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
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.

That's a complete caricature, and besides, I don't think Protestant beliefs about the Perspicuity of the Scriptures (and its corollary, that if two people disagree on how to interpret the Bible at least one of them must be stupid and/or evil) are likely to promote more religious freedom.
 
[QUOTE="Fabius Maximus, post: 12925605, member: 70051" (and its corollary, that if two people disagree on how to interpret the Bible at least one of them must be stupid and/or evil) are likely to promote more religious freedom.[/QUOTE]

So you answer my "caricature" with one of your own? I was pointing out what a lot of reformers wanted and you jump to they must think anyone who disagrees is stupid. Pope sure thought a lot of people were stupid then....before they even had a chance to disagree with him. I made no commentary on the validity of their beliefs, just their desire to think for themselves and not unthinkingly do something because a single man decided what to think. (And I'm certainly not saying that it went any better for the protestants. That's the problem with having people involved, they keep following the same patterns over and over again.)
 
So you answer my "caricature" with one of your own? I was pointing out what a lot of reformers wanted and you jump to they must think anyone who disagrees is stupid. Pope sure thought a lot of people were stupid then....before they even had a chance to disagree with him. I made no commentary on the validity of their beliefs, just their desire to think for themselves and not unthinkingly do something because a single man decided what to think. (And I'm certainly not saying that it went any better for the protestants. That's the problem with having people involved, they keep following the same patterns over and over again.)

(a) It's not a caricature, it's a simple matter of logic. If the meaning of Scripture is clear and people disagree on what Scripture means, then it follows that either (i) the meaning of Scripture isn't clear after all, or (ii) the people who disagree are unable to understand plain English (or German, or whatever).

(b) I'm not the first person to make this point; heck, Martin Luther said it himself:

But, if many things still remain abstruse to many, this does not arise from obscurity in the Scriptures, but from their own blindness or want of understanding, who do not go the way to see the all-perfect clearness of the truth. As Paul saith concerning the Jews, 2 Cor. iii. 15. “The veil still remains upon their heart.” And again, “If our gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost, whose heart the god of this world hath blinded.” (2 Cor. iv. 3-4.) With the same rashness any one may cover his own eyes, or go from the light into the dark and hide himself, and then blame the day and the sun for being obscure. Let, therefore, wretched men cease to impute, with blasphemous perverseness, the darkness and obscurity of their own heart to the all-clear Scriptures of God. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/bondage.vii.iii.html

ETA: And another example from Dr. Luther:

We have no one on earth to thank for this disastrous rebellion, except you princes and lords, and especially you blind bishops and mad priests and monks, whose hearts are hardened, even to the present day. You do not cease to rant and rave against the holy gospel; even though you know that it is true and that you cannot refute it. In addition, as temporal rulers you do nothing but cheat and rob the people so that you may lead a life of luxury and extravagance. The poor common people cannot bear it any longer. The sword is already at your throats, but you think that you sit so firm in the saddle that no one can unhorse you. This false security and stubborn perversity will break your necks, as you will discover. (Admonition to Peace, 1525)
 
Last edited:
Martin Luther is no more right than you or I. He's just been published a lot longer.:p. he was as dogmatic as the Pope, just with a different angle.

And it's not complete logic to say that it's an either/ or position, you ignore the possibilities that both are wrong and that the particular verse applies only in certain circumstances.
 
Well, again it seems that aside from religion, the Catholics tolerated other ethnicities, where as Protestant American settlers didn't tolerate the Natives even if they converted into Christianity, like this one tribe( who's name I can't recall) that was totally assimilate into Western culture, but the militia still massacred them, not to mention that the South US and south Africa had segregation/apartheid, while Catholics/Latin countries didn't do that. Usually Catholicism emphasized converting people as they set up Churches and tried to mix native beliefs with Catholicism( dia de los muertos anyone?). They even studied the traditions and languages of the Natives.

The population collapses in Spanish Mexico and Peru do not suggest toleration of native peoples.
 
The population collapses in Spanish Mexico and Peru do not suggest toleration of native peoples.

Between the encomenderos and the plagues that they had no resistance to, it was definitely hard for the native peoples to survive. The Catholic Church, for better or worse, did what it could to mitigate the damage. Still pretty bad, though. Also, mestizaje did its fair share of assimilation.

Whether under Spain or France or the pragmatic British, the natives suffered terribly to some extent. That is not something than can be nor should be disputed.

On the other hand, what they did accidentally, the American settlers did on purpose.
 
So, even if the Afrikaans were Catholics, apartheid would still occur? And if the American South had a Catholic influenced culture, there would still be segregation? Bummer:confused: There has to be a way to butterfly these attitudes that encouraged separation. But, still how come Brazil and Mexico, etc, didn't have the explicit attitudes to separate people and discourage them from intermingling post independence/slavery vs other areas like the US South and South Africa?
 
