The Catholic Bishops of Indonesia have asked the government to take strong action against all forms of intolerance, especially when it involves violence. This comes after several recent attacks on Christian places of worship and schools. They emphasized that anyone who causes trouble, particularly by targeting prayer and worship, should not get away with it.

This appeal was supported by leaders from Confucian, Buddhist, and Protestant communities, showing a united front. They pointed out that Indonesia's Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and worship. Therefore, they stated that the government and law enforcement must step in to stop these kinds of events from happening again.

The Bishops are calling for authorities to prevent and investigate all acts of violence, obstruction, or damage to places of prayer. They believe that protecting religious freedom is a job for everyone, including the government, religious harmony groups, and all people. Places of worship should always be safe and respected spaces. Religious leaders are also encouraged to guide their followers to practice their faith peacefully and to not be swayed by words that cause division. The statement concluded by saying that any act of intimidation or restriction of religious activities is against the law and harms the values of living together as citizens.

Original article

Actionable Information: This article provides no actionable information for a normal person. It reports on a request made by religious leaders to the government, rather than offering steps individuals can take.

Educational Depth: The article offers some educational depth by explaining the context of the appeal (attacks on religious sites) and referencing the Indonesian Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom. However, it does not delve into the history of religious intolerance in Indonesia, the specific causes of the recent attacks, or the legal mechanisms available to citizens to report or address such issues.

Personal Relevance: The topic of religious freedom and intolerance is personally relevant to individuals in Indonesia, as it directly impacts their safety, ability to practice their faith, and the overall social fabric. For those outside Indonesia, it provides insight into religious freedom issues in other countries.

Public Service Function: The article serves a limited public service function by reporting on a significant appeal from religious leaders concerning public safety and religious freedom. However, it does not offer any official warnings, safety advice, or emergency contacts.

Practicality of Advice: The article does not offer advice directly to the reader. The "advice" is directed towards the government and religious leaders, making it impractical for an individual reader to implement.

Long-Term Impact: The article highlights a call for action that, if heeded, could have a positive long-term impact on religious harmony and safety in Indonesia. However, the article itself does not provide the means for individuals to contribute to this long-term impact.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The article may evoke a sense of concern or solidarity among readers who value religious freedom. It reports on a call for peace and respect, which could be seen as hopeful. However, it does not offer direct strategies for managing emotions related to religious intolerance.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The article does not appear to use clickbait or ad-driven language. It reports on a serious issue in a straightforward manner.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The article missed opportunities to provide greater value. It could have included information on how citizens can report incidents of religious intolerance to the authorities, provided links to relevant government agencies or religious harmony organizations, or offered resources for interfaith dialogue and understanding. For example, a reader interested in learning more could search for "Indonesian Ministry of Religious Affairs" or "interfaith dialogue organizations in Indonesia."

The appeal made by the Catholic Bishops and supported by leaders of various religious communities highlights a critical issue that, if left unaddressed, poses a significant threat to the fabric of local communities and the survival of kinship bonds.

The recent attacks on Christian places of worship and schools directly challenge the fundamental duty of protecting kin and ensuring their safety. When violence and intimidation target religious spaces, it not only endangers the lives of worshippers but also undermines the very foundation of community trust and harmony. The freedom to practice one's faith peacefully is a cornerstone of social cohesion, and its violation erodes the sense of security and belonging that families and communities rely on for their well-being and continuity.

Furthermore, the call for authorities to intervene and prevent such acts of violence is a recognition of the importance of local responsibility and stewardship. It emphasizes that the protection of religious freedom is not solely the domain of religious leaders but a collective duty that involves the government, religious harmony groups, and every individual. This shared responsibility is essential for the survival of the clan, as it ensures that the care and defense of vulnerable members, including children and elders, are not left to the mercy of external forces but are actively upheld by the community itself.

However, the appeal also hints at a potential shift of family duties onto distant authorities. While it is crucial to involve law enforcement and the government in preventing and investigating acts of violence, it is equally important to ensure that this does not lead to an overreliance on external powers, thereby diminishing the natural duties of parents and extended kin. The protection and guidance of children and the care of elders are inherent responsibilities that must be primarily fulfilled within the family unit, with support from the community and, when necessary, external authorities.

The statement's emphasis on guiding followers to practice their faith peacefully is a crucial aspect of maintaining community trust and harmony. It underscores the importance of personal responsibility and the need for individuals to uphold clear duties that bind the clan together. When words of division and intolerance are allowed to spread unchecked, they not only harm the immediate victims but also poison the well of community trust, making it harder for families and communities to thrive and survive.

