Your response is the same for both sides of the argument. All religions police their own. Also, during that time you had little choice whether you wanted to be under the churches authority, it was pretty much state sanctioned. So to disagree with doctrine was heresy by default. Not a hard concept.
False.
Also, during that time you had little choice whether you wanted to be under the churches authority, it was pretty much state sanctioned.
We're talking about the latter part of the 16th Century, not the Holy Roman Empire. What was the result of the nailing of the 95 Theses? Schism and fractalization. Clearly, there was some logic to putting down heresy within the ranks. However, there was great diversity of thought in Christendom.
Ironically, it was in the Protestant ranks at this time when you found less religious freedom as German princes staked their claim to age-old heresies as a foundation for their state religions.
So to disagree with doctrine was heresy by default. Not a hard concept.
Since your argument is laughable, it must be a hard concept. Heresy isn't simply disagreement. You make it sound like the average Joe or Mohammed on the street would be tried for heresy for not agreeing with the Church. That isn't how it works. Heresy is the promulgation of parts of the truth to being the whole truth by members in positions of authority. This has been done ad infinitum in the Protestant world as each new disagreement begets a whole new church.