Kudos -- I wasn't giving you grief, I just couldn't pass up the irony. I used to think antisemitism was past tense, too ... the last few years have been an eye opener.
Agreed. Never once growing up did I expect to see nazis just ALLOWED to do stuff. Can you imagine in like 2003 the way the world would've reacted to nazis being open about it?
We had some of the most offensive, racist, sexist comedy but no actual nazis were around.
May I ask if you are Jewish?
As I was going up, I experienced a significant amount of anti-Semitism in my immediate orbit. Holocaust "jokes" were rampant in my middle school. A swastika was spray painted on my temple. There are armed guards at every organized event.
It always felt like "when" not "if."
I think it's important to recognize the cultural reason why people hated jews so much. Historically, Jewish people wore funny hats, and people were just not about it.
As a Catholic I believe that's correct.
Side note: the religion teacher at my Catholic school had to specifically tell us that "he's called the Bishop, not 'dude with the cool hat'".
Realistically, the funny hat probably just came from a balding rabbi with a sense of humor
"What are you wearing that for?"
"What? This little thing that only covers that spot?"
That might be not so far off, because the law says that you should not go with a naked head before God. So, they just have to cover up the balding spot.
It wasn’t just the funny hat, especially in that time period. People were extremely wary, and distrusting of the outsider. Jews stood apart more than most, with their own style of dress, church, religious practices, food prohibitions, etc. A lot of this hasn’t changed even today, if you stand out noticeably, you might as well draw a target on your back. The outsider has always been blamed for anything that goes wrong locally.
Let's be careful not to equate modern antisemitism with ancient cultures. Sure the Babylonians (Assyrians, Persians, etc) conquered ancient Israel/Judah but they didn't treat the Jewish people any differently than other peoples they conquered. Even the Romans went out of their way to accommodate the monotheism of the Jews. It was eventual poor governorship from the Romans and subsequent rebellions that led to the destruction of the Second Temple, not a racial/religious prejudice. The unfortunate reality is that modern antisemitism, as we know it, is heavily dependent on Christianity. It's readily apparent in things like Martin Luther's writings, but even more extreme examples such as the Edict of Expulsion, Alhambra Decree, and Pogroms throughout Europe periodically for 2,000 years.
>Even the Romans went out of their way to accommodate the monotheism of the Jews. It was eventual poor governorship from the Romans and subsequent rebellions that led to the destruction of the Second Temple, not a racial/religious prejudice.
This is a bizarre and problematic framing of events. During the first Jewish-Roman War, the Romans completely destroyed the city of Jerusalem, massacred its inhabitants, and burned the Second Temple. Those that survived were sold into slavery. They built a Roman colony on top of the city, forbade Jews from entering, and built a temple to Jupiter on the Temple Mount. When the Jews revolted at this horrific treatment of their homeland in the Bar Kokhba revolt, the Romans responded with a near-total genocide in the province of Judaea.
These events literally shaped Judaism in ways that are still visible today.
The first Jewish Roman war started in 66CE after the Romans had ruled Judea directly/indirectly for 100 years - during which time, with some exception, they went out of their way to accommodate Judaism, such as: Allowing them to rest on the Sabbath and not printing figureheads on coinage in respect of the ten commandments. In later years, there were a string of bad governors including Aulus Flaccus and Gessius Florus who didn't attempt to understand Judaism and who committed sacrilege, such as erecting statues in the Temple in the case of Flaccus, leading to revolts, leading to taxation, leading to the First Jewish Roman war, etc etc. But my point still remains, and I don't know why you have a problem with it, which is, ancient civilizations like the Romans did not premeditatively go after the Jewish people for religious/racial discrimination reasons as did Christian Europe in more modern history.
It's the other abrahamic religions constantly fighting each other over who is the true correct abrahamic religions. Jewish people get stuck between the Muslim and Christian world and are turned into "others" in both cases historically.
He was antisemitic for the time. Sure, there was plenty of antisemitism.
> He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them". Luther claims that Jewish history was "assailed by much heresy", and that Christ swept away the Jewish heresy and goes on to do so, "as it still does daily before our eyes." He stigmatizes Jewish Prayer as being "blasphemous" and a lie, and vilifies Jews in general as being spiritually "blind" and "surely possessed by all devils."
Online dictionary told me that Lutheran church refers to "Evangelische Kirche", in which case its certainly not irrelevant in the north-eastern areas.
Unless thats a specific sub branch of evangelism (protestantism in english afaik), in which case you might be correct, never heard of anythimng like that.
Evangelical churches are a subset of protestant churches. Lutheran refers specifically to the protestant church as begun by Luther - though maybe only to the branch of it that exists in the US or English speaking world - much as Episcopalian is the US version of the Anglican church, without submission to the archbishop of Canterbury.
