Sabtu, Oktober 16, 2010

Second Puberty


The following writing was imported from my blog at Second Puberty
I posted it on February 18, 2006


Do you believe that second puberty exists? What the hell is second puberty actually?

About ten years ago, I had a private student, a woman, around mid thirties, a housewife whose husband was always busy with his business and she had a babysitter to take care of her children, and housemaids to take care of her household chores. She took English private lesson with me perhaps only to fill her abundant idle time.

At that time, she asked me whether I believed in second puberty. I didn't know what it was exactly. Then she said to me, "Nana, I think it happens to people after they come to the age of mid thirties for women, and forties for men. I believe in it coz now I am experiencing it. ..." Then she told me about a good-looking man around her neighborhood that she said was attracted to her. She concluded it from the way that guy looked at her, smiled at her. Again she said, "It's not about love, Nana. It's not about sex, either. Well ... just attraction. He really makes me feel happy every time we meet. Well, I don't date him, we just happen to meet coz he lives in the same neighborhood with me. Later, after you come to my age, you will undergo it yourself. I believe."

I made a conclusion at that time (with my naivete) that second puberty means that someone is attracted to another person apart from his/her spouse. Or, probably, the routine boredom comes to the couple, and they need a change. Or, did it happen to that private student of mine coz she didn't get enough attention and love and care from her busy businessman husband? So that she needed to get it from another guy?

Unfortunately, that lady didn't take a long time to take private English class with me so that I didn't know what happened after that with her and the guy she had a crush on.

In August 2005, I got another private student. She is in the beginning of her forties, a housewife too, whose husband is very rich so that I believe she never experiences how it feels when the price of gasoline soars crazily. Similar with my private student 10 years ago, she has some housemaids and babysitters that take care of her household chores and children so that she doesn't need to make herself busy at home. In addition, she is outstandingly pretty so that I believe she has many admirers for her physical beauty.

With this private student of mine, I spent some time to go sightseeing in malls, to have lunches at food court, go to cafes, etc. I observed that she loved wearing sexy clothes when she went with me (she said I made her feel comfortable to wear anything, though I didn't see any relationship with me, how could going around with me make her feel comfortable to wear sexy clothes? I myself mostly wear my 'uniform', long black dress and black blazer, not 'inviting' at all!) She also felt comfortable to show inviting body language to any 'macho' and good-looking guy we met in malls. (I was wondering how she made me feel as a 'scapegoat'? I am the one who made her feel comfortable to do those two conspicous things--wearing sexy clothes and showing inviting body language.)

It made me suspicious if this pretty lady was 'suffering from' second puberty. She no longer feels confident with herself whether she is still pretty and attractive enough so that she needs to attract those guys' attention demonstratively. One time, while we were having lunch in one food court in Semarang, she said to me, "Nana ... I really enjoy looking at people around us." Coolly I asked, "And, after 'observing' those people around, what is your conclusion?" Proudly she said, "One similar thing, I always find that they are so amazed to see me; to see a pretty lady, ME." Her facial expression looked so childish at that time.

It made me draw a different conclusion about second puberty than my definition 10 years ago. Second puberty is a kind of 'mental illness' that happens to someone who no longer feels confident that he/she is still attractive. To compensate that inferiority, he/she needs to attract people's attention demonstratively. It is not merely about having a crush on somebody else who is not someone's spouse.When does second puberty come to someone's life? Mid thirties? Early forties? Mid forties? Does it always come to anybody's life? Or does it happen only to people who don't get enough attention, love, and care from their spouse? Do people always need it for a 'change' to overcome boredom in their routine life?

This pretty private student of mine sometimes teased me, "Wait till you come to your forty years of age, Nana, and you will undergo 'second puberty' like me." Well, I think as a teacher, I already get a lot of attention from my students, both boys and girls. Sometimes some naughty male students of mine flirt me and, well, I don't mind with it, as long as they don't abuse me. I don't think I will need passers-by's attention to me when I go somewhere. I even often feel abused when I go somewhere and some greedy guys look at me impolitely. I don't enjoy their staring at me, different from that private student of mine who even feels adored. Frankly, when walking with her, or when I walk alone, I sometimes want to throw my high-heeled shoes to those guys with greedy eyes.

