The Assassination of Dr. Tiller has brought forward many great diaries, But I've yet to see one that explores the nature of religious intolerance, specifically among Christians. While many Christians here attribute this to the actions of a 'lone nut,' he was spurred on by people who didn't see a fellow Christian, they saw a monster.
The fracture of the Roman Catholic hold over European life, the Reformation, sparked an explosion of theological thought. It also brought with it a debate, by a former colleague of the most oppressive ruler in the new, 'free thinking' world.
Below, is the collision of religion and murder. One in which laws were suspended due to the harmful nature of the offense. Where the law required expulsion, and that wasn't good enough - for a totalitarian ruler, and a flegling democratic council.
You might find it surprising that the three men who set in motion the push for religious tolerance, had one thing in common - Geneva. Yes, the city where we signed a treaty against inhumane treatment of prisoners of war. During the Reformation, Geneva was the site of a grand experiment, mixing democracy, and religion, with some rather serious problems.
Geneva's fledgling democracy had served the Roman Catholic Church it's eviction notice, and the coucils that ran the city took control of the Church property, and with it, the moral and religious aspects of the city. John Calvin was instrumental in shaping that explosive mix of democracy and Christianity. Calvin ruled Geneva in a manner much like an Ayatollah, where civil government bowed to his final judgement on religious, and civil matters alike. But, as the dogmatic divisions of Christianity grew, so did Calvin's intolerance for any dissention of his dogma, and views.
Michael Servetus, a Spanish theologan,physician, cartographer, and humanist, proposed that Jesus wasn't 'eternal.' That he came into existance, at the moment of Mary's conception; that the holy trinity were really one entity. Which drew the ire of both the Roman Catholic Church, and Protestants alike. After a very contentious discourse with Calvin, Calvin wrote to a close friend;
Servetus has just sent me a long volume of his ravings. If I consent he will come here, but I will not give my word for if he comes here, if my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive
And he didn't. Servetus, on the run from the Roman Catholics, was apprenended after attending a sermon by Calvin. Although by Geneva law, the worst that could be done to him would have been expulsion, the council's disregarded the law, and condemned him to death. Calvin argued that he be beheaded, but the council, and his friend, andmonished him for his 'leniency.' On the 27th of October, 1553, he was burned at the stake, with the alleged last copy of his heretical book chained to his leg. And from accounts, it wasn't a particularly well carried out execution, as the fire burned rather slowly. His last words, "Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me." Even during his brutal execution, he reamined faithful to his particular take on his religion.
That execution, even in it's time, sparked controversy. Calvin wrote a book defending the practice of putting heretics to death, in both Latin, and French. In Calvin's "Institutions of the Christian Religion", the final section deals with civil authority, and the 'laws of God;
But in that obedience which we hold to be due to the commands of rulers, we must always make the exception, nay, must be particularly careful that it is not incompatible with obedience to Him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject, to whose decrees their commands must yield, to whose majesty their sceptres must bow. And, indeed, how preposterous were it, in pleasing men, to incur the offence of Him for whose sake you obey men! The Lord, therefore, is King of kings. When he opens his sacred mouth, he alone is to be heard, instead of all and above all. We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. If they command any thing against Him, let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they possess as magistrates - a dignity to which, no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God. On this ground Daniel denies that he had sinned in any respect against the king when he refused to obey his impious decree, (Dan. 6: 22,) because the king had exceeded his limits, and not only been injurious to men, but, by raising his horn against God, had virtually abrogated his own power. On the other hand, the Israelites are condemned for having too readily obeyed the impious edict of the king. For, when Jeroboam made the golden calf, they forsook the temple of God, and, in submissiveness to him, revolted to new superstitions, (1 Kings 12: 28.) With the same facility posterity had bowed before the decrees of their kings. For this they are severely upbraided by the Prophet, (Hosea 5: 11.) So far is the praise of modesty from being due to that pretence by which flattering courtiers cloak themselves, and deceive the simple, when they deny the lawfulness of declining any thing imposed by their kings, as if the Lord had resigned his own rights to mortals by appointing them to rule over their fellows or as if earthly power were diminished when it is subjected to its author, before whom even the principalities of heaven tremble as suppliants. I know the imminent peril to which subjects expose themselves by this firmness, kings being most indignant when they are condemned. As Solomon says, "The wrath of a king is as messengers of death," (Prov. 16: 14.) But since Peter, one of heaven's heralds, has published the edict, "We ought to obey God rather than men," (Acts 5: 29,) let us console ourselves with the thought, that we are rendering the obedience which the Lord requires when we endure anything rather than turn aside from piety. And that our courage may not fail, Paul stimulates us by the additional considerations (1 Cor. 7: 23,) that we were redeemed by Christ at the great price which our redemption cost him, in order that we might not yield a slavish obedience to the depraved wishes of men, far less do homage to their impiety.
