Would a world with no Protestantism and instead a mass Catholic Reformation be less racist?

Less racism with no Protestantism?

  • Yes

    Votes: 47 34.8%
  • No

    Votes: 88 65.2%

  • Total voters
    135
There are more horses' asses than there are horses. Some people will be dicks to their fellows regardless of faith.
I said less racist. Not that there wouldn't be Racism at all, but I guess we wouldn't see things like segregation/ apartheid, and a lot of the Native massacres or cleansings even when bthey were Westernized. Like the 5 civilized tribes, they wouldn't have been forced out ,but mixed with and assimilated, with Catholicism mixing with the Native beliefs.
 
I don't see that Catholics would be lesser racist than Protestants. Spaniards expelled all Jews and Muslims (clearly racist act) and there was several racist regimes speciality on 20th century. And in many Catholic countries is ultranationalist/racist parties/people.

And racism has always been part of human kind. And whites not be only ones who can be such.

This is true enough. Whether Catholic or Protestant, all Europeans discriminated against other cultures during that time, against the infidel Muslim, the inscrutable Oriental, and even the Jews in their own backyard. Other cultures do the same, the Chinese mocking the dirty Europeans and treating the 'northern barbarians' with contempt, the Muslims mocking and avoiding the uncircumcised and treating the dhimmis with varying attitudes, and many other xenophobic things.

Anyway, Catholicism had more of a framework on how to deal with cultural differences than the Protestants did, assimilating the non-contradicting beliefs of other lands into its own (admittedly, with more than a little paternalism). Or at least, the Jesuits did, which is why it ended up in hot water with the Chinese Rites controversy.

In contrast, the Dutchmen avoided proselytizing for the most part in favor of money-making, the British did the same but with a paternalistic attitude, and the Americans, well, did what they did.

So again, would a Reformed Catholicism be less racist? I guess it depends. The Humanists like Las Casas and Erasmus and the Jesuits could prosper and rise, or it could also be that the Church ends up going into an even more paternalistic direction, limpieza de sangre being the norm.
 
One, the entire point of a Pope is a single heir to Christ's position on earth; therefore "regional popes" is not, cannot be, a part of the Holy Roman Catholic Church (what do you think the cardinals, archbishops, etc do? They handle their regions.). Two, the reason the church was so "liberal" when it came to "new" religions & people's was because of church's policy of assimilation by co-opting local religions and traditions in order to "sell" them on the church. (this is Christmas occurs when it does, just one example.)

I would think that without the confrontation of Protestantism, there were be no impetus for a "mass (nice pun) Catholic Reformation"; there would be more suppression of differences (good-bye women's rights, gay marriage, and freedom of religion) because there would no reason to worry about dissention. Protestantism allowed the evolution of freedom to think for ones self in the matter of religion (think about Catholic stance on birth control - and we've got protestants around aplenty!) A requirement for membership to vote or own land would be probable.

I would think what is being suggested is the opposite of what would happen. Catholicism is in and of itself a version of the feudal system and/or the cases system. Whether it's based on skin color, religion (Judaism/Islam rather than Catholic), origins, or your position within society, it will mean a ritualized, institutionalized racism of some form.

A Reformation the point where individuals are allowed the sort of freedom to believe would mean the end of the actual Catholic Church because that WAS what the religious Reformation was about and is the antithesis of the purpose of the Pope. He's supposed to talk with God and tell the people was God thinks on a subject. Protestantism is the region that said man could talk to God without.a Pope or priest to interpret for them.

So, human nature and history are against you on this one. No, it would be more, not less, racist - in the broader implications of the word; that certain people are lessor humans for not being one of the majority/people in power.
 
Last edited:
One, the entire point of a Pope is a single heir to Christ's position on earth; therefore "regional popes" is not, cannot be, a part of the Holy Roman Catholic Church (what do you think the cardinals, archbishops, etc do? They handle their regions.). Two, the reason the church was so "liberal" when it came to "new" religions & people's was because of church's policy of assimilation by co-opting local religions and traditions in order to "sell" them on the church. (this is Christmas occurs when it does, just one example.)

I would think that without the confrontation of Protestantism, there were be no impetus for a "mass (nice pun) Catholic Reformation"; there would be more suppression of differences (good-bye women's rights, gay marriage, and freedom of religion) because there would no reason to worry about dissention. Protestantism allowed the evolution of freedom to think for ones self in the matter of religion (think about Catholic stance on birth control - and we've got protestants around aplenty!)

I would think what is being suggested is the opposite of what would happen. Catholicism is in and of itself a version of the feudal system and/or the cases system. Whether it's based on skin color, origins, or your (place), it will mean a ritualized, institutionalized racism of some form.
In regards to paragraph 2, Protestants can still be pretty bad on social issues, look at the South, the most Protestant region in all of America. Also freedom of religion was still a thing in Catholic France. Also, American Protestants were notoriously intolerant of Catholics and the Puritans left Europe because they didn't tolerate how England and Netherlands weren't tougher on getting rid of Catholicism. On paragraph 1, I don't see how this changes the fact that Protestants didn't even attempt to convert people, and instead push them back and kept them separate, where as the Catholics were more willing to mix unlike the Protestants.
 
I'm not arguing that protests are "better" - I'm pointing out why Catholicism went so far, so fast with indigenous populations. They co-opted local culture and perverted it to Catholic purposes.
 
I'm not arguing that protests are "better" - I'm pointing out why Catholicism went so far, so fast with indigenous populations. They co-opted local culture and perverted it to Catholic purposes.
Well isn't that preferable to exterminating or otherwise heavily marginalizing the native culture.
 
