Daniel Gobey (2004) says in the early 1960s, many people believe is the truth of the idea of Konrad Lorenz, a ethiolog (expert "psychology" of animals) from Germany, which states that violence, not unlike hunger, is a human instinct as part of his nature which physical. In the next decade, the 1970s, people were more concerned with what was later named as a "vicious circle" of violence.
According to them, violence has thickened as more than just instinct of nature, and a culture, a culture of violence. If that observation is true, meaning slowly inter-human relations in this century not only experience an escalation of violence cumulatively, but also the sophistication, sophistication, violence. Borrowing the bitter experience of the poor of South America, Dom Helder Camara, memfatwakan how a violence never stand
own. He was born to follow, and become the next fantasy chain of violence that has previous-kelindan intertwine. Initially the violence was born dibidani by the selfishness of rulers and greedy groups.
Next violence also emerged as an answer from the justice fighters who took up arms to overthrow the despotic rulers. Violence will re-emerge as the only way to think that any of the rulers to suppress both forms of violence. That's so on, until almost incessant flow of blood to nourish a grudge that would not go menuntas.
Where did this vicious circle appear? How could she appear? Could he also leads? All these are important questions, which was often too difficult to answer. But clearly, people start lists their degree of violence prevailing in a society
as one indicator of socio-cultural evaluation of the transformation that was happening in it. He will be interlinked with social integration, justice, human rights, economic progress, and so when it raised a new question: the extent of transformation
As said Magnis Suseno (2003) Dialogue can we start from the neighborhood kids. Dasar.Hak school environment including religious freedom in regard religious instruction issue means, the parent has the right to determine whether, where, in religion whether their child should be given religious instruction.
However, parental rights also includes the right to have their child not be given religious instruction is not desired. Not only in public schools, but also in private schools. For example: Catholic school (which I use as a further example) are entitled to only offer Catholic religion classes. Muhammadiyah schools entitled to offer only the religion of Islam. But the former is not entitled to require students who are not Catholics take Catholic religion classes. Similarly, the second, no right to require that students take the lesson of Islam is not Islam.
Thus, pluralism is not only applicable at the national level. When a particular religious homage to a private school decided to open the door for the children of religious plurality, the establishment of their respective parents must be respected. That's the name of pluralism.
School-based religions are basically self-limiting in children co-religionists. Thus, the problem of religious instruction is lost. But Catholic education in this country, as pioneered by the late Rama van Lith, also worldwide, is never as narrow as that. Catholic schools are always open to children of all religions, not to make them Catholic, but because Catholics hold beliefs that quality of education by parents and later by those who through the schools was remembered with pride.
Always sought, in addition to excellent lessons in each subject, education so that children become human-grade, intelligent, open, character, capable of responsibility, justice-minded, broad-minded culture. Quality as a human being it will only grow if the religious orientation of children, and parents (relationship of trust between schools and parents are always overlooked) is respected.
To children by their parents do not want to follow the Catholic religion classes, there are two possibilities. They offered a lesson of ethics or morality. But, in fact even better when given a lesson in their own religion. Argument "Catholic schools give cooking lessons to Islam (for example)!" I consider legitimate, but petty. If schools want to give a full education and to assume that religious instruction is important, what is more appropriate if the children of other religion-provided sufficient quantities so that schools are not burdened with high cost-offered a lesson in the religions of each?
Here the objection is always raised: Is the lesson of other religions will not be a "Trojan horse"? After learning of other religions, places of worship should be provided, teachers of religion may be shortsighted and even damage the harmonious atmosphere between pupils of different religions? Is a concern "Trojan horse" that is what is behind the objections of private schools provide religious instruction to others.
Concerns that, unfortunately, not without reason. So if others are expected to be given religious instruction, for example, Catholic schools, to be clear, the school's distinctiveness as a Catholic school is not disturbed. Most important: The right to choose their own school teachers, including all teachers of religion must be guaranteed. It can not be tolerated at all that outside agencies could include teachers of religion against the will of the school. Clear right to ensure that school teachers who teach inclusive vision of religion, humanist, and qualify an adequate intellectual
There are at least three schools that are not easy to reconcile nature
ie which are: (1) theism (a transcendent personal God and gave the revelation as in Judaism, Christianity and Islam), (2) Monism (who did not receive a transcendent God but the existence of an immanent basis as in Hinduism and Tao), and (3) non-theism (do not believe in god 'exists' and transcendent as in Buddhism).
Religious dialogue generally ignore this distinction for the sake of harmony.
