It is shocking to discover that one of the longest running offices of the Inquisition was in Lima, Peru. The New World was early tainted by the horrors of religious intolerance. The Inquisition in Peru lasted from 1570 till 1820.
Today you can visit the state run-Inquisition Museum in modern Lima; off to one side of the busy Plaza Bolívar. Outside is life and sunny Latin optimism; inside it is dank and ominously dark and quiet. No more so than in the lower area, where you can look down onto rows of cylindrical holes sunk into the damp stone floor. Standing in these the incorrigibles languished till they confessed. One gets the feeling that while many doubtless confessed, few of them recovered enough or survived to experience an auto de fé, or act of faith, whereby they were publically expunged. Of course, the official records reflect this in relatively low figures for those fully processed by the Inquisition. The Inquisition functioned both as an effective way to remove any trace of the heretic and, perhaps more important, as an ever-present inhibition for independent religious activity. 
Since then we have thought to dig ourselves out of the moral pit exemplified by such methods.
That Peruvian Inquisition was still processing detainees on a certain July 4, 1776, when a unanimous declaration by the thirteen colonies in North America stated: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” They all were fine Protestant gentlemen who composed this document, and they surely must have had an inkling of the darkness to their south, even as they remained blind to the mote of slavery in their own eyes. To be sure, no humanistic declaration would dare frame itself otherwise. And no society honest to the words of the Bible held by most of them to be Holy Writ would think to say otherwise. Well, maybe not on that account—down in Peru they chanted the same texts and claimed to be defenders of the faith!
Sixty years ago the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and advocated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United Nations was founded in the aftershock of World War II. Millions of Jews had been incinerated for a complex mix of reasons that devolved down to them being a religious other—German Christendom being complicit in that Inquisition. Whole cities in Europe and Asia had been firebombed into oblivion. The spores of conflict had ended in a mushroom cloud, which hinted at evil yet to come. Time for sanity and respect for fellow creatures, if humankind were to survive above ground.
Looking over the full text of that 1948 declaration I am struck by the similarity to the U.S. declaration of 1776, and the implicit recognition of a higher moral authority. The first sentence in the Preamble states that “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”
Cherry-picking among equally strong Articles, I especially note Article 3: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”; Article 6: “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law”; Article 9: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile;” and most particularly Article 18, which states that “everyone has the right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public and in private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
If that last Article were universally honored, the majority of international conflicts would cease; for all too many have religious elements. The other articles show a continuing search for the application of those “inalienable” rights that must logically come from being creatures of a Creator. I see the influence of the United States’ founding documents in these articles.
How sadly ironic that in the latest round of conflict the United States has not been so careful to honor the inherent rights of the individual. To be sure, there were provocations by radical “religious” extremists. Beheadings and suicide attacks on civilians signaled that they were not bound by any conventions. But surely the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Human Rights do not stand or fall on reciprocity!
In the post-9/11 world we have been led down a well-worn path to regard the enemy as subhuman and not deserving of any regard. “Harsh” treatment and “softening-up” are concepts the media share all the time to little objection. No, we don’t torture, we tell ourselves, even as we debate water boarding. After first rejecting the Geneva Conventions for this new model of warfare, those in authority have now led us into a labyrinth of legalisms that ignore the role of morality and issues of human dignity. In short, we are rapidly going back to the world that once was—back to the world when, thinking they were doing the will of God, men mistreated their fellows even in the name of God.
This magazine rejects the self-serving historical revisionism of those who would reinvent the United States as some sort of structurally Christian republic. But for those who think that way—who think that ours is a manifest destiny from heaven to spread democracy and enlightenment across the face of the earth—I would ask especial care that we honor the principles of the Creator.
For those who see the United States as a purely secular civil society, I say look to our founding documents. Look to the international agreements we are party to. We must respect the dignity of man always.
If, like me, you see the United States as part of the great ongoing story of mankind searching for the higher values of civil and religious freedom, then you must have concern for the moment. If, like me, you are jealous for our continued religious liberties in the United States, then you must find concern at how easily we have put away some of the assumptions that undergird religious freedom. The end does not justify the means! An enemy is not an animal or a thing to treat in any manner we are moved to. We do not treat people a certain way just because it might come back to us in kind someday—but because human decency and the Word of God call us to charity.
A new look for liberty? I hope religious liberty continues and flourishes. I fear that in the doublespeak of the present civil debate we may move on to a different model. You know what I mean: we may have harsh methods involving the pain of organ failure or death, but we do not torture!
Let’s remember where we came from, what we left behind, and what we are protecting.
And, yes, there is a different look to this issue of Liberty magazine. You are bound to notice some differences and I hope they are all positive. For some decades now Liberty has been designed by Jeffrey Dever and his capable team. I wish to thank Jeff for a job well done. Just looking at the cavalcade of covers on display at our editorial office reminds me of how vibrantly they succeeded. Now with this issue we move into the era of designer Bryan Gray, and you should expect to see similar reminders of design excellence as he translates our articles into a visual whole. Welcome aboard, Bryan.
Liberty is about a serious topic: freedom of religion in a rapidly changing and increasingly dangerous world. Look to us to stay the course.
|
TOP LEVEL
Past Issues
Printer-friendly page
Send this page to a friend