The Origin of the Indonesian Blasphemy Law and its Implication towards Religious Freedom in Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article elucidates the chronology of the insertion of Undang-Undang Penistaan Agama (‘the Indonesian blasphemy law’) in Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Pidana (‘the Indonesian Criminal Code,’ later mentioned as KUHP). The law aims to prevent a religious elements; such as holy books, rituals, saints, etc. from offences. In the postauthoritarian Indonesia, this law has been used to ban individuals and minority groups by religious groups, state apparatus, and politicians. This has caused a dispute and debate in the society because there are several groups most of whom are intellectuals and human rights activists, who consider that the law is against Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 (‘the Indonesian Constitution 1945,’ later mentioned as UUD 45). They have urged the government through Mahkamah Konstitusi (‘the Constitutional Court of Indonesia,’ later mentioned as MK) to remove or revise it. This article attempts to answer the questions of how blasphemy law is formulated and then inserted in the Criminal Code and how it has defined religious freedom in Indonesia. Its aim is to understand the historical aspects of the law and the interpretation of religious freedom in Indonesia. The data of this article were collected through library research (books, newspapers, articles, CDs, etc.) and ethnography (observation and interviews). The results show that the Indonesian government has struggled to locate the definition of religious freedom and tend to be inconsistent in dealing with dispute of blasphemy law. In many cases, it ends in favor with the more powerful voice in public.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".