Dismantling an Argument Without Historical Foundation

A profoundly fallacious and ahistorical argument circulates in certain Armenian political sectors: that the Armenian Apostolic Church must remain on the sidelines of State affairs, while paradoxically allowing—and even promoting—the government to intervene directly in the Church's internal life. This double standard not only contradicts 1,700 years of Armenian history but constitutes a deliberate attempt to silence the voice of an institution that represents 92% of the population and has been the fundamental pillar of national survival.

This editorial categorically refutes this false premise, demonstrating with irrefutable historical evidence that separating the Church from Armenia's political life is impossible, imprudent, and contrary to the very nature of Armenian identity.

The Irrefutable Historical Truth: Church and Nation Are Inseparable

Armenia: The World's First Christian State (301 AD)

In the year 301, King Tiridates III proclaimed Christianity as the official religion of the Kingdom of Armenia, thus becoming the first State in world history to officially adopt Christianity—ten years before Constantine's Edict of Milan (313 AD) and eighty years before the Roman Empire officially did so (380 AD). This decision made Armenia the first country to embrace the Christian faith, establishing a historical precedent that no other nation can claim.

Saint Gregory the Illuminator, who converted the king and was consecrated as the first Catholicos of the Armenian Church, not only established a religious institution but founded the very core of Armenian national identity. The construction of Echmiadzin Cathedral in 303 marked the beginning of a unique architectural, cultural, and spiritual tradition that endures to this day.

The Church as Guardian of National Identity During Centuries of Occupation

After the fall of the last Armenian kingdom of Cilicia in 1375, the Catholicos assumed leadership of the Armenian people in both religious AND political senses, as no Armenian king remained. For more than five hundred years of foreign domination—first under the Ottoman Empire, then under the Russian Empire—the Armenian Apostolic Church was the ONLY symbol of national continuity.

The Armenian Apostolic Church was seen as a national church that has been the principal identity support of the Armenian people, preserving the Armenian language, culture, customs, and historical memory when the State itself had ceased to exist. Without the Church, the Armenian nation would have disappeared. This is not rhetoric: it is a documented historical fact.

The Armenian Genocide: The Church as Primary Target of Extermination

Between 1915 and 1923, the Young Turks regime perpetrated the first genocide of the 20th century, murdering more than 1.5 million Armenians. The Armenian Church was the first target of the genocide. The Ottoman government deliberately destroyed two thousand churches and two hundred monasteries, confiscated all ecclesiastical properties, and systematically murdered Armenian religious leaders.

Why was the Church the primary target? Because the perpetrators perfectly understood what some current Armenian politicians seem to have forgotten: the Armenian Apostolic Church IS the backbone of Armenian national identity. Destroying the Church meant destroying the nation itself.

Since Christianity was officially recognized, the survival of Armenian national identity has been directly united with the religious factor. The genocide was not only physical extermination but cultural genocide: erasing any trace of Armenian presence, destroying its spiritual heritage, eliminating its historical memory. And yet, the Church survived and preserved Armenian identity.

The Diaspora: The Church as Center of Armenianness

After the genocide, hundreds of thousands of Armenian survivors were dispersed throughout the world—Lebanon, Syria, France, Argentina, the United States, Brazil. What kept this fragmented diaspora united? The Armenian Apostolic Church.

Armenians first formed the church and from the church formed other institutions or schools. In Buenos Aires, Los Angeles, Paris, Beirut, the first institution that exiled Armenians established was a church. Only afterward came schools, cultural associations, community centers. The Church was—and remains—the nucleus of Armenian identity in the diaspora.

Today, approximately 98% of the Armenian population is of Armenian origin, and 92% of the population declares fidelity to the Armenian Apostolic Church. These are not trivial numbers. They represent national unity without parallel in the contemporary world.

