[vladimir998]

Servetus was conspiring with no one in Geneva. He was in Geneva for far too short a time to conspire with anyone before being arrested.

I certainly hope that Servetus did want to overthrow the Genevan constitution since it was corrupt, dictatorial, improperly imposed and the law code supporting it was simply stupid (fines for dancing, for instance).

Did we not overthrow a constitutional government when it no longer served the best interests of the American people? Hint - yes, in the American Revolution.

Your charge of sedition against Servetus is laughable. Then again, as the following transcript from the trial, as published by Longhurst, show, you and the prosecutor of Servetus thought alike:

PROSECUTOR: Have you read the Koran?

SERVETUS: Yes I have.

PROSECUTOR: Do you find any good things in it?

SERVETUS: Certainly.

PROSECUTOR: We can only conclude then that you would help to foster tumult in Christendom by aiding and abetting the followers of Mohammed.*

SERVETUS: I would no more aid Mohammed than I would aid the devil. But even in the worst books one can find some good things. And in the Koran there are some things which testify to the glory of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

So, because Servetus had read the Qur'an and noted that there were some good things in it, he was accused of aiding and abetting Muslims and causing tumult in Christendom? This coming from heretics who had seized control of an entire city, put dozens of anabaptists and others who disagreed with Calvinism or calvinists running the canton to death in what can only be described as mock trials?

Yeah, you and Calvin's buddy, the prosecutor, could think up all sorts of crazy conspiracy ideas. Have at it!

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Servetus was conspiring with no one in Geneva. He was in Geneva for far too short a time to conspire with anyone before being arrested.

Actually, Schaff relates in History of the Church that:

"Calvin had not induced Servetus to come to Geneva; he had in fact, by refusing him a safe-conduct, warned him off the territory of the republic; nevertheless, now that he was come, he did what the constitutional laws of Geneva required of him;—he reported his presence in the city to the Council, and demanded his apprehension."

And what is more, Rylie relates in History of Protestantism that:

""If Servetus had had, in the eyes of Genevese justice," says Rilliet, "no other fault than that of which De la Fontaine had declared him guilty in regard to Calvin, his acquittal had been sure." "If Calvin alone," he continues, "had been concerned in the affair of Servetus, all his efforts would have been unavailing to secure the condemnation of his adversary." "Servetus was tried," says he again, "and, as we shall mention below, condemned by the majority of his judges, not at all as the opponent of Calvin — scarcely as a heretic — but essentially as seditious. Politics acted a much more important part than theology, towards the close of this trial — they came on the stage with the Attorney-General."

I certainly hope that Servetus did want to overthrow the Genevan constitution since it was corrupt, dictatorial, improperly imposed and the law code supporting it was simply stupid (fines for dancing, for instance).

Blah, blah, blah -- you object to the Genevan Constitution and support Servetus' desire to Overthrow it for no other reason than that you hate Calvinism. That is the truth of the matter.

The bottom line is, the Genevan Constitution was unanimously affirmed by the People, and you can't really call a People "oppressed" who have unanimously affirmed their own Constitution.

Your objections are like unto those of an Old Testament Sodomite who hates the Constitution of Israel because it Anti-Homosexual. Well, the Israelitish Constitution, like that of Geneva, was Unanimously Confirmed (Deuteronomy 27:14-26); so if you don't like it, don't live there.

Servetus was told to stay out of Geneva; chose to trespass there anyway; and was charged, tried, and executed for Crimes against the Genevan Constitution.

Constitutional States have a Right to defend their Constitutions.

CASE CLOSED.