During this period, professors from Leiden University will give lectures all over the world in commemoration of Leiden professor Cleveringa. He gave a lecture on 26 November 1940 in opposition to the German regime. He protested against the dismissal of his Jewish teacher Eduard Maurits Meijers and Jewish colleagues. Taking action for justice can isolate people, as whistleblowers are well aware.
More recently, I am thinking, for example, of the resistance of the Pussy Riot collective. On February 21, 2012, five young women from their group perform a protest song and dance at the Christus Salvator Cathedral in Moscow. Their action is against the abuse of power and the interdependence between religion and regime. What is common with Cleveringa is that they raise the question of freedom in the face of an oppressive ideology.
Western Europe has a history in which protest and freedom of thought are of paramount importance. Next year on October 31, it will be 500 years since Martin Luther attached a list of theses to Wittenberg's church door, it is said. Theses that should protect people's lives against the excesses of oppression. Spiritual and secular power were also closely linked with him. His actions hit an open nerve. Although he himself had no idea of the flood of consequences they would have, his theses become a scandal. Where do people like Cleveringa, the women of Pussy Riot and Luther get the guts to stand up to ideology?
There are many aspects to that question, but at least they know themselves free. They are free to ideology, to the law or to those in power.
Of course, this will lead to criticism and force them to justify themselves. Luther has defended himself with a book on freedom and boldness, on the basis of his own study of the basic texts of his tradition. In doing so, he sets law against spirit, rule against current interpretation. The function of the law is to indicate boundaries: it defines how people can live well together. But anyone who follows the media knows that laws and regulations can be manipulated. Moreover, when people obey the law, it is not always what it is intended to be. The law in itself only works halfway.
However, that is no reason to discard laws and put everything on the map of the interpretation. Out of anarchic violence that accompanies many revolutions, only a new strongman emerges in the end. With that the person has changed, but the oppression has not yet.
The crux for Luther lies in going back to his own tradition and explaining it in a new way. Laws always need interpretation. They exude a spirit of justice and commitment to each other. Moreover, he trusts that people have the sensitivity to perceive the spirit of the law. And to act in that spirit and make new rules when circumstances make it necessary.
The Judeo-Christian and humanist - Luther was a humanist - tradition that originated in Western Europe, thus has an optimistic view of mankind. She has great faith in people. By carefully researching the roots of one's own tradition, a critical movement can always emerge towards social developments.
Sometimes it also leads to beautiful illustrations of human creativity, such as in the protest against the low tax rates of multinationals Google and Starbucks. Shopkeepers in the village of Crickhowell (Wales) have come up with a legal form - they go 'offshore' - that would make them pay the same tax rates. Perhaps we could use a little more of that inventive and investigative freedom: the freedom to do what is not allowed.
recent comments