By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In Banda Aceh, Indonesia, two men were publicly caned after being convicted of violating Islamic law due to hugging and kissing. The men, aged 20 and 21, received 80 lashes each in front of an audience. This punishment is allowed under Aceh’s Shariah law, which permits caning for offenses like homosexuality. Human rights groups have criticized the practice as discriminatory and inhumane, despite local support.
Read the original article here
Two men publicly caned for hugging and kissing in Indonesia – the news, utterly horrific, paints a stark picture of a deeply troubling event. The fact that they were sentenced to “80 strikes each” is simply appalling. This incident immediately brings to mind the separation of religion and state – a concept that seems so crucial in preventing such blatant abuses of power. It’s easy to understand the frustration and anger that arise when witnessing such acts of intolerance.
It’s understandable to wonder what motivates such harsh treatment. The situation immediately recalls other countries that treat homosexuals with such disdain, and the question of what these nations might have in common is almost unavoidable. Perhaps it’s easy to see a pattern emerging. However, it’s critical to remember that this incident originates from Aceh, an autonomous province within Indonesia. This province operates under Sharia law, and while it’s representative of a particular region, it does not reflect the entirety of Indonesia.
The province of Aceh, often compared to the “Florida of Indonesia” due to its unique cultural and legal landscape, exercises significant autonomy. Sharia law is implemented there, setting it apart from the rest of the country. While it is essential to remember that this isn’t a nation-wide phenomenon, the fact that it happens at all is a cause for concern. There’s a hope that more public awareness of such events might shift perceptions and make people think about the tolerance of certain religions and cultures.
The notion that this is a “shitty country stuck in the Stone Age” is a harsh but perhaps understandable reaction to such events. It’s a sad reality, and the implications of religious practices on individual freedoms deserve careful consideration. There’s a real and present danger when any ideology, religious or otherwise, is used to justify such harsh treatment of individuals.
It’s important to recognize the complexity of the situation. While the actions stem from a specific interpretation of religious law, it is not representative of all religious groups. The contrast between Aceh and the rest of Indonesia highlights this point. It’s almost like comparing North Korea to South Korea – the difference is immense.
The former vice president of Indonesia, Kalla, deserves acknowledgment for his role in negotiating with the rebel movement. He managed to prevent even harsher measures, showing a desire to protect individual freedoms. It’s important to recognize that the push for Sharia law is often about power and control. Political Islam is the vehicle, and the clergy often use their position to entrench their influence. This situation evokes a feeling of profound sadness.
It’s hard to ignore the feeling that Aceh’s current situation hinders progress and is something that needs to stop. The focus on these issues overshadows other important aspects of Indonesia. The fact that tourists still visit the area even with these issues suggests a complicated relationship between the region’s reputation and its appeal.
The question of whether the men were even aware of the law, or simply didn’t care, is a pertinent one. Aceh’s legal system allows up to 100 lashes for offenses, including same-sex acts and sex outside of marriage. The potential for severe physical harm is very real; it is not hard to consider that this is essentially a death sentence.
The fact that these men were publicly caned is a significant point of emphasis. Why not do it privately? The public nature of the punishment serves a different purpose: to shame and deter. While the concept of “respecting other country’s culture” is often touted, such justifications become much harder to accept when the “culture” in question permits such inhumane actions.
Indonesia’s situation is complex, with Aceh being the most conservative province. The province next to it, for example, has a substantial Christian population, illustrating how different things can be in different parts of the country. This diversity highlights the significant differences within the nation, making comparisons to varying degrees of conservatism in the United States appropriate.
It’s essential to reiterate that this happened in Aceh, home to the Islamic Fundies in Indonesia. The rest of the country makes fun of that specific province. This helps illustrate how different Indonesia can be. It’s like saying all of America is as fundamentalist as Harrison, Arkansas or as accepting as the Bay Area. This is a reality of a nation that is hard to understand without context.
It is very important to separate the behavior of a minority from the majority. To condemn an entire religious group based on the actions of a few is unfair. Also, a person can be very intelligent and religious, but not necessarily wise. One province is far different from the rest. The difference between Aceh and the rest of Indonesia is bigger than between most neighboring countries in this world. Much more than between the most progressive and most conservative state in the United States.