I am approaching my forty years of age now. Referring to what my private student said 10 years ago that people undergo second puberty in their mid thirties, well, it is high time for me to experience it, isn't it? LOL. But, no, I don't agree with my (present) private student of mine, that we will feel adored and admired when guys look at us whenever we go. I even feel disturbed with that. Only in the classroom I want full attention from my students, but not outside.

However, as a feminist who thinks that we, women, have freedom to do anything we want, apart from the fact that we are married or not, that we are having relationship with someone or not. That (present) private student of mine absolutely has right to do so, to attract guys' attention. LOL. Only she can control herself, her life, not her hubby, her children, moreover society.

------------ ------------ -----------
 Four and a half years later ...

In one serial of SEX AND THE CITY, Samantha Jones was illustrated as suffering from this kinda 'mental' disorder (?) She had no boyfriend in that serial, and in need of sex. On the train to California to accompany Carrie for her first book reading, Samantha busied herself to attract any guy she met for sex. Unfortunately all guys she found belonged to the type of pious guy or loving the wife. She (almost) lost her confidence.

This illustration justified the second description I wrote above. And instead of using the term 'second puberty' (which is very Indonesia LOL), SATC used the term 'midlife crisis'. There are some reasons why people 'suffer from' this kinda 'mental illness'. Just do googling.

From my 'just so so' observation from statuses of those listed as my online buddies on FB, especially those who are more than thirty years of age, I recognized many are suffering from this symptom. LOL. Both men and women. It is very easy to spot on them. Just find 'lebay' status, or 'lebay' way when commenting. LOL. (absolutely the definition of LEBAY is very subjective. Say, Angie said that when I updated my status with those so-called poetic diction, she would say, "Mama lebay ahh!" If I may give my definition of 'my lebay', it is more to attract people's attention on how  attractive or good-looking they are, how kind-hearted they are, bla bla bla ...) Well, perhaps not just via statuses or comments, but it also can happen via chatbox. They try to attract other people by flirting. (Some people willingly shared their experience to me.)

This is just a very common phenomenon, I suppose. So, no need to feel embarrassed? LOL. And absolutely it is not sinful. (Don't talk about sin with this agnostic Nana P. LOL.)

It all comes back to ourselves to get rid of this 'symptom', especially if this happens (or is done) by married people. I suppose they don't want to sacrifice their marriage only for this cyber games, do they? Try to find the background why they do this, and take control of themselves. If we safely pass this through, we will indeed get more mature and settled (psychologically).

---------- ---------- ----------
PT56 20.16 161010

Rabu, September 15, 2010

Sexual Abuse

Just found it inside my mailbox. I wrote it four years ago. Well, I am not sure if I have posted it in one blog of mine (I sent it to a good friend of mine.) Now, I want to share it with my blog visitors.

