Religious Education in Indonesia: An Empirical Study of Religious Education Models in Islamic, Christian and Hindu Affiliated Schools2016
This doctoral thesis would not have been possible without the support of certain institutions, and the guidance and valuable assistance of individuals who contributed in different ways to the completion of this work. I am able to mention only some of the many people to whom I am deeply indebted. First and foremost, I express my heartfelt gratitude to the One Supreme Lordship, for answering my prayers and for giving me the patience, strength, creativity and knowledge to complete this research and write this dissertation, despite several moments when I was tempted to give up. Thank you. This doctoral thesis would not have come about without the help, enthusiasm and ongoing support of my supervisors. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. C.A.M. Hermans for his critical questions during consultation meetings. He has broadened my horizons in a true academic atmosphere. I am very much indebted to him for his enthusiasm, insightful comments and constructive criticism, without which I would not have been able to finish my work in accordance with European academic standards. I am equally grateful to Dr. C.J.A. Sterkens, who brought me to Nijmegen and made it possible for me to study at Radboud University. With great expertise he introduced me to literature, helped to prepare my field work, critically appraised draft chapters and stimulated my academic development in general. With his well-organised professionalism, he was also of great assistance with administrative and even personal matters. I am thankful to have learned so much from him. This study would not have been possible without financial support from the Indonesian Directorate of Higher Education of the Ministry of Education and Culture (DIKTI), and the Netherlands Universities Foundation for International Cooperation (NUFFIC). Living abroad for four years is not always easy. Many friends in The Netherlands helped me to adjust to a new academic environment and culture. I would like to thank my Indonesian colleagues, Mas Tri, Mbak Lika and Mas Cahyo; also my fellow PhD candidates in the Department of Empirical Religious Studies, and specifically my roommate, Mijke Jetten, who was always available for sharing knowledge and helping me with discussions regarding data analysis. Also, many thanks to Frank Willems, Hade Wouters and Kenei Neipfe, who always encouraged me to work hard and to finish my dissertation. Many thanks to Bastiaan Schippers for translating my dissertation summary. I would like to thank my friends in the Indonesian Muslim Community in The Netherlands (KEMUNI): Mas Ary and Mbak Sofi, Mas Indra and Mbak Efi, Tante Esha and Tante Grace, and other KEMUNI members who gave me a warm and friendly welcome, supported me, and always prepared delicious Indonesian meals. I would also like to thank the Jemaat GKIN (Gereja Kristen Indonesia di Netherlands): Tante Erni and Om Gerald The, and Tante Jeanne and Om Gerard Wouters, who not only provided practical support, such as arranging accommodation for me and my family, but also warmly welcomed me to Nijmegen. I should also mention Mas Pujo Semedi, the Dean of the Faculty of Cultural Studies at Gadjah Mada University, who provided moral support and financial assistance for the finalisation of my dissertation. I would like to acknowledge the technical, financial and academic support of the Faculty of Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies of Radboud University, Nijmegen; in particular Maria Venhuizen, who took such good care of everything I needed for my studies. I am also grateful to Charles Herwijn and Alfred Bollen, who supported me with financial arrangements; and to Godelief de Jong, who assisted me with administrative arrangements for my studies. Last but not least, I would like to express my eternal gratitude to my wife, Fisqiyati Najiha, and my children, Ziauddin Dzilmi Yusuf, Keisha Makayla Rahima Yusuf and Aimar Herkens Yusuf, whose prayers, love, patience, and encouragement inspire my entire life and works. I dedicate this simple work to them all. Contents Chapter 1: Positioning the thesis 1.1. Research background 1.1.1. Types of religious education system in Indonesia a. Islamic schools b. Christian schools c. Hindu schools 1.1.2. The shifting policies of the State toward the development of religious education: an overview a. Early period of independence b. The New Order era c. The post-New Order era 1.2. Different levels of interpretation: macro-meso-and micro-level 1.2.1. Macro-level: the State's laws on religious education 1.2.2. Meso-level: the policies of the religiously-affiliated schools on religious education 1.2.3. Micro-level: student preference for types of religious education 1.3. Different types of religious education 1.3.1. Mono-religious model 1.3.2. Multi-religious model 1.3.3. Inter-religious model 1.4. Research questions 1.4.1. Macro-level: the State's laws on religious education 1.4.2. Meso-level: the policies of the religiously-affiliated schools on religious education 1.4.3. Micro-level: student preference for types of religious education 1.5. Research design 1.5.1. Research sample 1.5.2. Research methods and data collection 1.5.3. Design of data analysis Chapter 2: The State's laws on religious education CONTENTS viii 2.2.2. Types of State-religion relationship: an overview 2.2.3. The State-religion