The Right To Worship II

I thought that King Haakon was being perfectly reasonable in his promise that I quoted from Poul Anderson's Mother Of Kings (New York, 2003) in the previous post but not according to his co-religionists at the time. For her own political reasons, Queen Gunnhild informs the bishop that Haakon:

" '...promised them they may henceforward carry on their devil worship unhindered.' " (p. 348)

The bishop agrees that:

" 'This is - a grave matter indeed.' " (p. 348)

So other people's gods are devils and they should not be allowed to worship them unhindered. Worse, the bishops order Haakon to leave his threatened kingdom to make a pilgrimage of penance and he is excommunicated for refusing.

The bishop also states that, if Haakon had been killed for refusing to share in a Pagan sacrifice, then:

" 'He could have gone straight to Heaven, a martyr.' " (p. 347)

It strikes me as arrogant to claim to know, first, that there is definitely a hereafter and, secondly, to which part of that hereafter any individual will go, especially since another branch of Christianity claims with equal certainty to know that he would go elsewhere.

Meanwhile, Gunnhild's Christianity remains hypocritical:

if Haakon were her ally, then she would not have denounced him to the bishop;
she buys masses for her dead son's repose while planning vengeance against those who had killed him when he had attacked them;
she seduces a celibate priest from whom she can gain information about Haakon;
she continues to practise witchcraft.