Current Reality: The Government Interferes, the Church Is Accused

Pashinyan's Paradox: Silencing the Church While Interfering in It

The current government of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has brought the tension between State and Church to its most critical point in modern Armenian history. After the catastrophic loss of Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023—a region Armenians consider an integral part of their historical homeland—Catholicos Karekin II publicly called for the prime minister's resignation, pointing to his responsibility in the national debacle.

The government's response was revealing: in June 2025, Nikol Pashinyan publicly called for the removal of Catholicos Karekin II, the supreme spiritual authority of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Additionally, the government has detained Archbishop Bagrat Galstanian and other clerics under accusations of conspiracy against the State, simply for exercising their right to peaceful political opposition.

Here is hypocrisy in its purest form: while the Church is accused of "interfering" in politics, it is the government that directly interferes in internal ecclesiastical affairs, attempting to remove religious leaders elected according to Church canons and promoting ecclesiastical voices aligned with political power.

The Question That Dismantles the Entire False Narrative

If the Church has no right to opine on the nation's direction, why does the government HAVE the right to decide who should lead the Church?

If there is a "separation" between Church and State, why does that separation only apply in one direction?

If the Church must remain silent before catastrophic political decisions resulting in the loss of historic Armenian territories, why can the State intervene in the election and removal of religious authorities?

This double standard reveals the truth: the problem is not institutional "separation." The problem is that Pashinyan's government seeks to silence a powerful critical voice that questions its competence, legitimacy, and disastrous political decisions.

The Church as the Last Line of National Resistance

When 92% of the Armenian population identifies with the Apostolic Church, the Catholicos's voice is the people's voice. When the Church criticizes the government, it is not "engaging in partisan politics": it is exercising its historical role as guardian of Armenian national identity and interests.

The loss of Nagorno-Karabakh is not a trivial political matter. It is a national tragedy of historic proportions, comparable to the territorial and human losses of the genocide. The Church has not only the right but the MORAL DUTY to raise its voice when it considers the nation to be in existential danger.

Global Precedent: Religions DO Legitimately Participate in Politics

Those who argue that the Armenian Church must remain on the sidelines of politics deliberately ignore that in multiple consolidated democracies and internationally respected nations, religious institutions actively participate in public debate without compromising democracy. Let's examine concrete examples:

Iran: Total Integration of Religion and State

Iran is a theocratic state where no separation exists between religion and politics. The system is based on the principle of Wilayat al-Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), where the Supreme Leader combines political authority and spiritual guidance. Although this model presents problems from a liberal democratic perspective, it demonstrates that religious integration in state structure is a contemporary geopolitical reality accepted internationally.

Israel: Judaism as Foundation of the State

In Israel, though formally secular, laws on marriage, divorce, holidays, and multiple aspects of public life are deeply influenced by Jewish tradition. Religious parties exercise decisive influence in government formation and crucial political decisions. Jewish identity is inseparable from the State of Israel, and no one considers this undemocratic.

The Vatican: Religious State with Universal Recognition

The Vatican is the only theocratic nation completely governed by religion, with the Pope as supreme temporal and spiritual authority. Despite its exclusively religious character, it maintains diplomatic relations with the majority of world countries and actively participates in debates on peace, social justice, human rights, and international politics. Its voice is globally respected.

Latin America: The Catholic Church as Historic Political Actor

In Latin America, the Catholic Church has historically been a fundamental political actor. During the 19th-century civil wars between liberals and conservatives, religion reinforced political motivations. The governments of new republics recognized Catholicism as the State religion to facilitate governing countries with immense Catholic majorities.

Even today, the Catholic Church has intervened in political processes concerning sexual and reproductive rights in many countries of the region. In Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and other countries, Catholic leaders regularly pronounce on public policies, constitutional reforms, and moral questions, without anyone suggesting they should "remain on the sidelines" of politics.

