The recent rise of a wave of extremist reactions should prompt
us to reflect on the fundamental issue of how societies evolve
and on the principles under which they are governed. .
The most
distinct human characteristic is the evolution of culture as
the product of our reflection and of the human praxis. The praxis
related to our sociability can roughly be described as a social
moral paradigm. The social paradigm is defined as an entire
constellation of beliefs, values, and world view which is shared
by the community and, what is important, it has a normative
character.
In our
Western hemisphere we might differentiate roughly three major
types of such a paradigm: the naturalistic-humanistic one seeking
to achieve a harmony with the surrounding world and our neighbors
exemplified by the ancient societies of the Mediterranean region;
the theocratic one in which society, the world, and all our
actions are subject to the unpredictable and capricious whim
of the supernatural power or powers exemplified by the ancient
Hebrew society; the ecclesiastical paradigm in which all our
beliefs, world view, morals, and social organization and structure
are dictated and defined by the institution of the clergy, ecclesia.
The first paradigm leads to democratic political institutions,
tolerance and open societies; the last two lead to authoritarian
or totalitarian political systems in which there is no separation
of religion and state. At the social level then, religions serve
the rulers of societies as a tool for its organization. This
was succinctly stated by the Greek philosopher, Isocrates (436-338
B.C.E.): “Men who show piety will be equally submissive
to all other injunctions.”
The switch
in the social paradigm, from the humanistic principles of ancient
morality to the ecclesiastical one took place in the fourth
century and ended only at the end of the eighteenth century
with the establishment of American democracy and the French
Revolution. The recovery was a slow process that required several
centuries and many sacrifices. The pivotal event in the history
of Western Europe which brought to the fore the absurdity of
the whole ecclesiastical paradigm was the case of our lonely
scholar. It does not mean that there were no voices even before
the Radical Reformation arguing for freedom of conscience and
against the ecclesiastical totalitarianism. Servetus’s
role, however, is unique because of the depth of his humanism
and historical circumstances of his martyrdom.
The key
issue is the separation of state and religion. Without it one
cannot create a democratic society; democratic society in turn
is not governed by absolute rules established a priori or by
religious premises, but by a dialectic process allowing compromise
and dialogue. Unfortunately, in the modern world we have regions
where the old paradigms are still in operation producing fanaticism
of all kinds and impeding advancement towards more just societies.
The current political conflicts thus illustrate drastically
the great need for a profound change. The struggle which Servetus
conducted for universal moral principles is not finished yet.
