The Double Face of Religion: Between Blessing and Disaster

GIVING The government’s mining concession permits to religious organizations have drawn various criticisms. Because it is feared that this policy will actually continue and worsen the picture of the social-ecological and agrarian crisis caused by the mining dredging regime. Until now, it is still difficult to find mining extractive industry practices in the country that respect humanity, justice and ecological sustainability. On the contrary, marginalization, exclusion, corrupt practices, pollution (water and air), land grabbing, agrarian conflicts, destruction of people’s living space are precisely what often appear dominant (TII 2024, Jatam 2024).

Through Government Regulation Number 25 of 2024 concerning Amendments to PP No. 96/2021 concerning the Implementation of Coal Mineral Mining Business Activities, Article 83A means that religious mass organizations are legally a priority for business permit holders. This is because the article emphasizes that special mining business permit (WIUPK) areas can be offered on a priority basis to business entities owned by religious mass organizations.

Based on article 83A paragraph (2), WIUPK that can be managed by religious mass organization business entities is a coal mining area that has previously operated or has already been in production. Because, since 2022, the government has evaluated mining business permits given to the private sector and found as many as 2,078 mining business permits (IUP) which were deemed not to have implemented work plans properly. This business permit can be obtained by religious organizations.

Beyond the debate about whether or not a religious organization can manage the mining industry properly and correctly, perhaps it is important to have a serious reflection on why religious practices can have two faces? On the one hand, all religions with religious organizations certainly have the argument that they are the main advocates for preserving nature, upholding justice and humanity. But on the other hand, why, in the name of religion, are they often supporters and even legitimators of bad practices in development policies that destroy nature and ignore justice and humanity, all at once?

The results of the initial study by ICRS-UGM and the Sajogyo Institute (2020) entitled “Religion and the Development of the Dual Faces of Religion in 10 Case Portraits in Indonesia” clearly show good and bad practices in the name of religion. For example, the rejection of mining by the Catholic church in Manggarai (2009). Catholic Church leaders organized the community to demand an end to the company’s mining activities. Followed by the Bishop of Lenteng’s statement that the Ruteng Diocese is an anti-mining church (2014).

In 2018, the Manggarai Anti-Mining Indigenous Community Association (Imamat) was formed which declared itself as a group concerned with mining issues. Another case is the rejection of the Balinese Hindu Pendanda together with ForBali against the reclamation of Banoa Bay (2016). Based on the decision of the Pandhita Sabha Committee, the pedandas stated that in the reclamation area there are sacred areas which are still used by Hindus around Banoa Bay to carry out religious rituals.

Another case is the rejection of Nahdatul Ulama residents in Rembang Regency, Central Java, supported by the Nahdiyin Front for Natural Resource Sovereignty (FNKSDA), against PT Semen Indonesia by holding a grand istighotsah at the Roudlotut Tholibin Islamic Boarding School, KH Mustofa Bisri (2015). Because, apart from causing agrarian conflict, it also threatens the Kendeng mountain karst ecosystem and the livelihoods of the people around it, so that the harm (bad impact, danger, damage or disaster) is considered to be much greater than the benefit (benefit or goodness).

However, what is interesting is that in these three cases, there were Church/Priest, Pendanda and Ulama/Kyai groups, in the same area, using religious arguments and propositions to provide support, either directly or indirectly, for these mining and reclamation projects.

The stories of the three cases above are only the ‘tip of the iceberg’ of other similar cases, which may not have been/were not exposed, and are very likely more widespread and diverse in Indonesia. Of course, their religious attitudes are also dynamic, changing, past and present, from previously rejecting, sometimes changing to supporting. However, it can be seen that the practice of the double face of religion is not a religious expression that is exclusive to one religion.

Almost all religions have the same potential, one face can be a blessing, but another face can be a disaster for human life and nature. There are at least two things that make religion turn into a disaster, namely: The decay of values ​​and the absolute interpretation of religious truth and the practice of politicization and instrumentalization of religion.

If we reflect and re-actualize the ideas of Charles Kimball (2013), it is shown when religion can become a disaster? In cases of terrorism and acts of radicalism, under the guise of religion, they unilaterally interpret the texts of the holy scriptures scripturally according to the ‘ideology’ that they believe in fundamentally, thereby giving birth to “sacred truths” that cannot be denied. At this point, religion has become corrupt/rotten.