The first declaration of religious freedom (Hungarian Edict of Torda 1568)

[Stears]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_freedom#Early_laws_and_legal_guarantees_ for_religious_freedom


In 1558 the Transylvanian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvania) Diet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_%28assembly%29) of Torda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turda) declared free practice of both the Catholic and Lutheran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheranism) religions, but prohibited Calvinism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism). Ten years later, in 1568, the Diet extended the freedom to all religions, declaring that "It is not allowed to anybody to intimidate anybody with captivity or expelling for his religion". However it was more than a religious tolerance, it declared the equality of the religions. The emergence in social hierarchy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_hierarchy) wasn't depend on the religion of the person thus Transylvania had also Catholic and Protestant monarchs (Princes). The lack of state religion was unique for centuries in Europe. Therefore the Edict of Torda is considered by mostly Hungarian historians as the first legal guarantee of religious freedom in Christian Europe.



ACT OF RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE AND FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE:
"His majesty, our Lord, in what manner he – together with his realm – legislated in the matter of religion at the previous Diets, in the same matter now, in this Diet, reaffirms that in every place the preachers shall preach and explain the Gospel each according to his understanding of it, and if the congregation like it, well. If not, no one shall compel them for their souls would not be satisfied, but they shall be permitted to keep a preacher whose teaching they approve. Therefore none of the superintendents or others shall abuse the preachers, no one shall be reviled for his religion by anyone, according to the previous statutes, and it is not permitted that anyone should threaten anyone else by imprisonment or by removal from his post for his teaching. For faith is the gift of God and this comes from hearing, which hearings is by the word of God."

— Diet at Torda, 1568 : King John Sigismund

[Sarmatian]

The first? No way. Hungarians were a few centuries too late. The first law of religious freedom I can recall from the top of my head was in Mongol Horde. By Khan's law a badmouthing of any religion was punished by chopping the head off. A bit harsh I know but was really effective, sometimes I miss those good old days... especially when I'm unlucky to read post of such tards as yourself.

[Stears]

The first? No way. Hungarians were a few centuries too late. The first law of religious freedom I can recall from the top of my head was in Mongol Horde. By Khan's law a badmouthing of any religion was punished by chopping the head off. A bit harsh I know but was really effective, sometimes I miss those good old days... especially when I'm unlucky to read post of such tards as yourself.

Please cite the year and number of the act/law.

Mongols are not Europeans, they were not so religious, they interested only in robbery and plunder.
Forexample the pirate republics of Americas were also "tolerant", because they had no moral inhibitions, so the religion was not so important for them.
Therefore your statement had no meaning. (and off-topic.)

[Windischer]

the glorious edict didnt guarantee safety for orthodox christians, muslims or jews. it was in effect for a short time, then revoked. few decades later transylvanian nobility started an open war and one of its declared causes was lack of religious freedom. that was in 1604. so long ;)
persecution of people of different church continued; if a lutheran village came into ownership of a roman catholic landlord, troubles started; if an orthodox village came into ownership of a lutheran landlord, troubles started.
not even going into jews. k?

dumbo, REAL religious freedom came with imperial patents of austrian emperor Joseph II. : patent of toleration (1781), broadened by patent of toleration for jews and for freemasons (1782 and 1785, respectively).

[Stears]

the glorious edict didnt guarantee safety for orthodox christians, muslims or jews. it was in effect for a short time, then revoked. few decades later transylvanian nobility started an open war and one of its declared causes was lack of religious freedom. that was in 1604. so long ;)
persecution of people of different church continued; if a lutheran village came into ownership of a roman catholic landlord, troubles started; if an orthodox village came into ownership of a lutheran landlord, troubles started.
not even going into jews. k?

dumbo, REAL religious freedom came with imperial patents of austrian emperor Joseph II. : patent of toleration (1781), broadened by patent of toleration for jews and for freemasons (1782 and 1785, respectively).


Wrong. Read about it: Jews were allowed to practice their religion. You confused Habsburg Hungary with the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom (from 1570 it is called as Transylvania). They were created after Mohács, 1526. They had different parliaments, and different laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Hungarian_Kingdom



In Habsburg Hungary only the Catholicism was legal (despite its population was protestant in the 16-17th century). Joseph II's religious law concned only the royal Hungary, because the law of religious freedom in Transylvanian territories remained intact.

Orthodox churches existed (we tolerated the semi-asian culture) remember for the many many orthodox asian onion -churches were built during the era.
As a non-slovak rusyn, you must know that.

[robar]

The first? No way. Hungarians were a few centuries too late. The first law of religious freedom I can recall from the top of my head was in Mongol Horde. By Khan's law a badmouthing of any religion was punished by chopping the head off. A bit harsh I know but was really effective, sometimes I miss those good old days... especially when I'm unlucky to read post of such tards as yourself.

Lol and do you think that before 1000 A.D Hungarian tribes had one religion?Religious freedom was rather general to nomadic-steppe people

[Windischer]

Read about it: Jews were allowed to practice their religion.

:picard2: everybody was allowed to practice their religion.
but under restrictions. thats not religious freedom.
"we tolerated" you didnt tolerate, honey, you werent born yet.

[Stears]

:picard2: everybody was allowed to practice their religion.
but under restrictions. thats not religious freedom.
"we tolerated" you didnt tolerate, honey, you werent born yet.

