One of the aspects that I left out of my article yesterdayon the fifth European Catholic-Orthodox Forum statement worth noting isits declaration on the origins of religious liberty. Freedom of conscience and the right to choose one’s own religion – two human rights extolled by the modern, secular EU – grew out of the Christian conception of human dignity. Specifically, they originate with second-century Christian writers, according to the fifth European Catholic-Orthodox Forum’s statement:

We have endeavoured to recall the first legal text to introduce freedom of religion, the Edict of Milan of the Emperor Constantine in 313. We alsovividlyrecallthat it was the Christian Apologists of the 2ndand 3rdcenturies who claimed the freedom to believe in a society that did nothave any understanding of thedistinction between religious and civil society. The Edict of Constantine proclaims the right of each personfreelytodecide for himself or herself the religious faithwhichhe or she is to follow.It insists that religious groups must coexist peacefully witheach otherin societythroughoutthe world. It indicates thatpolitical power should not favour a particular religion, but respect the “supreme divinity,” which each religion names according to its convictions. The legal foundations of the secularityof the modern stateare inspiredby these insights. Thestate guarantees religious freedom forall, but it is itself subjectto a natural ethical order from which it cannot escape.

The Christian writers known as “apologists” pioneered the modern era of religious liberty by saying that freedom of religion is an intrinsic part of human nature – a “fundamental human right” – that grows out of the religious understanding of human dignity. Further, only belief free from all coercion could be worthy of any deity, they argued in their petitionsfor the persecuted Christian faith to be granted toleration.

Tertullian. (Public domain.)

Tertullian wrote in his Apology(around 197 A.D.) that every individual should be free to worship according to the dictates of his conscience:

Let one manworshipGod, another Jupiter; let one lift suppliant hands to the heavens, another to thealtarofFides; let one — if you choose to take this view of it — count inprayerthe clouds, and another the ceilingpanels; let oneconsecratehis own life to hisGod, and another that of a goat. For see that you do not give a further ground for the charge of irreligion, by taking awayreligiousliberty,and forbidding free choice ofdeity, so that I may no longerworshipaccording to my inclination, but pelled toworshipagainst it. Not even ahumanbeing would care to have unwilling homage rendered him.

More than a decade later, he used startlingly modern language in his letter To Scapula, writing,“It is a fundamentalhumanright, aprivilegeofnature, that every man shouldworshipaccording to his own convictions … It is assuredly no part pelreligion.”

Similar notions can be found in the writings of St. Justin Martyr.

A century after him, shortly before the Edict of Milan, Lactantius wrote in Divine Institutes:“[I]f you wish to defendreligionbybloodshed, and by tortures, and by guilt, it will no longer be defended, but will be polluted andprofaned. For nothing is so much amatteroffree-willasreligion; in which, if themindof the worshiper is disinclined to it,religionis at once taken away and ceases toexist.”

The conception of religion that shaped Western civilization demands voluntary worshipoffered in homage – and as an act of justice – by human beings whose rational faculties continue to bear the image of God. This requires society guarantee the freedom touse of those faculties apart from the threat of aggression.

Thenotion of religious freedom remains integral to the European consciousness. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.” However, the signatories of the Catholic-Orthodox statementnote that today Christians face a difficult time living out their vocations according to the dictates of their own consciences.

Can such freedom long endure apart from the faith that produced it? “Human rights documents presuppose the Christian legacy, which is not only a system of thought and a worldview that took shape through the contributions of the Christian and Greek spirit, but also a tradition of self-criticism and repentance,” wrote Archbishop Anastasios Yannoulatos in Facing the World: Orthodox Christian Essays on Global Concerns. (Read John Couretas’ review in Religion & Liberty here.) But “rights declarations are incapable of inducing anyone of implementing their declarations voluntarily.” Instead, “[t]he power and means for promoting worldwide equality and brotherhood lie not in waging crusades but in freely accepting the cross.”

A culture that (freely) embraces this view of human nature and human dignity – and only such a culture – gives room for political structures to respect these and other human rights. Lord Acton wrote, “Liberty, next to religion, has been the motive of good deeds … It is the delicate fruit of a mature civilization.”

Any other culture cannot nourish the roots necessary for such a right to be exercised, just as it is impossible for a building to be supported without a sufficiently sturdy foundation – another subject about which the supranational government in Brussels could learn from Christianity.