Familiar story about how people struggling against inquisition become inquisitor over the time
“These sects are poured in Armenia. The Europeans had imposed it on our neck. All of them should be burnt.” This is the standard response that I hear on the street, and read in the Internet when it comes to freedom of conscience. This publication, probably, will deserve the same reaction. I just want to remind you that the idea of “burning” is not particularly new, however, the norm of freedom of conscience is provided for by the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia. And as to when and why this idea incurred, it has quite instructive story.
The freedom of conscience was first spoken during the period of the Reformation, i.e. in the 16th century. “Heretics should not be suppressed and persecuted by external force, we must struggle against them only by God’s word. Since sect is a spiritual phenomenon, it can not be eliminated by earthly fire or wiped out by earthly water,” wrote Martin Luther in the beginning of his reformistic career. This is ad notam to our clergymen, who nowadays are constantly asking for the state’s intervention in the fight against sects. They are even suggesting to establish a religious police. Because they can not fight against them by the word of God.
However, Luther had also deviated from his declared principles. As any democrat, “semi-democrat” or a reformer, Luther did a good start, but continued much worse. This is a well-known phenomenon to us: the “democrats” come to power, declare that now it would be a perfect freedom, but 2-3 years later later they begin making reservations. “We generally are democrats, but they go too far, and we have to…” and so on. Followed by the same spirit, Luther began to distinguish between “ideological opponents”, which, of course, should not be burnt on the fire, and the “rebels” (to say in modern language “provokers of mass riots”), which is probably worth pursuing.
Read also
Decisive step was made by John Calvin. He ordered (legally, by the verdict of Geneva Magistrates) to burn the Spanish physician and naturalist Miguel Servet in 1553, who did not agree with some provisions of Calvinism. In fact, if today some people in Armenia think that Calvinism is too liberal religion, almost atheism, they were in delusion. In its classic form, this direction is much more “totalitarian” than other Christian teachings (ours, in particular), because unlike the latter, it is trying to regulate a person’s private life and professional career in a very harsh form. It is not accidental that recently a Protestant sect was pouring fire on the heads of people “in the name of God”.
And so, John Calvin was the first struggling against Catholic inquisition and burning on fires; he replaced them with his own Protestant inquisition and burning on fires. Also a very familiar story: “Youth-Calvinists” welcomed this revenge, one of them even devoted a “spiritual song” on the occasion of this death penalty, however, the response in Europe was quite cold. As Voltaire wrote later, this single burning leaves a greater impression than hundreds burnings of Catholics.
After these events, not in modern Brussels or Strasbourg, as some believe (“what do they want to impose on our neck.”), but in Europe of the 16th century, advanced, moreover, deeply, sincerely religious people started to think about real freedom of conscience. Because as then so as now, this is the only rational solution.
Following the execution of Servetus, feeling minded people’s complaints, Calvin had nothing to do but to justify himself, and he published a paper called the “Protection of true faith and Holy Trinity after terrible delusions of Servet.” It is interesting that trying to disclaim his personal responsibility for the death penalty, he made all member of Geneva Magistrates (the so-called “Calvin’s office”) to sign underneath his work. The content of the work was simple: we had burnt, good for us, moreover, what we did, we did for the glory of God.
There should be only one to answers. Recognized authorities, like Michele Monte and Erasmus of Rotterdam, although apparently they were not so fond of Calvin’s activities, were keeping silent; they did not want to intrude into daily debate. And, their like-minded person, Sebastian Castellio, acted in the role of a criticizer, who is also considered the first ideologist of the freedom of conscience. His pamphlet was called “Should Heretics be Persecuted?.”
Castellio’s judgments were simple and logical. Is there any word about heretics in the Holy Scripture? No, the targets here are profanes, who should be punished. But, whether Catholics, Protestants, and Baptists who kill each other by the accusation of being a heretic are profane. Not at all, they are all religious people, they simply believe, each in its own way. Are the Turks, Jews, and Gentiles profane? No, they also have their own gods. How are you sure that your teaching is the only right thing?
“Consequently, the only reason why we call a man a heretic is that he does not agree with our opinion,- concludes Castellio, and adds, – people are so confident in their opinion, to be more precise, in its errorless that arrogantly ignore others. This arrogance generates austerity, and persecution.” According to the theologian, the state can nowise interfere in this affair and consider this-or-that religion belief a crime. The state should require only the execution of its laws. Will modern Armenian clergymen agree with these judgments of Castellio and the abovementioned citizens complaining about “pouring of sects”? Hardly.
Moreover, during the future centuries, in all countries, at all times, people who are thinking like Erasmus, Montes or are always the minority. This is probably the very reason why inconsistent reformer Luther and Calvin having dictator tendencies have left much more important marks in the history than Sebastian Castellio who was consistently defending humanity and freedom. Further historical development has produced other numerous examples of similar injustice.
Of course, freedom of conscience is a broader notion that freedom of religious beliefs. This topic at least requires one more article.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