Yes, it was that. This was the first country, where the state-religion did not exist, and the monarchs (princes) were elected from various religious background.

[Windischer]

Yes, it was that. This was the first country, where the state-religion did not exist, and the monarchs (princes) were elected from various religious background.

:picard2:
there are two trains and the shovel is in house
thats what you wrote, essentially
mr. proletarian ;)

[Stears]

:picard2:
there are two trains and the shovel is in house
thats what you wrote, essentially
mr. proletarian ;)

Rusyn, read it again:

The emergence in social hierarchy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_hierarchy) wasn't depend on the religion of the person. The lack of state religion was unique for centuries in Europe.

[Windischer]

could a jew emerge as a duke of transylvania?

[Sarmatian]

Lol and do you think that before 1000 A.D Hungarian tribes had one religion?Religious freedom was rather general to nomadic-steppe people

That's the whole point. At some stage Rus principalities have had both Orthodox and Catholic Christians living peacefully together and with other religions like Islam and Judaism. Early societies didn't need any sort of religious laws as everyone was free to express his beliefs in any way he wanted. As one khan said "The blessing of almighty shines equally upon every true believer but everyone only sees the part of light addressed to him and think he is special".

Only later religions developed into ideological and political tools.

[Stears]

That's the whole point. At some stage Rus principalities have had both Orthodox and Catholic Christians living peacefully together and with other religions like Islam and Judaism. Early societies didn't need any sort of religious laws as everyone was free to express his beliefs in any way he wanted. As one khan said "The blessing of almighty shines equally upon every true believer but everyone only sees the part of light addressed to him and think he is special".

Only later religions developed into ideological and political tools.

Wrong. Orthodox church was less tolerant than catholic. Orthodox church are less tolerant in the 21th century.


Read this topic:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?99970-Orthodox-Church-and-Xenophobia-religious-intolerance-in-the-21th-century

[Stears]

could a jew emerge as a duke of transylvania?

No, it would have mean complet isolation of Transylvania in contemporary European politics.
Hae you ever heard about Jewish monarch in Europe? It is unimaginable even in the 21th century. (unlike christian and muslim and budhist religions, the Jewish religion is an ethnocentric religion.)

[Windischer]

No, it would have mean complet isolation of Transylvania in contemporary European politics.
Hae you ever heard about Jewish monarch in Europe? It is unimaginable even in the 21th century. (unlike christian and muslim and budhist religions, the Jewish religion is an ethnocentric religion.)

without apologetics, please. if no, then no religious freedom.
monarchs are quite out of place in 21th century, going that way is ridiculous ;)

[Kiyant]

The steppe nomads were the first who gave religious freedom a good example (Mongol Horde were every son of the Great Khan had an other religion).
Other example are the Khazars and the seljuks who had all religions in them without discrimination.
Like Sarmatian said they didnt need a real law or something like that.

[Windischer]

steppe nomads didnt have states in the right sense of the word, so it obvious they didnt have positive law, only customs.
same goes for most tribal societies.

[Kiyant]

steppe nomads didnt have states in the right sense of the word, so it obvious they didnt have positive law, only customs.
same goes for most tribal societies.

They still had religious freedom which never existed at that time.
Also like Sarmatian said the Mongol empire was the first state/empire with a real religious freedom law.

[Windischer]

religious freedom wasnt anything rare unless the ruling class used it to back their power.
as i said. mongol empire wasnt a state in the right sense of the word.

[Kiyant]

religious freedom wasnt anything rare unless the ruling class used it to back their power.
as i said. mongol empire wasnt a state in the right sense of the word.

It basically was a state/empire because it wasnt just steppe tribes who plundered and then went away they conquered.

[Sarmatian]

Wrong. Orthodox church was less tolerant than catholic. Orthodox church are less tolerant in the 21th century.


Read this topic:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?99970-Orthodox-Church-and-Xenophobia-religious-intolerance-in-the-21th-century

Read what? I'm not going to waste my time on your brain farts. All I need to know is that such emotionally unstable and hate-spewing cunt as yourself wouldn't last a day if you happen to appear in the capital of Golden Horde or Kievan Rus :laugh:

[Stears]

Read what? I'm not going to waste my time on your brain farts. All I need to know is that such emotionally unstable and hate-spewing cunt as yourself wouldn't last a day if you happen to appear in the capital of Golden Horde or Kievan Rus :laugh:


Read these books about 21th century orthodox churches, and their xenophoby and anti-westernism (they hate western christian believers until this day)

[robar]

That's the whole point. At some stage Rus principalities have had both Orthodox and Catholic Christians living peacefully together and with other religions like Islam and Judaism. Early societies didn't need any sort of religious laws as everyone was free to express his beliefs in any way he wanted. As one khan said "The blessing of almighty shines equally upon every true believer but everyone only sees the part of light addressed to him and think he is special".

Only later religions developed into ideological and political tools.
YEah strangely western history books tend to call those societies barbaric, whilst now they are preaching religious freedom.:picard2:

[Kiyant]

YEah strangely western history books tend to call those societies barbaric, whilst now they are preaching religious freedom.:picard2:

They also call the Huns and the Mongolians as barbarians........

[robar]

They also call the Huns and the Mongolians as barbarians........

Yeah they were barbarians towards their enemies and not their society was barbaric, but in what regard was the Roman empire morally superior ?They threw slaves in to front of lions.