If the described behaviors and ideas of intolerance and violence are allowed to spread, the consequences for local communities and kinship bonds would be dire. It would lead to a breakdown of trust, an increase in social tensions, and a potential decline in birth rates as families feel less secure and more divided. The erosion of community harmony and the protection of vulnerable members would make it increasingly difficult for families to fulfill their survival duties, ultimately threatening the continuity of the people and the stewardship of the land.

In conclusion, the appeal made by the religious leaders serves as a stark reminder of the importance of local responsibility, community trust, and the protection of kin. It highlights the need for individuals and communities to actively uphold their duties, ensuring the safety and well-being of their members, especially the most vulnerable. If these fundamental principles are neglected or eroded, the survival and prosperity of the clan, and indeed the entire community, are put at risk.

This text shows a religious bias by focusing only on the concerns of religious leaders and their communities. It highlights the Catholic Bishops and leaders from Confucian, Buddhist, and Protestant faiths. The text does not mention any other groups or perspectives that might be relevant to religious freedom or intolerance in Indonesia. This selective focus helps to promote the viewpoint of these religious groups without considering other possible factors or opinions.

The text uses strong, emotionally charged words to describe the actions of those causing trouble. Words like "strong action," "violence," and "trouble" are used to create a negative impression of the perpetrators. This language aims to evoke a sense of urgency and outrage, pushing the reader to agree with the Bishops' call for action. It helps to frame the situation as a clear-cut case of wrongdoing.

There is a bias in favor of religious institutions and their role in society. The text states that "protecting religious freedom is a job for everyone, including the government, religious harmony groups, and all people." It also encourages religious leaders to guide their followers. This framing suggests that religious groups are central to maintaining social order and harmony. It elevates their importance without questioning their methods or potential biases.

The text presents a one-sided view by focusing solely on attacks against Christian places of worship and schools. It mentions "several recent attacks on Christian places of worship and schools" as the reason for the Bishops' appeal. However, it does not provide any information about whether other religious groups have also faced similar issues or if there are other contributing factors to intolerance. This selective reporting helps to emphasize the plight of Christians and garner support for the Bishops' demands.

The text expresses a strong sense of concern and outrage stemming from the attacks on Christian places of worship and schools. This emotion is evident in phrases like "strong action against all forms of intolerance, especially when it involves violence" and the emphasis that those who "cause trouble, particularly by targeting prayer and worship, should not get away with it." This concern is not just a mild worry; it's a serious alarm about the safety and respect for religious practices. The purpose of this emotion is to convey the gravity of the situation and to prompt a strong reaction from the government and the public. It aims to create a sense of urgency, making readers understand that these events are unacceptable and require immediate attention.

This concern is amplified by a feeling of disappointment and frustration that such events are occurring in Indonesia, a nation whose constitution guarantees freedom of religion. The statement that "Indonesia's Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and worship" highlights a perceived betrayal of fundamental values. This emotion serves to underscore the injustice of the attacks, suggesting that they are not only harmful but also a violation of established principles. By evoking this feeling, the message seeks to build a case for why the government *must* intervene, appealing to a sense of national identity and constitutional duty.

Underlying these emotions is a powerful call for unity and resolve. The support from Confucian, Buddhist, and Protestant leaders creates a feeling of solidarity, demonstrating that this is not an isolated issue but a shared concern. This unity aims to build trust and confidence in the message, showing that diverse groups are standing together for a common cause. The purpose here is to inspire collective action and to reassure readers that they are not alone in their desire for peace and religious freedom.

The text also conveys a sense of determination and hope for a better future. The Bishops are "calling for authorities to prevent and investigate all acts of violence" and believe that "protecting religious freedom is a job for everyone." This language is action-oriented, aiming to inspire a proactive approach to maintaining religious harmony. The repeated emphasis on safety and respect for places of worship ("should always be safe and respected spaces") reinforces this hopeful outlook. The purpose is to motivate individuals and institutions to actively participate in creating a more tolerant society.

To persuade readers, the writer uses emotionally charged words like "violence," "attacks," "trouble," and "division." These words are chosen to evoke a visceral reaction, making the situation seem more serious and the need for action more pressing than a neutral description might. The repetition of the idea that religious freedom must be protected and that places of worship must be safe serves to reinforce the emotional weight of the message. By framing any act of intimidation as "against the law and harms the values of living together as citizens," the writer is not just stating a fact but also appealing to a shared sense of civic responsibility and national values, making the reader feel that upholding religious freedom is a fundamental part of being a good citizen. This emotional framing aims to shift the reader's perspective from passive observation to active support for the cause.