When women become a criminal only coz of wearing “open” clothes—under accusation to turn on men’s desire when looking at their sexy body, why is there no law saying that men are allegedly guilty for abusing women by staring at women, or whistling at them or saying something abusive to women who don’t wear “open” clothes?
I was brought up in a very religious family, sent to an Islamic elementary school, indoctrinated that women’s body is the source of sin, that women can become the cause of the fall of men to hell due to women’s sinful sexy body. (Similar to the fall of Adam to this mortal world coz Eva gave in to Satan’s trick to eat “khuldi” (this is how Al-Quran named it)—the forbidden fruit in heaven.) Because of that, women are supposed to cover their source-of-sin body in order that men will not get aroused.
After I grew up (I always consider myself as a rebel), I started to wonder why all mistakes are put on women’s shoulder? Why is there no punishment for men who cannot control their lust?
Since knowing feminism, and got answers of my lots of questions (due to the gender bias in Islam) when I was a kid or teenager, I came to the conclusion that if women can control their lust (women are just human beings, like men, they have lust too!) when seeing naked men’s body, men are supposed to be able to control their lust too and not abuse any woman they want. I completely agree with Fatima Mernissi, a Muslim feminist Morocco saying, “If the rights of Muslim women become problems for a group of Muslim men, this is not engendered by Al-Quran or Islam itself, but this is caused by the different interpretation resulting in contradictory interpretation opposing the want of a group of elite Muslim men.”
Btw, some months ago, I had a middle-aged private student who was outstandingly pretty. We often took a walk for sightseeing or had lunch in a downtown mall. Contradictory from me that mostly wear my “uniform” (long black dress and black blazer—I am not an Amish nor Quaker though LOL) this student of mine loved wearing “sexy” clothes. The first time we went to have lunch, I felt very disturbed and annoyed by men who stared at her greedily. It sometimes made me want to throw my thick-heeled shoes to those men’s eyes! Later on, I realized, that not only her “sexy” clothes attracted those men with greedy eyes, she in fact also showed “inviting” body language to those guys. No wonder she didn’t feel abused. She herself invited those guys to abuse her.
As a feminist that believes women can do anything they like, as long as they enjoy it and not harm other people, I think it is okay for her to do that. However, as someone with very religious upbringing when I was a kid, I still sometimes didn’t understand why the hell that private student of mine attracted men’s attention demonstratively despite her outstanding beauty. Her beauty only was already enough to attract people’s attention. So, when she wore sexy clothes and showed inviting body language, it was just very understandable if then those guys with greedy eyes “abused” her. (Oh well, she herself didn’t feel abused. She felt flattered. LOL)
On the contrary from this flirt, LOL, I never show any inviting body language, I never wear any open clothes to attract men’s attention. I never feel ready to get abuse. Does it mean, then, I never get abused? Unfortunately, the answer was SOME GUYS WITH GREEDY EYES STILL ABUSE ME, by staring at me indecently, whistling at me, smiling at me abusively, etc.
Recently, in Indonesia there has still been a very “poignant” debate about pornography bill where it states that women are not allowed to wear body-hugging, tight and “open” clothes coz it will cause men to get aroused. A woman will be punished if she unintentionally/intentionally turns on men in public, by wearing “sexy” dress, for example. Why is there no statement that men will be put into jail when they cannot repress their lust in public?
I prove it myself that although I mostly wear clothes covering all over my body (except my head), it still doesn’t stop men to try to abuse me. Who can guarantee that issuing such a bill will stop sexual abuse? Something wrong is not in what women wear, or how women walk and move, not in women’s voice, but in men’s mind! 
Semarang March 16, 2006

Senin, September 13, 2010

Sekuler Fundamentalis

Ternyata 'penyakit' fundamentalis tidak hanya menghinggapi para kaum agamis. Mereka yang mengaku diri sekuler --pen juga para spiritualis -- pun tidak bebas dari penyakit yang satu ini. Misal, tatkala terjadi kecelakaan penusukan seorang pendeta, tanpa ba bi bu, seseorang berkomentar, "Itulah orang yang tidak memiliki otak. Kalau kata Tuhannya 'tusuk' ya tusuk saja. Toh mereka yang non Islam dihalalkan darahnya?" => Contoh seorang sekuler yang fundamentalis. Komentar seseorang yang ~ menurut pengamatanku ~ agamis fundamentalis dengan sinis mengatakan, "Gampang toh membeli baju gamis warna putih, kopiah warna putih, apa pun agama seseorang itu, kemudian datanglah ke sebuah gereja, dan tusuklah jemaatnya. Dan ... Islam lah yang kena getahnya, karena baju gamis dan kopiah memang mewakili kaum Muslim."

