as a reaction against the growing role of orthodox Islam in much of the rest of Indonesia.
“In Manado, Christianity has always had a strong identity mark in the belief that it’s opposed to the surrounding sea of Islam,” said Theo Kamsma, a scholar at The Hague University who has studied Manado’s Jewish legacy. Christianity and a reemerging Judaism share a “rebellious” nature, he added.
An interesting parallel might also be made with the Crypto-Jews of New Mexico; some of them might actually be descended from Sabbatarian Christians.
58 Comments on “The (no longer) lost Jews of Manado”
-
Michel S. says:
Thanks, David! I’ve now bumped the nesting allowed from 5 to 7 — don’t want to allow too deep a level in case it does indeed break formatting (plus by that level a fresh thread is probably useful anyway).
That led me to looking at other settings — by default, the installation does not notify other blogs and does not track back other sites linking into this one. I’ve enabled both now, but presumably there is a reason they’re off by default?
-
There was also little conflict among its founding fathers as to the proper relationship between “church” and state, whereas in Indonesia, there were deep disagreements.
There actually was such a conflict; one that is still ongoing now, though given the role reversals that happens several times in the US public life, only the most historically-minded are still aware of the history.
The 1800 election between Adams was particularly bad — with Adams accusing Jefferson, a Francophile, of being an atheist bent to bring the godless French revolution over — Jefferson, in turn, was backed by the non-conformist churches (e.g. the Baptists) who were pushing for the disestablishment of state religions.
Note that the 1st amendment *was* an amendment — there was no previous consensus — and the consensus was only for the federal government to not establish a religion, leaving the states to do as they wish.
see e.g. Library of Congress exhibit: Religion and the States Government and Wikipedia’s State religion article — in Massachusetts, disestablishment of the Congregational/Episcopal Standing Order did not take place until 1833! (as an aside, it’s surprising how hard it is to get good online references on the Standing Order issue. Seems a mostly forgotten topic).
Ironically their descendants (UCC, UUA, Episcopalians) are now among the most liberal and tolerant denominations (the Unitarian Universalists are, in fact, post-Christians and no longer a creedal faith). You still hear this legacy being discussed by Unitarians and Episcopalians sometimes, whenever the topic of the First Amendment comes up.
So there is an understandable knee-jerk tendency for fundamentalists to try and claim all the Founding Fathers as Christians (which is silly; some have strong Deist tendencies), believing that doing so would argue for watering down the separation of church and state (in fact, Tea Partiers like Christine O’Donnell would claim that there is no such “separation”, which is literalist — the First Amendment does not phrase it as such but Jefferson’s description of it as such is a succint, and quotable, summary).
Likewise, the more outspoken new atheists are wont to claim the Founding Fathers as non-conformists who do not want established churches (Washington and Adams clearly do not fit the pattern).
Steven Waldman, the founder of Beliefnet, has a book, Founding Faith, that explores this issue in more depth.
-
However, even the original compromise of Pancasila did not embed religion into every aspect of official life–if I’m not mistaken, identification cards did not state an individual’s religion, and there were no institutional boundaries to inter-religious marriage. That was Suharto’s doing…
Yes, sadly once the main religions are established and given some privileges, it’s really hard to get them relinquished voluntarily. Religious leaders are just humans, after all!
In Germany, where I live now, three organizations are recognized as official religions — the Catholics, Protestants (EKD) and Jewish. They get to collect tithe as part of their members’ tax collection (8-9% of gross income) — some Catholic bishops are even paid directly by the state. Needless to say there is not much call for disestablishment by these official bodies — in a recent discussion, someone recently asked me why other denominations don’t just simply affiliate themselves with EKD; I pointed out that organizationally it might be impossible to do so — we did not get to discussing the desirability of such state support in the first place!
-
Trackbacks are not something I like, they tend to invite spam attempts, so they’re off by default, the first setting though – “Attempt to notify any blogs linked to from the article (slows down posting.) ” I just turned that on by default, as it’s harmless, but in any case you’re free to change the defaults.
-
Arie Brand says:
I am not particularly fond of that “nesting” as now you have to search along the whole thread to find the latest contribution announced in the blog’s margin. If you want to make it clear that you are reacting to a post why not just quote the point you are reacting to?
-
Odinius says:
Certainly Jefferson was an “anti=theist,” thought he was spiritual. Adams actually was as well, and had some rather nasty things to say about organized religion, and the various Calvinist sects in particular.