On the other hand, what they did accidentally, the American settlers did on purpose.

But the Americans weren't facing settled societies they could force to mine gold for them. A better question is how did Spaniards treat native americans when they were hunter gatherers or farmers without complex civilizations and occupied land the Spaniards wanted.
 
But the Americans weren't facing settled societies they could force to mine gold for them. A better question is how did Spaniards treat native americans when they were hunter gatherers or farmers without complex civilizations and occupied land the Spaniards wanted.
If I recall, the American Southwest had lots of hunter gatherers and California is famous for it's missions that were set up as conversion centers. Generally they tried to convert the Natives, but I am not sure how violent it was, but it helps that there wasn't a big movement to settle the area, where as Americans were settling.
 
If I recall, the American Southwest had lots of hunter gatherers and California is famous for it's missions that were set up as conversion centers. Generally they tried to convert the Natives, but I am not sure how violent it was, but it helps that there wasn't a big movement to settle the area, where as Americans were settling.

Argentina seems like it'd be a better comparison, no? Or perhaps the Native Americans of Cuba and Hispaniola.
 
Argentina seems like it'd be a better comparison, no? Or perhaps the Native Americans of Cuba and Hispaniola.
Well Argentina, is quite mixed, it's just people identify as white, but on a genetic level people on average do have Native and African ancestry. Cuba and Hispaniola don't have Natives, but the Spaniards and blacks mixed and don't have segregation or big discrimination. Look at Puerto Rico, people there are mixed a lot.
 
Well, yeah but they didn't have an apartheid like system in Hispanic America post independence.
even heard of the spanish inquisition?, or how jews and protestants were hunted down. or the Cathar genocide.
with no protestants they will find other victims to hunt down.
 
the racism with regards to race, no difference, that is interhuman and what religion has very little to do with it.
 
the racism with regards to race, no difference, that is interhuman and what religion has very little to do with it.
Still how come Catholic Brazil and Mexico didn't have apartheid/segregation where as Protestant US South and south Africa did?
 
but but brazil did keep slavery the longest of all nations in the americas.

that segregation seems to me is more cultural than religious (maybe a anglo-saxon thing?)

even though the current pope seems to be a good man you won't hear me say anything positive about that misogynist little boy raping institution called the catholic church.
 
So, even if the Afrikaans were Catholics, apartheid would still occur? And if the American South had a Catholic influenced culture, there would still be segregation? Bummer:confused: There has to be a way to butterfly these attitudes that encouraged separation. But, still how come Brazil and Mexico, etc, didn't have the explicit attitudes to separate people and discourage them from intermingling post independence/slavery vs other areas like the US South and South Africa?

Well, history would change much if Protestant movement would have failed or it wouldn't be exist all. There would be very different South Africa and Deep South. So racism might be still exist or then not.
 
but but brazil did keep slavery the longest of all nations in the americas.

that segregation seems to me is more cultural than religious (maybe a anglo-saxon thing?)

even though the current pope seems to be a good man you won't hear me say anything positive about that misogynist little boy raping institution called the catholic church.
Paragraph 3 has nothing to do with Racism. Paragraph 1, yes they kept it the longest, but they didn't segregate the slaves after. They also didn't fight a civil war as the emperor declared them free. Paragraph 2 , if it's a cultural thing, then it most likely has roots in religion as religion does a LOT to change and affect cultures. And also it seems like youa have an anti Catholic bias affecting your responses. Like I know the Catholics have their scandals, but the way you call it "misogynist little boy raping institution" shows you don't have an already neutral opinion on it for the sake of history. Even in the South there are scandals of churches doing sexual stuff there not supposed to do, and also they can be pretty misogynist, just look at the quiverful movement.
 
Last edited:
Well, history would change much if Protestant movement would have failed or it wouldn't be exist all. There would be very different South Africa and Deep South. So racism might be still exist or then not.
Well it doesn't not exist at all, it just succeeds in reforming Catholicism, which if i recall was Martin Luthers plan as I think he wanted a reconciliation as well, of course German princes took advantage and so forth. Of course Racism would still exist, but it's whether if it's to the degree of segregation/ apartheid or not.
 
Last edited:
I suppose in a certain sense, because plenty of racism was at least partially driven by theological differences.
On the other hand, Protestantism paved the way toward religious toleration in the West, due to the stalemate between it and the Catholic Church after decades of bloody religious conflict. I think it's slightly less likely that the modern concept of religious and cultural tolerance would be so prominent and ingrained in Western culture if it was united under Catholicism.
 
Top