Dan, aku yang keukeuh untuk selalu cuek pada segala 'hasutan' untuk saling membenci satu agama dengan agama lain, dengan SENGAJA tidak mau mengikuti berita. (Call me as an ignorant person!) Mengikuti 'hasutan-hasutan' yang demikian, justru menurutku akan mempertajam kebencian pada mereka yang memeluk agama yang berbeda. Mending saja kita bersikap, "oh, ada yang terluka? bantu! selamatkan!" tanpa harus memandang 'agama ini agama itu'. Dan ... akibatnya, aku pun BLANK what has been really going on.

Mengapa orang terus saja memendam benci kepada sesama umat manusia yang 'kebetulan' memeluk agama yang berbeda?

Mengapa orang terus saja bertingkah memancing di air keruh, mengadu domba antar pemeluk agama?

Mengapa orang terus saja serakah akan kekuasaan?

Dan aku tetaplah menjadi yang naive. :'(

Berikut ini adalah artikel yang kuberi judul SEKULER FUNDAMENTALIS, yang kupost di FB beberapa bulan lalu, menghilang tatkala aku 'kabur' dari FB selama empat hari. (Untung telah kupost di blog, sehingga bisa kumunculkan lagi di sini.)


After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But the government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right or wrong, but conscience? (from Civil Disobedience by Thoreau)  

Artikel ini bermula dari tulisan lamaku yang berjudul "My Spiritual Journey" yang ku repost di FB beberapa hari lalu. Seorang sahabat menulis komentar, "what a spiritual snob you are ..." Aku menjawab, "I am absolutely not a spiritual snob. An intellectual snob, well, yes you can say that again!" Dia menjawab, "Iyalah, bermula dari ranah cognitive kemudian menjalar ke ranah affective ..." Dengan bercanda aku bertanya kepadanya, "Spiritual snob beda kan dengan religious snob? Di Indonesia banyak kan religious snob yang percaya bahwa mereka itu calon masuk surga, sedangkan yang lain masuk neraka ..." Diskusi ini kita lanjutkan lewat INBOX, karena khawatir bakal kena UU -- you know what you it is. Dan, dia pun mengenalkanku pada istilah "fundamentalist secular". Istilah yang langsung membuatku penasaran, "apaan tuh fundamentalist secular? emang ada ya?"

Istilah 'fundamentalist secularism' berasal dari dua kata 'fundamentalism' dan 'secularism'. Wikipedia mendefinisikan 'fundamentalism' sebagai suatu keyakinan yang sangat kuat pada prinsip-prinsip dasar (paling utama agama), sebagai suatu reaksi terhadap kehidupan sosial yang modern. Atau dengan kata lain, fundamentalisme adalah kepercayaan yang kuat terhadap agama dalam menghadapi kritik-kritik yang ditujukan kepada agama tersebut.

Karen Armstrong, penulis buku "History of God" menyatakan gerakan fundamentalisme sebagai jenis spiritualitas yang muncul sebagai jawaban terhadap ketakutan bahwa kehidupan modern akan mematikan keyakinan atau agama mereka. Gerakan ini diikuti oleh para fundamentalis tiga agama samawi, Nasrani, Yahudi, dan Islam.

'Secularism'menurut Wikipedia adalah konsep dimana suatu negara seharusnya berdiri terlepas dari agama. Sekularisme memberi hak kepada warga negara untuk terbebas dari ajaran agama, dan kebebasan dari paksaan dalam memeluk agama -- maupun tidak memeluk agama -- dan tidak memberikan keuntungan khusus bagi satu agama tertentu. Hal ini berarti keputusan maupun undang-udang yang dihasilkan oleh negara haruslah terlepas dari pengaruh agama manapun.

Apakah 'fundamentalist secularism'?

Tobias Jones, pengarang buku "The Dark Heart of Italy" dalam menyatakan "Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians*". -> "Fundamentalis sekuler merupakan 'totalitarian' baru." Sebagai contoh fundamentalis sekuler, dia menulis kasus pelarangan mengenakan jilbab bagi siswa-siswi sekolah di Prancis. Hal ini berarti pemerintah tidak memberi kesempatan bagi warga negara untuk mempraktikkan ajaran agamanya secara bebas. Sebagai contoh lain, Jones menulis tatkala pemerintah menganggap pemakaian kalung salib, jilbab, ataupun penutup kepala sebagai suatu hal yang tidak menghargai pemeluk agama lain.