But yes, there were–and are–differences of opinion, but it was largely between a radical disestablishment position (Jefferson) and a more moderate disestablishment position (Adams). But both were still disestablishment positions.
Compared with Indonesia, where powerful, popular interests (40% in the 1954/5 elections) wanted at least state establishment of a single specific religion (if not exclusive establishment).
-
I am not particularly fond of that “nesting” as now you have to search along the whole thread to find the latest contribution announced in the blog’s margin.
Well no, you just click the link in the recent comments list and it will take you to that exact comment; but the nesting can be turned off if you’d like.
-
Some people aren’t happy about the Minorah – Manado Bangun Menorah Yahudi Terbesar Sedunia, Jakarta Tutup Mata?; although Era Muslim aren’t to be taken too seriously.
-
ET says:
Would you really say that ecumenical and inter-communal dialogue has no impact or even negative impact? Seems a rather cynical view, though you are of course entitled to it.
Unless someone can show me the positive results of this oecumenical dialogue in terms of mutual tolerance I do indeed consider them a waste of time and resources. What are those discussions about? The sex of the angels?
All religions – and I repeat all religions – are built on shaky ground of fear of annihilation and hope for an afterlife in some form but no one has yet come up with any proof of the existence of the supernatural. So on what basis – except wishful thinking – could this dialogue be founded if its premises cannot even be corroborated by experiment and fact? -
Lairedion says:
I do hope it’s based out of lack of perspective rather than a manifestation of this trend that is sadly popular among the intellectual left these days.
Ouch, talking about knee-jerk reactions and being defensive. I quote an extremist orthodox rabbi who is the spiritual leader of a political party with four cabinet posts in the current Israeli government and next thing I know I could be a lefty intellectual anti-semitic.
Of course this extremist rabbi is not representing every Jew but just to show what reactions you can get from even self-declared moderates when you put some edgy comments.
-
100% agree.
-
You don’t have interfaith dialog to eliminate extremism, you have it to deny them the ability to expand their base of support.
A country can only deal with its extremists–whether they be religious, ethnonationalist or political–through a combination of law enforcement and community outreach. The idea is to use the enforcement of the law as a deterrent while turning communities against them.
Choose one and not the other, and you end up with a serious brushfire.
-
Bless globalization — that NY Times found out about it more than a week before they do 🙂
Seems like they exaggerate quite a few things. Is Denpasar really closed to new mosque construction? The renovation of this mosque seems to be progressing just fine. Meanwhile, in Java, it is very hard to get a permit for church construction, while there are three musholas outside my housing complex, all with low-quality speakers rather than a proper Azan caller…
-
Hm. I’m used to newsgroups and old-style mail clients, where the conversation splits into multiple threads and it’s really hard to keep track of who’s replying to what without the thread view.
You’re right though, it’d be nice if one can quickly re-layout the way comments are displayed — oldest to newest, or the reverse, and threaded or flat. And I’ve yet to see a software that can intelligently handle the task of replying to multiple separate threads!
-
But yes, there were–and are–differences of opinion, but it was largely between a radical disestablishment position (Jefferson) and a more moderate disestablishment position (Adams). But both were still disestablishment positions.
At the very least, the Founding Fathers seem to have agreed that no religion was to be banned, yes, which is an improvement from what came before. I’m reading Founding Faith now and it’s shocking to see how Baptists and Quakers are treated (as well as Jews and Catholics!).
For some of them taxpayers subsidizing established denominations are seen as normal, so it’s European-style disestablishment rather than the total disestablishment that the 1st and 14th amendment (the latter plus the Supreme Court ruling) that ended up totally disestablishing the church in the States (minus modern-day regressions such as the National Prayer Day and the Pledge of Allegiance …)
But I guess Indonesia face more of a challenge — the period in which nationalist consciousness arose was much shorter (starting from the early 20th century), and the colonial heritage includes territories of multiple faiths (not just denominations) and languages.
-
We both need to cool down a bit, I think. I just realized that you’re responding to my claim that fundamentalist Judaism is a more localized affair than fundamentalist Christianity and Islam, to which your example would be a good counter example.
Still, we do have other groups with delusions of grandeur — Japan’s Aum Shinri Kyo, for example. While it might be the case that some wing-nut thinks being the Chosen People involves the subservience of other countries, I would worry less about a non-evangelistic faith with less than 20 million adherents (and that includes cultural but secular Jews) than about evangelical ones with billions of adherents (again, most are not megalomaniacs but the potential is much greater).