Calvin believed that it was the imperitive of Christians, to not only put heretics to death, but that any law created by man, which conflicted with the law of god, should be basically ignored.
Sebastian Castellio, was formally schooled in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. He taught himself Italian and German. He was drawn to the protestant movement by Calvin's increasing reputation for reform, and his championing of freedom. After thier meeting, Calvin was impressed with Castellio, and when Calvin returned to Geneva after a period of mutual exile from the city, he offered Castellio a teacher's position, and Rector of the newly organized Geneva university.
Not earning enought to support his family on a teacher's salary, He applied for a pastor's position, and was accepted by the council - and Calvin issued a protest,. Calvin's opposition to Castellio's preaching , was based on a disagreement of a few passages of scripture. Calvin brought charges in the council against Castillio, but the council was leery of charging one of it's most respected citizen's, so he was censored, and his Pastoral duties were suspended. Castellio asked to be dismissed from his duties, and left Geneva, disheartened and disgruntled. By not ginving in to Calvin's dogged defense of his own doctrines, the once powerful and resepected rector of the Geneva university was homeless, and destitute for years.
After Sevretus' vicious execution, Castellio wrote a scathing rebuke of the practice of persecuting heretics, "whether heretics should be persecuted". Among other things, Castellio said:
We degenerate into Turks and Jews rather than convert them into Christians. Who would wish to be a Christian, when he sees that those who confessed the name of Christ were destroyed by Christians themselves with fire, water and the sword without mercy and were more cruelly treated than brigands and murderers? Who would not think Christ a Moloch, or some such god, if he wished that men should be immolated to him and burned alive? Who would wish to serve Christ on condition that a difference of opinion on a controversial point with those in authority be punished by burning alive at the command of Christ himself more cruelly than in the bull of Phalaris, even though from the midst of the flames he should call with a loud voice upon Christ, and should cry out that he believed in Him? Imagine Christ, the judge of all, present. Imagine Him pronouncing the sentence and applying the torch. Who would not hold Christ for Satan? What more could Satan do than burn those who call upon the name of Christ? O Creator and King of the world, dost Thou see these things? Art Thou become so changed, so cruel, so contrary to Thyself? When Thou wast on earth none was more mild, more clement, more patient of injury. As a sheep before the shearer Thou wast dumb. When scourged, spat upon, mocked, crowned with thorns, and crucified shamefully among thieves, Thou didst pray for them who did thee this wrong. Art Thou now so changed? I beg Thee in the name of Thy Father, dost Thou now command that those who do not understand Thy precepts as the mighty demand, be drowned in water, cut with lashes to the entrails, sprinkled with salt, dismembered by the sword, burned at a slow fire, and otherwise tortured in every manner and as long as possible? Dost Thou, O Christ, command and approve of these things? Are they Thy vicars who make these sacrifices? Art Thou present when they summon Thee and dost Thou eat human flesh? If Thou, Christ, dost these things or if Thou commandest that they be done, what has Thou left for the devil? Dost Thou the very same things as Satan? O blasphemies and shameful audacity of men, who dare to attribute to Christ that which they do by the command and at the instigation of Satan!
This champion of free thought was a pioneer and visionary, among pioneer's and visionaries. A champion of limited government, and the seperation of church and state. One who saw the inequties within his own religion, but not in the religion of others.
These three men were all geniuses during an age of upheaval. Their interaction created the system of governance we implemented, that is being usurped by iron fisted Calvins. So, the next time some fundamentalist starts spouting about the "christian nation" we are, remind them of these three men, and the prices paid by two of them.
I conclude with a last quote from Sebastian -
"We can live together peacefully only when we control our intolerance. Even though there will always be differences of opinion from time to time, we can at any rate come to general understandings, can love one another, and can enter the bonds of peace, pending the day when we shall attain unity of faith."
From a staunch atheist, to this sentiment, I say, Amen.