The Religiosity of the Indonesian Constitution: Article 29(1) and Its Interpretation

Q4 Social Sciences
Ahmad Rofii
{"title":"The Religiosity of the Indonesian Constitution: Article 29(1) and Its Interpretation","authors":"Ahmad Rofii","doi":"10.31078/consrev722","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the problem of whether the inclusion of religious words in the Indonesian Constitution is tantamount to the establishment of a religious constitution. By focusing on the Constitution’s provision on “belief in the One and Only God” in Article 29(1), this paper challenges the received theory of the religiosity of the Constitution. To that end, the paper first investigates the doctrinal and historical implications of Article 29(1). Particular analysis concerns the implications of this constitutionalization for Islamic law. The Constitutional Court’s decision on interreligious marriage is critically examined as an example of how the received theory is endorsed and articulated in the case of marriage. This paper argues that Article 29(1) concerns all religions, without any implied exclusion of non-monotheistic religions. Moreover, this paper affirms what is called the Pancasila state, located between an exclusively secular state and a religious or theocratic state. This arguably makes the notion of the religiosity of the Constitution unjustified. The Constitutional Court, however, has interpreted Article 29(1) in a strongly religious sense, leading to religious supremacy and, accordingly, is contrary to how the Constitution ought to be understood.","PeriodicalId":32640,"journal":{"name":"Constitutional Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Constitutional Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev722","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This paper examines the problem of whether the inclusion of religious words in the Indonesian Constitution is tantamount to the establishment of a religious constitution. By focusing on the Constitution’s provision on “belief in the One and Only God” in Article 29(1), this paper challenges the received theory of the religiosity of the Constitution. To that end, the paper first investigates the doctrinal and historical implications of Article 29(1). Particular analysis concerns the implications of this constitutionalization for Islamic law. The Constitutional Court’s decision on interreligious marriage is critically examined as an example of how the received theory is endorsed and articulated in the case of marriage. This paper argues that Article 29(1) concerns all religions, without any implied exclusion of non-monotheistic religions. Moreover, this paper affirms what is called the Pancasila state, located between an exclusively secular state and a religious or theocratic state. This arguably makes the notion of the religiosity of the Constitution unjustified. The Constitutional Court, however, has interpreted Article 29(1) in a strongly religious sense, leading to religious supremacy and, accordingly, is contrary to how the Constitution ought to be understood.
印度尼西亚宪法的宗教性:第29(1)条及其解释
本文探讨的问题是,印尼宪法中加入宗教用语是否等同于宗教宪法的制定。本文以宪法第29条第1款关于“信仰唯一的上帝”的规定为中心,对现行的宪法宗教性理论提出了挑战。为此,本文首先调查了第29(1)条的理论和历史含义。特别分析了这种宪法化对伊斯兰法律的影响。宪法法院关于宗教间婚姻的裁决被严格审查,作为在婚姻案件中如何认可和阐明公认理论的一个例子。本文认为,第29(1)条涉及所有宗教,没有任何暗示排除非一神论宗教。此外,这篇论文肯定了所谓的潘卡西拉国家,它位于一个完全世俗的国家和一个宗教或神权国家之间。可以说,这使得宪法的宗教性的概念不合理。然而,宪法法院在强烈的宗教意义上解释了第29(1)条,导致宗教至上,因此违反了应该如何理解宪法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Constitutional Review
Constitutional Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信