Israeli politics is, sadly, overly-influenced by the religious settlers, since it’s extremely hard to cobble together a governing majority without them. The same is true, unfortunately, in the States, where the religious right is so influential within the Republican Party that most of their presidential candidates profess a disbelief in evolution!
Regarding the severity of my comment — well, I’m tired of knee-jerk anti-Semitism (living for ten years in a Muslim-majority country does that to you) that I might have been overly harsh. For that I apologize.
(and hey, I could have just deleted the comment!)
-
What are those discussions about? The sex of the angels?
Luckily, no, interfaith dialogues tend to be more about what we have in common rather than the issues that separate us.
I’m not saying it’s a perfect process — after all, even within denominations, divisive social issues (like homosexuality) tend to split the progressives from the traditionalists!
For examples of ecumenism in action, there is the World Council of Churches’ Justice, Peace and Creation commission; the Network of Spiritual Progressives (politically on the left), churches’ participation in the 350.org climate campaign…
And, speaking of Indonesia, wouldn’t you say that without the non-Muslims, the country would have adopted Shari’a law at its founding?
-
You don’t have interfaith dialog to eliminate extremism, you have it to deny them the ability to expand their base of support.
Completely agree, Odinius.
Let me make this point clear: unfortunately, it is the case that interfaith dialogue all too often ignores the voice of the non-religious. The stereotype is that the one thing religious folks agree on is that atheists are immoral!
I have been non-religious in the past, and so I would say I can really appreciate the problems of being ostracized from “polite society”. As far as I can see it, though, more progressive mainstream denominations tend to be both more active in interfaith dialogue, *and* less dogmatic about the exclusivity of their own brand of faith — whether it’s about salvation, or about morality. And the opposite tends to be the case.
After all, Bp. Richard Holloway, ex-Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, authored the book Godless Morality; as a co-religionist let me say that I share his view, and many moderate Christians too, that one does not need to profess a belief in the supernatural to live a moral life.
-
Michel S.wrote:
And, speaking of Indonesia, wouldn’t you say that without the non-Muslims, the country would have adopted Shari’a law at its founding?
Yes, it came perilously close to it. In the draft constitution drawn up by the Political Subcommittee of the so-called Investigating Committee, there was an article requiring that the president of the republic be a Moslem and that the sjariahwould apply to all professing Moslems. According to Anderson (Java in a Time of Revolution) Sukarno and Hatta urged the Acehnese representative , Teuku Hassan, to talk to the main supporter of this view, Ki Bagus Hadikusomo, a leader of Muhammadyah. Hassan had the Acehnese reputation for religious zeal to back him up. His main argument was that national unity would be threatened if important Christian minorities (Batak, Ambonese and Menadonese) would be impelled to side with the returning Dutch when the constitution made second class citizens of them. He managed to persuade the Javanese religious leader to go along with the virtual elimination of any reference to Islam in the constitution.
-
timdog says:
I may have the numbers slightly wrong, and I’m not entirely sure how planning regs break down state by state, but one of the key issues with “church permits” in Java is that it’s very hard for them to meet the legal conditions to get a permit in the first place. This is because there’s some regulation that requires any place of religious worship to receive the signed approval of some huge number – 70 or something like that – of residents in the immediate vicinity (obviously this regulation is massively skewed against any minority, and that may have been its original inspiration, but it’s not statedly discriminatory). Without those approvals you can’t get the permit (now then, how many of the shrieking, howling hysterics who jerk themselves regularly into a state of heightened arrousal over “Islamo-nazi curs” and their harrassing of churches in Java, would just love to hear of a similar reg applied to mosque building – only mosque building; klentengs, churches, temples are all fine – in “the west?” 😉 ).
As a consequence lots of churches (and indeed lots of mosques) get built without a permit, which, in most cases probably isn’t an issue. But if it happens to be in one of those particularly bad-tempered bits of West Java, or if some local idiots decide to make a “statement”, or if somebody from the church pisses sobebody else off about something, or forgets to pay somebody something, then shouty people can always claim they’re upholding the law…Anyway, my point is, that if these same regs apply in Bali (and I’m not sure if they do) then I can imagine that it would be hard to get a permit to build a new mosque there…
-
Without those approvals you can’t get the permit (now then, how many of the shrieking, howling hysterics who jerk themselves regularly into a state of heightened arrousal over “Islamo-nazi curs” and their harrassing of churches in Java, would just love to hear of a similar reg applied to mosque building – only mosque building; klentengs, churches, temples are all fine – in “the west?”