Hal ini mengingatkanku pada sebuah topik klasik pada waktu aku kuliah di American Studies. Pada tahun 1620, sekelompok orang yang disebut 'the Pilgrims" bermigrasi dari Inggris ke Amerika Utara, dengan menaiki kapal "Mayflower". Di 'tanah yang baru' mereka mendirikan koloni Plymouth di Massachussetts. Mereka pergi meninggalkan tanah kelahiran mereka karena disana mereka tidak mendapatkan kebebasan untuk mempraktekkan ajaran agama yang mereka peluk. Namun, tatkala mereka berhasil membangun sebuah 'negara' (koloni) baru, mereka ternyata melakukan kekerasan yang sama kepada para pemeluk kepercayaan lain. Sekelompok orang yang kukuh memeluk agama yang lain dari sang penguasa harus pindah ke tempat lain, atau mereka akan dihukum gantung.

Apakah sekulerisme fundamentalis hanya ada di negara-negara barat?

Sekulerisme ini tumbuh pesat dimana-mana, seiring dengan kehidupan modern yang merambah banyak negara di dunia, termasuk Indonesia. Indonesia bukanlah negara sekuler. Indonesia juga bukan negara Islam meski memiliki MUI yang jelas-jelas mencampuri kehidupan beragama warga negaranya dengan mengeluarkan banyak fatwa yang sebenarnya tidak perlu. meski ada juga pemerintah propinsi yang telah mengeluarkan undang-undang yang berdasarkan agama Islam.

Aku tengarai banyak orang di Indonesia (yang kukenal lewat dunia maya) yang mengklaim diri sebagai sekuler, mereka meyakini bahwa negara seharusnya memisahkan urusan kenegaraan dengan ajaran agama, pemerintah seharusnya memberikan hak kepada warga negara untuk memeluk agama maupun untuk tidak memeluk agama. Para sekuler ini -- aku termasuk di dalamnya -- tidak mencampuradukkan ajaran agama dengan kehidupan sehari-hari mereka. Mereka juga percaya bahwa manusia seharusnya saling menghormati agama masing-masing, tidak menghakimi bahwa orang lain akan masuk neraka -- misalnya hanya karena mereka tidak shalat lima waktu sehari bagi Muslim atau karena mereka tidak ke gereja bagi Nasrani. Mengacu ke postinganku "My spiritual Journey", dimana topik utamanya adalah "tidak ada 'orang terpilih' begitu saja untuk masuk surga" akhir-akhir ini aku mulai melihat kecenderungan para sekuler itu -- dimana aku pun termasuk di dalamnya -- pun mulai berpikir bahwa mereka adalah 'orang-orang terpilih'. Mereka menertawakan orang lain yang memeluk agamanya secara teguh, yang melakukan ajaran agamanya secara tekun dan penuh keyakinan, mereka menganggap orang lain yang sangat mempercayai kekuatan doa untuk mengurangi penderitaaan mereka sebagai orang-orang yang menggelikan, Mereka telah kehilangan empati. Mereka tidak lagi menghormati keyakinan orang lain.

Dari contoh-contoh di atas, bisa disimpulkan bahwa fundamentalis sekuler berarti negara -- atau sekelompok orang -- yang memisahkan kehidupan mereka sehari-hari dari ajaran agama begitu kuatnya, sehingga mereka memiliki kecenderungan menihilkan adanya agama, bahkan dalam tataran yang lebih 'parah' lagi, mereka bisa jadi menganggap orang yang beragama sebagai orang jahat.

