changed and admitted that religious people may also voice their opinions and arguments based on their faith which of course are
comparatively less rational than secular-atheists Habermas in Mendieta and VAnatwerpen, eds. 2011. However, he still feels that religious
individuals should translate the “language of religion” and dogmas of the holy books into the universal rational language which can be
accepted by people of differing religions or no religion. In my opinion, Habermas and Rawls overvalue secular rationality
and ignore the fact that secular-atheists also do not mutually agree on what is rational. Everybody has assumptions and beliefs that may not be
rational. There is no universal scientific rational thought. All methods of thinking is formed through the process of history Hans Gadamer. For
instance, what is rational according to a Marxist is different to what is rational according to a liberal democrat which also differs to the views
of a neo-conservative. The differences in opinions of secularists are no less than the differences between a Muslim, a Hindu, a Christian, or a
Buddhist see: Charles Taylor in Mendieta and Vanantwerpen, eds. 2011. Even something that is rational to a follower of NU may not
certainly be what a follower of Muhammadiyah view as rational As Alastair MacIntyre said on the title of his book: Whose Justice, Which
Rationality? MacIntyre, 1988. These rational methods of thinking are no more universal that methods of thinking based on faith.
10.3 Religion, Politics and Economy in the Public Sphere
10.3.1 Religion, Politics and Economy as Empirical and Normative Realities in the Public Sphere
In the Indonesian context, it is almost impossible to imagine a public sphere free from the influences of religion, politics and money. Not only
is the Indonesian public sphere empirically already full of influences from money, political interests, and religious dogmas, most Indonesians
are just not too interested in the secular rational discourse world
Habermas expected. In a society where 99 admitted that religion is personally important, it is difficult to imagine religion being thrown out
of the public sphere. The foundation of the state is belief in the one and only God. The majority, who are Muslims, belief that Islam is relevant
throughout all aspects of social life not limited to individual private spheres. The Hindu community in Bali, Christians in Toraja or Catholics
in Flores would also disapprove if religion were cast out of the public sphere.
Thus is the case with public sphere that is free form the influence of money. In gift exchange culture, it is difficult to imagine a public sphere
unaffected by “envelopes” filled with money and other gifts. “Where’s the gift?” The current structure of economy has an enormous impact on
money. Low pay and salary means many people, including university lecturers, sustain the lives of their family through envelopes. The impact
of money can’t always be speculated. During political campaigns, people would reap gifts from all sides. A friend of mine told a story
about the head of district election in his village. From the two candidates, one gave everyone in the village Rp 75,000 respectively.
Consequently, the opponent gave everyone in the village Rp 150,000. Hence, everyone received Rp 225,000. Since the former candidate was
more popular, he won the election although he only gave Rp 75,000 per person. The latter candidate was furious. All his money was spent and
he got nothing. Moreover, is it possible for Indonesian public sphere to be free from
political influence? Indonesia still upholds a hierarchical culture of patron-client which highly values loyalty to superiors. The influence of
politics is part of the “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” culture. Political cleavages mean there are numerous people participating in the
public sphere, not as thinking individuals seeking their own truth, but as a person who is already part of a particular ethnicity, particular religion,
particular ideology, and is loyal to particular figures. The public sphere