Poland: The Catholic Church and National Resistance

During Soviet occupation, the Polish Catholic Church was the center of national resistance. Pope John Paul II, Polish-born, was instrumental in the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. The Church was explicitly political, and its participation was considered legitimate and heroic. Today, though debates exist about the Church's role in Poland, no one denies its right to express positions in public debate.

United States: Religion and Politics in a Secular Republic

Even in the United States, with its strict constitutional separation between Church and State, presidents take their oath with their hand on the Bible, religious references permeate political discourse, and religious leaders—evangelical, Catholic, Jewish—constantly pronounce on public policies, from abortion to immigration. Religion is a significant political force, and this is considered compatible with democracy.

The Comparative Lesson: Participation Is NOT Imposition

These examples demonstrate that religious participation in politics is the NORM, not the exception, in the contemporary world. The key does not lie in whether religious institutions participate in politics—clearly they do in almost all nations—but in how they do so.

It is one thing for the Church to express moral positions, criticize governmental decisions, or mobilize the faithful in defense of fundamental values. It is quite another to impose its dogmas through state coercion. The Armenian Apostolic Church does the former; Pashinyan's government attempts to prevent it through the latter.

Final Disqualification of the False Premise

Why the "Non-Interference" Argument Is Intellectually Dishonest

The argument that the Armenian Apostolic Church should not "interfere" in State politics is historically false, sociologically naive, and politically convenient for those seeking to avoid legitimate criticism. Let's examine why:

1. It Is Historically False

As we have exhaustively demonstrated, the Armenian Apostolic Church has been inextricably linked to the nation's political life for 1,700 years. Pretending it must now "remain on the sidelines" is deliberately ignoring all of Armenian history. When there was no Armenian State, the Church WAS the Armenian State. When the State was destroyed by genocide, the Church preserved the nation. Separating the Church from Armenian politics is separating the heart from the body.

2. It Is Sociologically Naive

With 92% of the population identifying with the Apostolic Church, pretending this institution lacks legitimacy to pronounce on national direction is denying democratic representativeness. If democracy means institutions representing the population majority have a voice, then the Church has more legitimacy than many political parties.

3. It Is Politically Convenient for Incompetent Rulers

The true motive behind this argument is revealed when we examine WHO wields it and WHEN. It is no coincidence this discourse intensifies precisely when Pashinyan's government faces devastating criticism for the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh. Silencing the Church is silencing the government's most powerful critic. It is censorship disguised as secularism.

4. It Is Selectively Applied

As we have noted, "separation" is only demanded in one direction: the Church must not opine on politics, but the government CAN intervene in the Church. This deliberate asymmetry reveals it is not about constitutional principles but political control.

The Real Threat: Subordinating the Church to the State

20th-century history is full of examples of what happens when totalitarian States subordinate churches to political power:

• In the Soviet Union, the Russian Orthodox Church was infiltrated, controlled, and converted into a KGB tool.
• In Nazi Germany, the "German Christians" attempted to Nazify the Evangelical Church.
• In Communist China, "patriotic" churches controlled by the State are propaganda instruments.

The pattern is always the same: first the church is accused of "interfering" in politics, then state intervention is justified "to maintain order," finally the religious institution is subordinated, converting it into an appendage of political power.

Armenia is in the early stages of this dangerous process. Detaining critical clergy, calling for the Catholicos's removal, promoting ecclesiastical voices aligned with the government: these are classic steps toward subordinating the Church to the State.

Conclusion: Defending the Church Is Defending the Nation

Three Irrefutable Truths That No One Can Deny

FIRST TRUTH: The Armenian Apostolic Church is INSEPARABLE from Armenian national identity.

We are not talking about just another religious institution among many. The Armenian Apostolic Church is the historical guardian of Armenianness: it preserved the nation when the Armenian State disappeared under foreign occupation, survived the 20th century's most brutal genocide when the Ottoman Empire attempted to erase all trace of Armenian existence, and kept a diaspora fragmented across five continents united. For 1,700 years—seventeen centuries—it has been the spiritual, cultural, and moral heart of the Armenian people.

