Model 3, which will be discussed in this chapter, is a response to various problems of the religion-state relationship that arose in Model 2. It fundamentally criticizes the hegemonic position of the state over people' religious activities and radically attempts to present a more feasible format of the religion-state relationship for Indonesia. Like Model 2, Model 3 departs from the sociological construct that Indonesia is a pluralist country and that any attempt to establish national integrity must, therefore, be in line with the principles of pluralism. For Model 2, the principle of pluralism lies in religious awareness and the importance of the role of the state in maintaining people' religions. Greatly dependent on the state, they reject the idea of secularization. For Model 3, on the other hand, the principle of pluralism lies in the separation of the role of religion and the state. Pluralism, this model argues, would not work properly if the state interferes too much in people' religious activities.

This chapter will discuss Model 3 in the light of divergences between the two models. It first examines the intellectual origins of the model and how this model is fundamentally different from the previous ones. To make the comparison and the argument consistent, I will examine the same problems addressed in the previous model, namely the perception of secularization, the problem of religion-state relationship, the attitude towards religious pluralism, and the conception of an alternative economic system.

INTELLECTUAL ROOTS OF THE MODEL

In contemporary discourse on political philosophy in the West, the idea of the minimal state has been portrayed as paragon of a liberal state. Robert Nozick, the most respected thinker of this idea, believes that the less the state interferes in people' affairs, the better the state will function.