There are more horses' asses than there are horses. Some people will be dicks to their fellows regardless of faith. edit. especially where money is at stake.

And this is why Gregory VII was called the Antichrist, bringing money and power into the Church hierarchy via the Investiture Controversy, thus beginning a conflict, and therefore the idea of a separation, between Church and State~~~
 
Citing protestantism as intolerant is pointless because it has nothing to do with question, you're just pointing out one of the reason for the question. Protestantism gave rise to other movements because it showed that if you were serious, you could when a place at the table and not be relegated to eating scraps; it was (at the time), the religion of "what if". Catholicism's structure actually only allowed (and we're talking Reformation times, not today) an official point of view, no thinking for yourself.
 
I mean it shows that the Catholics actually cared about the Natives as they actually considered them as people and wanted to save their "souls", while Protestants generally regarded them as inhuman "heathens" like I am pretty sure that if Britain was Catholic, the colonials in North America and Australia would be in better numbers and conditions compared to OTL. What about South Africa, the Afrikaans were very Calvinist, and even after the Natives were converted, they still didn't get along with them at all compared to Mexico. Look at Brazil, they had pretty much the same deal as the South US, actually worse as slavery lasted longer and was much more brutal, but they didn't put a system to separate or completely put down the blacks. There especially wasn't something as prejudice as the one drop rule.
 
Citing protestantism as intolerant is pointless because it has nothing to do with question, you're just pointing out one of the reason for the question. Protestantism gave rise to other movements because it showed that if you were serious, you could win a place at the table and not be relegated to eating scraps; it was (at the time), the religion of "what if". Catholicism's structure actually only allowed (and we're talking Reformation times, not today) an official point of view, no thinking for yourself.
Well the thread is if there would be less racism, if Protestantism didn't exist, particularly Puritans and the many denominations.
 
Citing protestantism as intolerant is pointless because it has nothing to do with question, you're just pointing out one of the reason for the question. Protestantism gave rise to other movements because it showed that if you were serious, you could when a place at the table and not be relegated to eating scraps; it was (at the time), the religion of "what if". Catholicism's structure actually only allowed (and we're talking Reformation times, not today) an official point of view, no thinking for yourself.
Also there was supposed to be a Catholic Reformation, so it's not like Protestantism doesn't entirely not exist, but it just doesn't get out of hand and a reconciliation is met just in time before, the many splittings.
 
*is Catholic* *coughs awkwardly*

I'm using the term perverting correctly. It's not my fault society has sexualized the term. I pervert the use of a butter knife if I use it as a screwdriver. The Catholics were clever; instead of arguing like the protestants "you're wrong and this is why" - they said let's play and slowly changed the rules of the game.
 
Regional popes is not a Catholic Reformationion, it's making it the southern Baptists in all but name. Meaning each area/church cherry picks it's beliefs (so long as they don't deviate from five items or so).
 
I'm using the term perverting correctly. It's not my fault society has sexualized the term. I pervert the use of a butter knife if I use it as a screwdriver. The Catholics were clever; instead of arguing like the protestants "you're wrong and this is why" - they said let's play and slowly changed the rules of the game.

*nods*

But of course, the Catholic Church also fought, arguing "you're wrong and this is why": that is what the Council of Trent was about.
 
Personally, I don't really think religion alone creates racism. For a religion to be racist, it would have to be interpreted in a racist way or to be racist to the core. The second case is extremely rare and it can easily be confused with the first.

Plus, looking back at history, you have some racist policies that were at times where you could find religious people both among those who supported them and those who opposed them. A good deal of Spanish clerics most likely had a racist views of native americans during the XVIth Century but you also have figures such as Bartolomé de Las Casas who opposed attrocities committed against the native americans and defended his convinction in the Valladolid debate. You had plenty of priests and religious figures that defended slavery but you could also find religious figures opposing slavery. And taking a more recent example (as well as bringing the Godwin Point, I know), the Nazis both found support from highly important religious figures and/or movements but were also opposed equally by highly important religious figures.

My personal conclusion on this would basically be that while religion can influence people to be more or less racist depending on how they interpret it, its overall influence is too negligible to say that removing a certain denomination would make the world more or less racist.
 
The council of Trent was a family argument, so to speak. It wasn't held between the leaders of Judaism, Islam, and Madlyn Murray O'Hare, it held amongst Christians.

I hate spell check it does not like usual name spellings.
 
Citing protestantism as intolerant is pointless because it has nothing to do with question, you're just pointing out one of the reason for the question. Protestantism gave rise to other movements because it showed that if you were serious, you could when a place at the table and not be relegated to eating scraps; it was (at the time), the religion of "what if". Catholicism's structure actually only allowed (and we're talking Reformation times, not today) an official point of view, no thinking for yourself.

The vigorous theological debates which took place during the middle ages suggest that there was plenty of thinking for oneself allowed under Catholicism. Plus, Protestant states during this era were just as likely to pass laws mandating religious conformity as Catholic ones. Plus plus, one of the original arguments of the Reformers was that the Catholics were doing too much thinking for themselves, and trusting to their fallible human reason instead of the word of God.
 
The point of Reformation was a rejection of the Catholic lines of thinking....like you couldn't understand the Bible you read (even if it were in the vernacular) and the too much thinking was done by one man - the Pope.

But my point stands. The question isn't who was more tolerant, kind, and gentle of dissention; it's 'would a world...less racist?' And my opinion is no.
 
My personal conclusion on this would basically be that while religion can influence people to be more or less racist depending on how they interpret it, its overall influence is too negligible to say that removing a certain denomination would make the world more or less racist.

This is mine too, pretty much. There's humanism on one hand, and limpieza de sangre on the other.
 
Top