Pretending to separate it now from Armenia's political life is not modernization: it is denying 1,700 years of documented history. It is deliberately ignoring that when King Tiridates III converted Armenia into the world's first Christian State in 301, he established an indissoluble union between faith and nation that no invader, no occupation, and no genocide has been able to break. Whoever attacks this union attacks the very core of what it means to be Armenian.

SECOND TRUTH: Religions legitimately participate in the politics of world nations.

This is not an opinion: it is an observable fact in contemporary geopolitics. From Iran—where the Supreme Leader combines religious and political authority—to Israel—where religious parties exercise decisive influence in government—; from the Vatican—theocratic State with universal diplomatic relations—to Poland—where the Catholic Church was the center of resistance against communism—; from the United States—where presidents swear on the Bible and religious leaders influence public policies—to Latin America—where the Catholic Church has been a fundamental political actor for two centuries—, religious institutions exercise legitimate political influence without compromising democracy.

In Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and Hindu nations, religious institutions have a voice in public affairs. Why should Armenia be the only nation in the world where this is considered illegitimate? Why should the Church representing 92% of the population be silenced while churches representing minorities in other countries have full freedom of political expression?

Armenia is not—nor should be—the exception. The claim that the Armenian Apostolic Church must "remain on the sidelines" of politics has no precedent in global democratic practice and contradicts the universal experience of all nations that value their religious traditions.

THIRD TRUTH: The real problem is not that the Church "interferes" in politics, but that the government attempts to subordinate it.

Here is the fundamental hypocrisy that dismantles the entire governmental argument: while the Church is accused of "interfering" in politics, it is the State that violates institutional separation flagrantly and dangerously.

When the government detains Archbishop Bagrat Galstanian and other clergy under accusations of "conspiracy against the State" for exercising peaceful political opposition; when Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan publicly calls for the removal of Catholicos Karekin II—the supreme spiritual authority elected according to Church canons—; when the State deliberately promotes ecclesiastical voices aligned with political power to divide and weaken the institution, it is violating the Church's institutional autonomy far more gravely than any political declaration the Church might make.

This is not "separation of Church and State": it is subordination of the Church to the State. It is the Soviet model of religious control, where churches could exist only as decorative appendages of political power, without critical voice, without real autonomy, without capacity to question governmental decisions.

The question that destroys the entire governmental argument is simple and devastating: If there is a "separation" between Church and State, why is that separation only demanded in one direction? Why cannot the Church criticize the government, but the government CAN intervene in the Church? This double standard reveals the truth: it is not about constitutional principles but silencing the government's most powerful and inconvenient critic.

An Urgent Call to Clarity and Historical Honesty

The Armenian people—both in the homeland and in the diaspora—must confront these questions with brutal honesty:

Do we want to preserve the institution that has been the heart of our identity for 1,700 years, or will we allow it to be reduced to a decorative appendage of political power? The Armenian Apostolic Church is non-negotiable. It is not a cultural luxury we can modernize by eliminating it from public life. It is the backbone of Armenianness. Without it, we are simply another State in the Caucasus. With it, we are heirs to a millennial civilization with unique identity.

Do we consider that the 92% of Armenians who identify with the Church deserve their institution to have a voice in the nation's future, or do we believe only temporary politicians should have that privilege? If democracy means representativeness, then the Church—representing practically the entire population—has more democratic legitimacy than any political party or elected official. Silencing it is not secularism: it is anti-democratic censorship.

Do we accept that the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh is a national tragedy justifying criticism from all institutions, including the Church, or do we believe the government should be exempt from accountability? The fall of Artsakh is not a partisan political issue: it is a historic catastrophe comparable to the genocide. The Church has the right—and the moral duty—to raise its voice before such national disaster.

