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.
“Heresy isn’t simply disagreement.”
Wait a minute. Seriously? You can say that in 21st Century America with a cultural blinder on one eye and a historical one on the other. It was so far from “simple” that religion was the very first thing that the founders wanted to protect both for and from. Heresy was never a “simple” disagreement. It was often a death defying disagreement and it would be a huge mistake to believe that it can’t happen again.
Oops. I read “heresy IS simply disagreement”. My apologies.
Simply stating False to my statement does not make it so. Again all religions have some type of doctrine. Policy is based on doctrine hence all religions police their own.
Heresy is the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith, or a having a different opinion than the established churches doctrine. I am willing to bet that all of the thousands of common people put to death for heresy by the Roman Catholic church would have wished that heresy only applied to those in a position of authority. While Protestants are heretics by virtue of their beliefs, Bruno had little choice. Since you have been remarking on Bruno your inclusion of Martin Luther into the conversation is a moot point that has no bearing on any of this.
I don’t know or understand why my argument is laughable. I find it well opined and factual. I would suggest that you brush up on history, refrain from utilizing straw men, and not resort to smug supercilious comments when responding to those with whom you disagree. It tends to show your lack of breadth in the subject matter.