alternatehistory.com

Latin America is, on averege, far more religious than Europe and, depending on the country, as, less or more religious than the US.

However, unlike the US, Latin America has had, for more of its history (300 years) only ONE accepted religion: Roman Catholicism. During the late XVI and early early XVII, century, Protestantism was not only banned: the few Protestants who came to this shores where force to reject their faith or be put to trial under and Inquisition Tribunal (most of them were sailors, and accepted this, but occasionaly a reverend might have the misfortune of being caught up here and would refuse to reject his beliefs, and suffer accordingly).

The inquisition tribunal would put people under trial for things going from heresy to failure to respect "public moral". Crypto Jews from Protuguese Brazil, foreign Protestants and Catholics whose actions were against the public morality might be put under trial (these tribunals were instead far less severe with native surviving "superstitions"). In some case the Inquisition might condemn "immoral" priest or people who had married twice (though their punishment was less severe than those of heretics). Only on very few cases most cases, the punishment wouldn't involve death, but the risk existed.

Of course, the Inquisition's reach wasn't powerfull everywhere. There were tribunals in Lima, Cartagena de Indias and Mexico. The farther away you were from there, the fewer the risks. In Buenos Aires, if soomebody was accused, he had to be sent to Lima to be trial. That took so long and was so expensive that it was only done only the more serious cases. Up to a third of the population of Buenos Aires was Portuguese at some point in the XVI century, probably a few of them were Crypto-Jewish, and yet no one was sent to Lima, for example. This shows the inquisition wasn't particularly strong. This was even more so in isolated places like Paraguay, for instance.

In any case, the severity of the Inquisition didn't last that long. By 1800, for example, foreigners who weren't Catholic weren't viewed as in the past: English prisoners taken to the interior of *Argentina after the 1806 failed invasion of Buenos Aires were well treated and were accomodated with local families, for example.

Yet the idea that there should be only one religion lasted throughout all the Colonial period.

After independence, both the liberal ideas of elites and the need to trade with Britain led to religious tolerance. At first, however, it was mostly applied to foreigners: they could keep their religion, but shouldn't try to convert locals. This wasn't necessary a legal provision, but that was the idea. First came the English (traders, soldiers, bankers, railway engenieers), then other protestant immigrants and then, in the late XIX century, the Jews ant the Lebanese (some of whom were muslims). But locals remained Catholic.

During the late XIX ort the early XX Century, dependeing of the country, secular elites took power, and try to separete the Church from the State. This process was more or less traumatic according to the country. It was something that went almost unnoticed in Uruguay, for example, and that wasn't a big deal in 1880s Argentina; but it was a traumatic event in Mexico, for example. Yet this attitude, taken by the elites in power, didn't undermine the religious make up of the population: the vast majority of the non-immigrant populatin remained Catholic.

It was only in the XX century that protestantism began to make converts among locals. At first they were "pagan" Amerincian tribes in the isolated jungles. But then, well advanced the century, evangelical protestantism began to look atractive to the poor masses in urban cities.

Yet even with this history we don't see in Latin America the kind of things we see, for example, in Middle Easter countries. That is, there are no attemps, for example, to impose the morality of the most followed religion to everyone. Meat is not banned during the 40 days that preceed Easter, for example, nor are people attacked for working on Sunday. Sometimes you see thinks like having religious symbols on public buildings, which causes some uproar, but that's just about it. Also, there aren't big groups trying to impose their moral on others by means of cohertion. And there's no religious terrorism.

Could it have been different? Could Latin Americans, in an ALT, see themselves as the true defenders of the Faith?Could there be a Latin American Saudi Arabia, for example, were non-Catholics aren't allowed to enyoy the same freedons as others? How could that be?
Top