Sebagai seorang Muslim yang sekuler, aku ingin mengakhiri artikel ini dengan menyitir satu ayat Alquran "lakum dinukum waliyadin" => bagimu agamamu, bagiku agamaku. Atau yang lebih luas lagi, apa pun keyakinan yang kita miliki -- apakah kita adalah seseorang yang menganut satu agama, atau pun seorang agnostik, atau pun deist, nihilist, atau pun atheis, selalu lah kita menghormati orang lain, karena perbedaan itu indah, menghormati (kepercayaan) orang lain itu perlu, memiliki empati kepada orang lain itu 'awesome'.

Nana Podungge -- Muslim sekuler --
LL 18.38 190210

• (Totalitarianism = a form of government in which the state controls all phases of the people's lives. Totalitarianism allows only one party, headed by an absolute leader. He maintains his power over the party and the rest of the people by force and violence. Freedom of religion does not exist. => "The World Book Encyclopedia)

Mayoritas versus Minoritas

Sebuah tulisan yang kuhasilkan beberapa bulan lalu, menghilang dari note FB gara-gara aku deactivate akun beberapa minggu lalu. (Betapa admin FB ga canggih! :'( ) Sekarang kumunculkan lagi, kebetulan sedang heboh kasus penusukan seorang pendeta.

Memang kasus tidak hanya melulu masalah agama saja, namun kecenderungan kalangan mayoritas untuk menunjukkan kekuasaan atas kalangan minoritas terjadi dimana-mana. Di Indonesia 'kebetulan' Islam adalah agama kalangan mayoritas, sehingga Islam lah yang dituduh tidak peka kepada kaum minoritas. Di negara lain, bisa jadi sebaliknya, Islam yang dipeluk oleh kalangan minoritas diinjak-injak. Hal ini menunjukkan ketidakdewasaan manusia atas pemahaman agama yang dipeluknya. Para kaum 'spiritualis' yang bersikukuh pada aksioma bahwa agama hanya membawa mudhorot belaka (terutama pada mereka yang dengan buta 'memeluk' agamanya) dan memaksa segala agama enyah dari muka bumi ini juga mengesalkan ~ bagiku ~ karena hal ini berarti mengerdilkan hak seseorang untuk meyakini apa yang masuk akal baginya. Yang paling utama menurutku adalah ~ lagi-lagi ~ LAKUM DINUKUM WALIYADIN. Bagi yang ingin memeluk agama, menjalankan 'syariat perintah agama' sesuai kata hati dan pikiran mereka, SILAKAN. Bagi yang mengaku memeluk agama, namun membaptis diri sekuler ~ talking about myself :-p ~ ya SILAKAN. Bagi yang mau spiritualis, agnostik, deist, atau pun atheist, SILAKAN. And ... STAY ON RESPECTIVE PATH! Jangan mencampuri urusan orang lain, JANGAN merugikan orang lain.


After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But the government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right or wrong, but conscience?
(from Civil Disobedience by Thoreau)
Kutipan di atas dikirimkan kepadaku oleh seorang sobat terkasih setelah dia membaca salah satu note-ku (hasil copy paste dari seorang online buddy di FB yang berjudul “Jangan Gampang Bilang Sesat”). Dia yang sekarang sedang menimba ilmu di Ohio, yang mengenakan jilbab, yang bencinya kepada Sarkozi telah membuatku menghasilkan sebuah artikel yang kuberi judul “Sekuler Fundamentalis”.

Beberapa tahun lalu dia pernah mengirim email kepadaku, memprotes salah satu instansi di kota tempat dia tinggal karena telah melakukan satu perbuatan arogan kepada salah satu karyawannya. Si karyawan dipecat karena dia tidak pernah (bisa) menghadiri acara pengajian yang diselenggarakan oleh tempat dia bekerja, sehingga dia ditengarai bukan anggota salah satu ormas Islam terbesar di Indonesia, padahal instansi tempat kerjanya (mungkin) berbasis ormas Islam tersebut menilik dari namanya.

“What’s the point to be a supporter or a member of that organization? We are all Muslim, we do the religious teachings rigidly.” Tanyanya retoris.