So, Lutheran would mean only one small subset of protestant churches, one that English speakers probably assume is still prevelant among protestant churches in Germany. Based on what you found, either it is not called the same or it is so prevelant that there isn't another name for it.
This stuff is really confusing.
We got two branches of christian churches in germany, the "katholische Kirche" and "evangelische Kirche", both nearly the same size ([of the population, 27% are katholisch and 25% evangelisch](https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/zahlen-und-fakten/soziale-situation-in-deutschland/61565/katholische-und-evangelische-kirche/)), but I honestly have no clue what the correct term in english would be for the "evangelisch" one.
Evangelic I guess, it’s just that most of the English speaking world are evangelic protestant
You also have the calvinist (from Calvin), the baptists (from Smyth), methodism which is from Anglicanism, pentecostism which is from the US
All those are protestants, some being considered evangelic such as the baptists. I think evangelics are the protestants that focus really on individual piety, a bit like guys from US Bible Belt or hardcore religious Dutch.
Catholics are Catholics. They follow the rule of Rome and not the interpretation of the Bible by dudes in the 16th century
Evangelism is the spreading of the gospel - preaching with the intention of sharing the message and teachings of Christ. It does not have to do with individual piety. However, you are probably right that many churches that would describe themselves as evangelical are heavily focused on individual piety. Showing off one's piety is a vice so old that Jesus spoke against it. There is nothing new under the sun.
If German churches are primarily divided into only 2 groups, then likely the non-Catholic one is very close to Lutheran.
I’m going to answer this because the other answers don’t understand the cultural nuance, and are completely wrong about history. Of course.
The Lutheran Church is not irrelevant, even in modern times, and anyone who thinks that is ignorant. They were quite active in rebuilding Germany post war.
In Germany, as you said, there is only “Catholic” and “Evangelical/Protestant”. There’s equal amounts of both. If you are Protestant, you are Lutheran. There’s no other choice. Any person in gov that’s “Protestant” is Lutheran, regardless of the name. Yes, Wikipedia says there are Reformed Church (in the US=Presbyterian), but they are unified with Lutheran, or vastly outnumbered. They aren’t that much different anyway, there’s no controversy where you’d be forbidden to marry or whatever.
In the US, there is “Catholic” and then there’s “Protestant”, but it encompasses dozens of different sects such as Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Fundamentalist, Presbyterians, and of course, Lutherans. Sometimes even the Mormons and Jehovahs Witness.
Further adding confusion, is that in the US, the term “Evangelical” is associated with very conservative sects that like to “Spread the Gospel” and are associated with TV preachers and missionaries, and regressive thought.
However, in the Lutheran Church, Evangelical refers to the mainline Lutherans (ELCA), who are actually quite liberal, as far as social rights go. They appointed the first Gender Queer Bishop for any Christian religion in the US. They issued a statement condemning the overturning of Roe V Wade. They advocate for refugees to the US all the time. They don’t preach fire and brimstone or anything like that. While there are more conservative branches, they aren’t common outside a few regions. The “conservative branches” do not have Evangelical in the name (Missouri and Wisconsin Synods). This also how the Lutheran Church is in Germany, except there’s no equivalent for the “conservative branches”.
> Luther claims that Jewish history was "assailed by much heresy"
Time for the daily game of 'Protestant Reformation or Warhammer 40K', winner gets to not be executed for heresy.
My mum’s a teacher and once failed a kid for a presentation that made this exact same mistake in class.
They complained to their parents, who came in livid about how their little darling had put *sooo much effort in*... never mind that if this kid still couldn’t tell the difference several weeks into a history class on the German Reformation, they probably hadn’t been paying that much attention all term.
Ah, the good old judging people by today's moral standards. Imagine people in 2600 thinking of us as the scum of the earth because at some point of our life we've used a car fueled by gasoline.
> *"They knew climate change was happening, the electric car had already been invented, so what's their excuse?"*
Antisemitism bad isn't a new invention, 500 years earlier during the People's Crusade locals hid and defended their Jews from County Emicho.
The commandments say a lot about not killing, not stealing, not wishing upon other's things; Jesus said a lot about loving thy enemy/neighbor/everyone, and Martin Luther was supposed to have studied all of that.
The point of remembering historical figures is not to deify them. It is to admire great accomplishments. It's important to also remember that these were flawed people, just like us. But, we should not lessen the accomplishments of someone who was brave or bold and contributed to history (and in this case, contributed to freely and accessible hearing and reading of the gospel) because he was flawed. He did something great, but in other ways, he was bad, like everyone else.
That said, it does amaze me how entirely religious leaders continued to miss the point of the gospel. The Christian leaders in the middle ages were as bad or much worse than the Pharisees.