relationship in Indonesia a. The New Order regime b. The post-New Order regime 2.3. Research design 2.3.1. Data selection 2.3.2. Indicators of types of religious education 2.3.3. Design of analysis 2.4. Results 2.4.1. Preferred type of religious education a. Definition of national education system b. Aim of national education c. Aim of religious education d. Curriculum content of religious education 2.4.2. The State-religion relationship a. The influence of religious communities on policy making b. Statements of political factions justifying the draft 2.5. Summary and discussion Chapter 3: Religiously-affiliated school policies on religious education CONTENTS ix 3.3.1.2. Institutional influences on the policies of religious education a. Normative power b. Coercive power c. Utilitarian power 3.3.2. Research sampling 3.3.3. Design of analysis 3.4. Empirical findings 3.4.1. Types of religious education 3.4.1.1. Islamic schools 3.4.1.2. Christian schools a. In a majority context b. In a minority context 3.4.1.3. Hindu schools 3.4.2. Institutional influences on the policies of religious education 3.4.2.1. Influence of the State on the policies of religious education a. Islamic schools b. Christian schools i. In a majority context ii. In a minority context c. Hindu schools 3.4.2.2. Influence of the religious community on the policies of religious education a. Islamic schools b. Christian schools i. in a majority context ii. in a minority context c. Hindu schools 3.5. Summary and discussion Chapter 4: Student preferences for types of religious education CONTENTS x b. Centrality of own religion c. Relative group size 4.
An introduction to atheism, agnosticism, and nonreligious worldviewsPsychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2018
Research in psychology of religion has roots stretching back into the 19th century; however, only recently has it begun to give sustained focus on atheists, agnostics, and types of nonreligious worldviews (Coleman, Hood, & Shook, 2015; Streib & Klein, 2013). This development is important for at least two reasons. Nonreligion and nonbelievers in gods comprise a substantive and perhaps growing population that cannot be ignored. Also, the psychology of religion is incomplete without a consideration of those who are variously nonreligious and nonbelievers in gods. Before introducing the collection of nine articles for this special issue of Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, "Atheism, Agnosticism, and Nonreligious Worldviews," we reflect on estimated prevalence of atheist and nonreligious individuals, discuss misconceptions associated with nonreligion, note how investigating secular worldviews is critical for the psychology of religion, and provide a brief overview of the diversity of nonreligion. Atheism and formations of nonreligion have been a continually underestimated phenomenon in American psychology, which has primarily focused on American Protestantism (Hood, Hill, & Spilka, 2018). Social scientists rarely seek to investigate or acknowledge their existence across historical settings (cf., Brown, 2017), and whereas it is only recently that such positions have become discussed, "atheists have always been with us" (Rossano, 2012, p. 82). However, Keysar and Navarro-Rivera (2013) place estimates at between 450 million and 500 million individuals, or about 7% of the global population. Also nonreligious (self-)identification is increasing throughout the world (Keysar, 2017), and some researchers now consider places like Norway, Sweden, and East Germany to be overwhelmingly secular (Schmidt & Wohlrab-Sahr, 2003; Zuckerman, 2009). A recent analysis of the 2014-2016 European Social Survey found that nonreligious individuals were a majority population in greater than half of the 22 countries surveyed (Bullivant, 2018). Stinespring and Cragun (2015) provide an empirically grounded model suggesting the number of nonreligious could reach almost half of the United States population in the next 25 years, and research suggests that children are much less religious than their parents (Cragun, Hammer, Nielsen, & Autz, 2018; Twenge, Exline, Grubbs, Sastry, & Campbell, 2015). Research indicates there are hidden atheists in religiously sanctioned positions-pastors of congregations and Rabbinical leaders who hide their nonbelief from their faithful adherents (Dennett & LaScola, 2010; Shrell-Fox, 2015; The Clergy Project, 2018). In terms of First World nations, the United States stands out for its relatively low number of self-identified atheists, usually ranging between 3% and 12%, depending on the question asked. There remains a variety of limitations to consider when interpreting self-reports of religious and nonreligious identification (see Coleman & Jong, 2018). One of the most pressing issues to consider here is the perceived social undesirability of atheism worldwide (Gervais, 2014; Gervais et al., 2017; also see Cheng, Pagano, & Shariff, 2018), and the tendency of individuals to respond in socially desirable ways (Paulhus, 2002). In a recent study using the unmatched count technique used for studying socially sensitive topics (e.g., Raghavarao & Federer, 1979), Gervais and Najle (2018) found that as much as an estimated 32% of their representative American sample identified as atheist-almost tripling pre-Editor's Note. This is an introduction to the special issue "Atheism, Agnosticism, and Nonreligious Worldviews." Please see the Table of Contents here:
Ezra Iskandar
