•    HOME   
•    NEWS   
•    BUSINESS   
•    INTERNATIONAL   
•    TECH   
•    SPORTS   
•    LIFE & TIMES   
•    OPINION   
•    MY JAKARTA   
•    BLOGS   
•    EYEWITNESS   

When I was little, every time I got into a verbal argument with my older sister there would be a point when I came up with a cutting remark that I knew she wouldn’t have a retort for.

At this point, my sister, who was physically bigger than me, would glare at me while struggling for words. Finding none that were adequate, she would resort to the ultimate weapon of the inarticulate. She would pinch my arm so hard that tears welled in my eyes. But I refused to cry, and bore the pain until she let go. She had the satisfaction of hurting me, but both of us knew who won the argument. I equated her anger and violence with a clear sign of defeat.

Since then I’ve been a great believer that you cannot win an argument except with a better line of argument, you cannot change someone’s opinion unless you provide a more persuasive one and you cannot force someone to share your belief unless you successfully come up with a more convincing explanation. Violence, censorship and criminalization of what is ultimately an abstract debate are clear signs of defeat, whether intellectual or moral.

And yet, force is often the favored way of settling an argument, especially if you’re too lazy, too thick-headed or don’t think properly about what is at stake. For example, it’s so much easier to beat and arrest someone — Alexander Aan, a civil servant in West Sumatra — for claiming on Facebook that God doesn’t exist than to come up with a better argument (posted on Facebook) that God does exist.

Or better still, leave the poor fellow alone with his beliefs because an opinion is just that, an opinion. Jails are good for those who kill hapless pedestrians because of drunk and dangerous driving, for instance; not for people with beliefs that don’t match our own view of the world. Imagine if thousands of Indonesians active on Facebook posted the same thing. We would waste a lot of time, prison space and resources on these atheists without changing their mind or proving the existence of God.

Authoritarian governments are inclined to curb freedom of expression because often these types of regimes rely on people’s ignorance and fear to legitimize their power. There is nothing more frightful to dictators than an enlightened and thinking population that asks a lot of questions and demands answers, for that would be the beginning of the end of their rule.

What is surprising is that there’s still the belief that an atheist deserves to be beaten up and treated like a criminal because this is the right way to deal with an opinion or belief that is contrary to the majority. If the authorities bother to think, they would see the absurdity of such a punishment. Surely the point of the country’s philosophy of a belief in God is to ensure a harmonious existence between the different religions and not necessarily to force a belief?

After all, if you really believe in God, wouldn’t you also believe that God’s existence is not threatened by a few unbelievers, and that those atheists are also God’s creation? And if the opinions of such dissenters are viewed as dangerous, then perhaps it is time to review the quality of one’s belief or come up with a more cogent theory. Either way, God is not the losing party in this argument, so why jail? The way I see it, the guy has won the argument. If God exists, surely God would be the first to defend him.

Another example of authorities trying to criminalize a point of view is happening right now in France, where the Senate is trying to pass a bill that would make it illegal to deny the Armenian genocide by the Ottoman Turks. Anyone denying the massacre that took part in the early part of the 20th century faces fines of $57,500 and a year in prison. In response to Turkey, which makes it a criminal offense to remember the massacre, France is behaving exactly like Turkey in repressing dissenters.

No doubt French President Nicolas Sarkozy has political objectives. But two authoritarian legislations don’t make a right, especially in the land of the free and enlightened. It is a testament to the world’s human diversity that we end up with a plethora of diverse views and arguments. Some of these views may be terrible, offensive, one-sided or just badly argued. But calling the police and arresting people with supposedly incorrect views is repressive and archaic. An argument must be met with an argument, not with force.

A 7-year-old girl I knew had a fight with her father. “I hate you, Daddy!” she screamed. Her exasperated father told her to go to her room until she came to her senses. After a while he relented and allowed her to have her food, saying she was not allowed to shout such things at her father. At which the girl replied calmly: “Yes, but I still hate you, Daddy.”

Desi Anwar is a senior anchor at Metro TV. She can be contacted at desianwar.com and dailyavocado.net.