Do we understand that 20th-century history unequivocally demonstrates that subordinating the Church to the State is the path to totalitarianism, or are we willing to risk institutional autonomy for temporary political convenience? The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China: all followed the same pattern. First they accuse the church of "interfering" in politics, then they justify state intervention "to maintain order," finally they subordinate the religious institution, converting it into official propaganda. Armenia is in the early stages of this dangerous process.

The Inalienable Right and Sacred Duty of the Church

The Armenian Apostolic Church has not only the constitutional right but the historical and moral DUTY to raise its voice when it considers the nation to be in existential danger. This is not "interfering" in politics: it is exercising its millennial role as guardian of Armenian national identity, a role it has performed uninterruptedly since the year 301.

When Catholicos Karekin II criticized Pashinyan's government after the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh, he was not violating any imaginary "separation of powers." He was doing exactly what Saint Gregory the Illuminator did with King Tiridates III 1,700 years ago: reminding temporary rulers they have responsibilities before God, before history, and before the Armenian people. Reminding them that political power is transitory, but the nation is eternal.

Kings come and go. Prime ministers rise and fall. Governments change with elections. But the Armenian Apostolic Church remains, as it has remained through Persian invasions, Byzantine occupations, Arab conquests, Ottoman domination, Soviet oppression, and the most brutal attempt of all: the 1915-1923 genocide.

If the Church survived when the Ottomans systematically murdered its leaders and destroyed two thousand churches and two hundred monasteries, will it now be silenced by a temporary government that fears criticism?

A Historical Warning That Cannot Be Ignored

Silencing the Armenian Apostolic Church would be betraying centuries of resistance, identity, and faith that have made the Armenian people's survival possible against all odds.

It would be repeating the fatal error of those who believed they could "modernize" Armenia by eliminating its spiritual backbone, converting a nation with 1,700 years of unique Christian identity into a generic secular State without soul or historical purpose.

It would be voluntarily surrendering—from within, by own decision—what the Ottomans could not destroy with systematic genocide, what the Soviets could not suppress with seventy years of forced official atheism, what the Persians, Byzantines, Arabs, Mongols, and Russians could not erase in seventeen centuries of invasions and occupations.

The Armenian Apostolic Church survived the 20th century's most brutal genocide. It survived Soviet persecution when being a priest meant risking one's life. It survived when it seemed the Armenian nation itself would disappear from the face of the earth. And it will survive this governmental attempt at political subordination.

But the crucial question that must be answered TODAY is: Will Armenia survive as a unique nation with millennial identity if it allows its spiritual foundation to be eroded from within for temporary political convenience?

History's Final Verdict

It only remains for the Armenian people—in Yerevan, in Buenos Aires, in Los Angeles, in Paris, in Beirut, in every corner of the world where an Armenian heart beats—to remember the indelible lessons of their ancestors and defend with all their strength what makes their nation unique and indestructible: the indissoluble union between apostolic faith, the millennial Church, and Armenian national identity.

This union is not negotiable. It is not reformable. It is not modernizable. It is the very essence of what it means to be Armenian.

Defending the Armenian Apostolic Church is not blind conservatism or religious fundamentalism. It is defending the survival of the Armenian nation as a unique historical entity with transcendent purpose. It is recognizing there are realities deeper and more permanent than electoral cycles and temporary political fashions.

The Armenian Apostolic Church is Armenia's immortal soul. When the Armenian State disappeared, it preserved it. When genocide attempted to erase us from history, it kept us alive. When the diaspora was fragmented across the world, it kept us united.

Whoever attacks the Church attacks Armenia itself. Whoever defends the Church defends the eternity of the Armenian nation.

The choice is before us. History watches us. Our martyred ancestors judge us from heaven. Future generations will ask us: Were we worthy heirs of 1,700 years of unwavering faith, or were we the cowardly generation that voluntarily surrendered what no invader could seize from us?

Let each Armenian answer with their conscience, their vote, and their voice: On which side of history do you want to stand?