[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Are you going to tell me that Lutheranism prohibited interracial marriage?

Yes when the question did actualize until the latter half of the 20th century.

"My dissertation examines precisely these issues. Focusing on Perez and Loving, I analyze the reasons for Catholic legal advocacy on behalf of interracial couples, and for Protestant expressions of "separate races" in the legal arguments opposing intermarriage. I argue that divergent Protestant and Catholic theologies of marriage and race, in conjunction with racial and regional differences between the South and the West, fundamentally shaped legislation on interracial marriage: Southern Protestant views on marriage and race facilitated the creation and maintenance of anti-miscegenation laws throughout U.S. history, while liberal Catholic beliefs inspired their repeal during the 20th century. By exposing the influences of Christianity on the socio-legal construction of race and marriage, my dissertation has substantial implications for scholarly discussions of history and law.
Scholars have recently investigated linkages between religion and race, religion and marriage law, and region and anti-miscegenation laws. Stephen Haynes’ book on “Noah’s curse” as the religious justification for American slavery establishes a strong relationship between Southern Protestantism and segregation. In her study on the history of marriage, Nancy Cott similarly links Christianity and American marriage law. Peggy Pascoe notes the significance of region, specifically, the multiracial American West, in creating the intricate anti-miscegenation laws enacted in Western states. John McGreevy connects religion, race and region in his examination of how 20th-century white ethnic Catholic parishes in the urban North responded to the influx of African-Americans. These works prepare the groundwork for an analysis of Christianity, region and anti-miscegenation law.
My research to date suggests that Perez and Loving offer a remarkable place for building upon this scholarship. A few details illuminate how religion and region played into these cases. The Perez case began in 1947, when Angela Perez and Sylvester Davis, a Catholic interracial couple from Los Angeles, asked to receive the sacrament of holy matrimony in their racially mixed parish. Upon learning of California’s anti-miscegenation law, they turned to Daniel Marshall, a Catholic civil rights attorney and President of the Los Angeles Catholic Interracial Council. When, as expected, the County Clerk refused to grant the couple a marriage license, Marshall filed a brief with the California Supreme Court. In the Catholic Church, he argued, marriage was a sacrament, and since the Church gave no prohibitions against interracial marriage, the law prevented the couple from participating in one of the most sacred of Catholic rituals. In his opinion concurring with the majority, Justice Douglas Edmonds agreed, asserting that marriage is “grounded in the fundamental principles of Christianity” and that the right to marry is thus “protected by the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.”

Eleven years later on the other side of the continent, Virginia residents Mildred and Richard Loving, an interracial couple who legally married in Washington, D.C., pleaded guilty to having contracted an interracial marriage and to having left the state to evade Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law. In 1963, the Lovings appealed their sentence, contending that Virginia’s laws violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights. Judge Leon Bazile reaffirmed the validity of the laws and the sentence, justifying his position by appealing to a hermeneutical tradition that found its most ardent expression among Southern Protestants. “Almighty God,” he wrote in his opinion,


…created the races white, black, yellow, malay, and red, and he placed them on
separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there
would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows
that he did not intend for the races to mix.

The Lovings again appealed the decision. In 1966 when the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, two Catholic organizations and a coalition of Southern Catholic bishops submitted an amicus curiae brief on the Lovings’ behalf, defending on religious grounds their right to marry, even though the couple was not Catholic. No Protestant organizations presented briefs or showed any similar support for them.
In Judge Bazile’s view, Virginia’s anti-miscegenation laws promoted social harmony between the races as per God’s own segregation policy. Daniel Marshall, in contrast, viewed California’s laws as undemocratic infringements on a couple’s right to practice their Catholic faith. These are but two examples that illustrate how Christianity intersected with Perez and Loving, and that underscore the significance of regional differences. Viewed this way, it becomes clear that the religious dimensions underlying the cases cannot be understood apart from an analysis of theological differences between Catholics and Protestants, and racial and religious differences between the South and the West.

Botham CGU Dissertation Grant Proposal

A diatribe of Luther against the medieval Catholic prohibition of mixed marriages with Jews:It sounds to me as if your prophet was in fact an early promoter of miscegenation. Much advanced for his time.

It would also be appropriate to note that he was talking about people already married to members of different religions. Luther naturally said that Christians are not allowed to marry non-Christians.

The fifth impediment is unbelief; that is, I may not marry a Turk, a Jew, or a heretic. I marvel that the blasphemous tyrants are not in their hearts ashamed to place themselves in such direct contradiction to the clear text of Paul in I Corinthians 7 [:12-13], where he says, "If a heathen wife or husband consents to live with a Christian spouse, the Christian should not get a divorce." And St. Peter, in I Peter 3 [:1], says that Christian wives should behave so well that they thereby convert their non-Christian husbands; as did Monica, the mother of St. Augustine.