Arogansi mayoritas telah membuat seorang karyawan kehilangan pekerjaan dan membuat istri dan anak-anaknya menderita. Dan hal ini terjadi bukan karena perbedaan keyakinan alias agama, namun “hanya” karena sang karyawan saking sibuknya mencari sesuap nasi demi anak dan istri tak bisa meluangkan waktu untuk menghadiri acara pengajian di kantor.

Beberapa minggu terakhir ini di FB aku mulai berinteraksi dengan para kaum ‘spiritualis’ yang tidak mempercayai ‘Abrahamic Faiths’ (baca Yahudi, Nasrani, Islam). Praktis aku sang sekuler menjadi pengamat antara kaum agamis (terutama Islam, yang telah ‘kugauli’ selama puluhan tahun, semenjak aku lahir) dan kaum spiritualis. Para kaum spiritualis ini pun memiliki latar belakang yang bermacam-macam. Menilik dari status-status mereka, aku bisa ‘membaca’ apakah latar belakang mereka adalah agama – baik Islam, Nasrani, maupun Buddha – ataukah satu ‘keyakinan’ yang mungkin bisa kumasukkan ke dalam kategori ‘kejawen’ (bagi orang Jawa) maupun agama ‘asli’ Nusantara yang lain. Membaca bagiku akan senantiasa memperkaya pengetahuan, pengalaman, dan jiwa. Aku lebih mengenal berbagai jenis cara manusia mencapai ‘kesadaran diri’, untuk berdamai dengan diri sendiri yang tentunya diharapkan akan berdampak mampu berdamai dengan orang lain.

Akan tetapi, aku ternyata pun menengarai adanya satu kecenderungan beberapa kalangan – kalau boleh mengcopy salah satu status ‘Birru Sadhu’, utamanya kaum spiritualis – untuk memaksakan pendapatnya kepada pihak lain bahwa hidup ini akan lebih damai jika semua orang menganut keyakinan mereka. Seperti tertulis di salah satu status seorang spiritualis, “Jika semua orang telah tercerahkan, maka aku akan menjadi pengangguran”. Arogansi “aku lah yang terbaik karena aku lah yang paling benar, aku lah yang akan masuk surga (bagi mereka yang percaya surga dan neraka ada) yang lain masuk neraka” ternyata dipercaya oleh banyak pihak – mungkin terlalu kebangeten jika aku bilang semua pihak. Saat ini karena Muslim adalah sang mayoritas di Indonesia, maka hujatan fundamentalis ditujukan kepada mereka. Bisa kita bayangkan jika posisi ini diambil alih oleh kaum spiritualis, maka akan ada istilah ‘spritualis fundamentalis’.

Jikalau dalam artikel-artikel yang kutulis aku lebih banyak mengkritik para fundamentalis dari kaum Islam, bisa dikatakan karena no matter what aku mengenal Islam jauh lebih dalam ketimbang agama lain, karena cintaku pada agama ini, agama yang seharusnya menjadi rahmatan lil’alamin. Namun karena telah dinodai oleh para kaum fundies, agama ini menjadi agama teroris. Jika aku diminta untuk mengkritisi agama lain, aku tak kan sanggup, karena aku tak tahu apa-apa.

Jika ada orang beragama lain mengkritik agamaku, aku hanya akan bergumam “You know NOTHING about my religion.” Islam akan tetap eksis sampai kapan pun, meski dihantam hujan asteroid sekalipun. Seperti aku pun percaya keyakinan-keyakinan lain akan tetap eksis pula (hilang satu tumbuh seribu), karena Allah yang membiarkan perbedaan-perbedaan ini ada.

Kembali ke apa yang ditulis oleh Thoreau, pemerintah memang harus memiliki ‘conscience’ – KESADARAN – bahwa yang mayoritas tidaklah selalu yang benar. (as always, it is much easier to say, it is very difficult to do.) Seperti yang selalu kutulis di artikel-artikel sebelum ini, akan kuakhiri tulisan ini dengan ide yang sama. “Lakum dinukum waliyadin.” Mari kita selalu menghormati satu sama lain.

Nana Podungge

PT56 18.18 070310