You said it yourself, klentengs, churches, temples are all fine in the west. Only mosques are not. There must be a reason for it, don’t you think? Or do you believe there is smoke without fire?
-
Um… That there’s a deep-seated knee-jerk hostility to Muslims in much of “the West”, tied up with paranoia about “immigration”, fed by tabloid masturbatory fetishism of obscure and non-representative “hate preachers”, nurtured by internet nut-jobs vomiting out a tide of banal literalism, absurd double-standardism, spectacularly narrow selectivism, and absolutely no breadth of either reading or on-the-ground experience, and helped by a sense that when it comes to satiating an apparently innate human liking for bigotry and racism, that this is the one set of people that it’s still OK to admit despising en masse in public – even if you’ve never met one of them – all stacked up on a very solid foundation of crude Orientalist discourse about “Mahomedism” drawn from the political considerations of colonialism and from earlier aggresive Christian hatred of “Mahound” as a schismatic (and a potential political threat)?
I dunno, ET; why do you hate mosques so much?
-
Arie Brand wrote
Yes, it came perilously close to it. In the draft constitution drawn up by the Political Subcommittee of the so-called Investigating Committee, there was an article requiring that the president of the republic be a Moslem and that the sjariahwould apply to all professing Moslems.
Indeed. The original wording of the 1st point of the Piagam Jakarta was
Ketuhanan dengan kewajiban menjalankan syariat Islam bagi pemeluk-pemeluknya which later was watered down in the Pancasila to simply Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa. This in turn however forced the Hindu community to do some brain gymnastics in order to bring their pantheon in line with the official policy of One God for all mankind. This led to the creation of the notion of Sang Yang Widhi Wasa, a vaguely described entity resembling the Indian principle of brahman of which all the other deities are mere emanations. This Sang Yang Widhi Wasa isn’t revered as such but is generally only depicted as a skinny dancing figure with flames protruding out of his joints. It probably is an Indonesian styled version of Nataraja, i.e Shiva, Lord of the Dance.**It’s a pity one cannot post pictures in these guest threads. It would enhance the clarity of some informations.
-
I dunno, ET; why do you hate mosques so much?
Because these are places where people are brainwashed into prostrating themselves before some godhead named Allah who was promoted by a delusional Arab maniac to the sole master of the Universe and beyond and who on top of that had the pretention to declare himself as the ‘seal’ of the prophets, thereby closing the door to eventual future amendments. Because it keeps people in bondage to charlatans who impose themselves as his spokesman and interpreter instead of using their own brains to improve the human condition.
It’ all about power, timdog.
-
Just like I said – crude Orientalist discourse about “Mahomedism” drawn from the political considerations of colonialism and from earlier aggressive Christian hatred of “Mahound” as a schismatic (and a potential political threat)…
I read something this very morning, written by an English bigot of the first rank 200 years ago, that is virtually a direct paraphrase of what you’ve written above.
Just to put the age-old Western ideas that ET parrots without even realising he’s doing it – and while imagining he thought it all up all for himself by browsing jihadwatch, or reading Fifty Really Bad Things Out of the Koran, by Professor A. Redneck – into context, here’s what the same guy thought about the (non-Muslims) of Kalimantan:a race scarcely emerged from barbarism. Here you will find no sacred institutions handed down from their forefathers. The way is clear. the people cannot be worse.
So there you have it: Muslims are mentally “enslaved” by an Arab charlatan, and the Dayaks have no culture or religious identity… sh*t, you might as well go the whole hog and justify slavery as the natural prerogative of the superior races…
-
I just read quickly exchange of blurbs between timdog and ET. Nice.
Got a question: just found about about the movie Sang Pencerah. Confused. So, this Ahmad Dahlan is a bad guy or good guy? I like to think he’s a bad guy because he went to mecca and founded Muhammadiyah, and had a fight with Slamet Rahardjo (hmm…, que tio tan guapo!), presumably represents NU. -
diego says:
Btw, am I the only one who thinks that manadoenses are (in general) attention whores? Does it have to do with their proximity with the pinoys? Genetic?
Comment on “The (no longer) lost Jews of Manado”.
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-2025
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact
It goes without saying that there are nice, honest, tolerant folks of all religions (and of no religion), and there are mean, conniving, intolerant folks of all religions (and of no religion).
As proof, I point to world history and all the examples of each it provides.
Personally, I think the moment people stop judging other people based on some category they can fit them into, and start judging them solely on their individual merits as individual human beings, the world will become a much nicer place.