Right, no same-sex marriage is allowed by Rome. And apparently no few Lutheran churches are in favour of same-sex marriage. Should I care? No. I feel no relation to either Gays or Protestants.

In the 19th century the Catholic Church allowed interracial marriages. Most Protestant denominations forbade them.

I disagree with your dishonesty to present Catholicism as an anti-nationalist belief, under such fallacious arguments, which you bring in the name of Lutheranism.

As early as 1614 the Native American Pocahontas was baptised in the Protestant church and married into it. Surely not an isolated case, but one that you have hidden all along.

It would also be appropriate to note that people thought that she belonged to the white, European race.

American Renaissance January 2004

I find this most ignoble. Didn't they teach you under the Protestant upbringing that lying in the name of your religious beliefs is a despicable act?
I guess they didn't, since for you salvation doesn't come through your acts but through believing in Jesus. A variant of Judaic predestinationism.

You still fail to see it, don't you?

Your religion (allegedly Protestantism) is by your own words a materialistic belief, much in line with the other religion which influenced in it, Judaism.

Your campaign of defamation through lies is, I must say, pathetic beyond belief:

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you happen to be aware of the doctrine Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is interpreted today?

The U. S. Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious affairs: "Evangelizing task no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish faith into Christianity and so end the distinctive witness of Jews to God in human history. Thus, while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also believes that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God."

Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations with Jewry:

"This does not mean that Jews in order to be saved have to become Christians; if they follow their own conscience and believe in God’s promises as they understand them in their religious tradition, they are in line with God’s plan, which for us came to its historical completion in Jesus Christ."

More from your prophet, cursing the Catholic Church for reviling the Jews:
This is hardly surprising that Luther defended his Jewish friends against the Gentiles, since his pretension was to present his schismatic views as the only "Truth" by having the Jews converted to his new religionathetic? Sure, but he is still willing to go to greather lengths to embrace the Jews and revile the Gentiles:But as if this pathetism was not enough, he soon starts to get signs that the Jews are not going to embrace him as their brother in God:But, why should he expect Jews to accept "his truth"?

Well, I've been doing a little intensive search on the internet for the text words of Luther where he actually acknowledges, infuriated, his anger against the Jews for not having embraced his schismatic vision of Christianism, which he admits having reformed by his own translation of the Bible under which, accordingly, the Jews had no reasons left to reject their conversion.

Or, in other words, he had judaicised Christianism.

I would ask you to provide that text, if I trusted that you would do it. But I will not do it.

Martin Luther - On the Jews and their lies

"First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. ..."
"Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. ..."
"Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. ..."
"Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. ..."
"Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. ..."
"Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them. ... Such money should now be used in ... the following [way]... Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed [a certain amount]..."
"Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow... For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants."
Martin Luther - On the Jews and Their Lies

Absolutely not.

This lousy map is supposed to be an answer to my assertion that the majority of Europe was either Catholic or Orthodox. And in fact it does confirm me, despite a large part of Europe (mostly Orthodox) being absent from the map.

What you have mentioned there are but distortions of yourself, by equating nations to states.

In Northern European nations which were Lutheran nationalism and Lutheranism were in a symbiotic relationship. In the nations both faiths were present Lutheran Christians were more ardently nationalists than Catholics.

In nations without Lutheran presence the faith had no influence, true.

XIXth century Romantic Nationalism was in fact a disorder, far from representing true Ethnic Nationalism. To it we owe the creation of "nations" as little ethnic as Italy, or the deconstruction of nations like Spain into states (based on the divisions of old kingdoms).

You tolerate no irredentism in your backyard, obviously.

I found this interesting:
List of active autonomist and secessionist movements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You mean the German Empire, as that was its formal name. For which the "nationalist" Otto von Bismarck tried to Germanize the Danish and Polish minorities.

Most nationalistic..

Which nationalistic historic ruler did not try to assimilate national minorities?

The German Empire was a German nation-state.

Your bigotry is appalling.

"Through his sermons and his magnificent translations of the Bible, Luther created the modern German language, aroused in the people not only a new Protestant vision of Christianity by a fervent German nationalism and taught them, at least in religion, the supremacy of the individual conscience. But tragically for them, Luther's siding with the princes in the peasant rising, which he had largely inspired, and his passion for political autocracy ensured a mindless and provincial political absolutism which reduced the vast majority of the German people to poverty, to a horrible torpor and a demeaning subservience. Even worse perhaps, it helped to perpetuate and indeed to sharpen the hopeless divisions not only between classes but also between the various dynastic and political groupings of the German people. It doomed for centuries the possibility of the unification of Germany."

--William L. Shirer
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich : A History of Nazi Germany--

A socialist distortion.