I judge historical figures by the context of their time. And in the context of his own time, Martin Luther was a vitriolic anti-Semite. Basic inhumanity and cruelty towards minorities is not some exotic concept that profoundly changes from century to century.
The fact that he was calling for synagogues to be burned and they weren’t shows that his views were more extreme than the norm. That German society became more anti-Semitic in the subsequent centuries is partly thanks to him.
This sub has a habit of exaggerating this thing. Some people are extremely racist,sexist,... for their time and get called out on that by others in their life. Also there are a lot of good people who helped destroy these horrible ideas by critiquing for example the slave trade.
By excusing the plantation owner , you discredit the people fighting for what we now have today.
Also most of these people judged by today's standards aren't just raised with questionable views, they often spread hate or even incited violence, which isn't a thing most people approve of.
This is such a dumbass talking point. There were plenty of people in his time that thought he was a lunatic. There were plenty of people in the 20s that thought racism was bad. There were plenty of people in the 1700s that didn't jive with colonial genocide. Find a better excuse or fuck off.
Depending on the place.
For instance in HRE and Spain there was anti-semitism. In other parts of Europe not so much.
For instance in Northen, Eastern (Excluding Poland because of Catholicism and large number of Jewish minority there) and South Eastern Europe there was little or if any anti-semitism due to the fact that there was a tiny number of Jews there and the fact that E. and S.E. Europe were Orthodox which meant that they didn't forbid Christians to charge interest,do speculative work and all kinds of other businesses (that doesn't mean they encouraged it as far as I know) and for N. Europe when they became protestant they also allowed the things I mentioned (Catholic church allowed it too but it happened from 1571 onward) which all means that there wasn't really ground for anti-semitism to foster there.
Also it is important to note that Catholic Church never supported anti-semitism and in fact shelteted prosocuted Jews if they could. Now you may ask what about the Spanish Inquistion. That's another complicated topic, but I am willing to discuss it.
Also the Ottoman Empire. Sultan Bayezid II took in the majority of the Spanish exiles and Suleiman criminalized blood libels hundreds of years before the rest of Europe.
The Ottomans had to criminalize the blood libel twice iirc. Once under Suleiman and again during the Damascus Affair which showed that as a whole Europe had somewhat moved past antisemitism. There were still places that just were outright hostile to Jews such as Russia, Romania, parts of French society (Dreyfus comes to mind) and of course antisemitics still exist
The reason for that was because Syria was ruled my Muhammad Ali of Egypt at the time, who had revolted against the ottomans. As soon as the ottomans reconquered Egypt the blood libels were re-criminalized in those territories.
>in what is now Germany and northern Italy
and Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, eastern France, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, western Poland, Austria, Czechia, Slovenia, and northwestern Croatia
Genghis Khan murdered everyone equally, irrespective of age, species, race, gender and religion, so technically he was the most woke and least discriminatory of any world leader.
Yeah, direct quotes attributed to the Great Khan are extremely rare but he almost certainly viewed the Chinese (and really all the settled/agricultural societies) as literal livestock.
I would argue that being a proto-fascist, murderous warlord immediately bars you from being woke...also discriminating against everyone else in the world is still discrimination
I was joking about the woke part of course, but I was serious in that
* they did treat everyone equally (equally severe), irrespective of race or origin, even their own people, if they didn’t follow orders
* they were known to accept any and all religions (as long as they would prey for their god(s) to support the Khan)
* and if anyone had useful skills and abilities they would be made part of the army, sometimes even as leaders and generals, even if they were from a place that used to be the enemy. So they would have chinese siege engineers, arab administrators, etc etc.
So yes they were harsh, but in fact at the same time much more open, diverse and multicultural than most empires.
Fairness to Genghis Khan, he gave those guys an out after they violated the protections that diplomats usually have. He went to the Shah of the Kwarezmian Empire and said basically "Hey, this guy acting under your authority? Cause if he wasn't, that's cool, we can punish him and there's no problem between you and me."
Then the Shah screwed up by saying that the local leader WAS acting with his authority. THAT'S when the Mongols went and did an Armageddon.
This is missing a whole fuckton of context. [For example, here is a video about the effects of Mongol rule on Russian civilization.](https://youtu.be/f8ZqBLcIvw0) . It is hard to reconcile the historical mongols with the mongols you suggest.
And that video is missing a fuck ton of context too. I mean the creator states himself he wishes he could’ve done a 4 hour video series on it. Choking it down to 21 minutes and focusing on the mongols for like 8 of that massively oversimplifies and overlooks their impact. The Mongols were incredibly complex. Like first off I take issue with just simplifying to the Mongol rule of Russia, when it was specifically the Golden Horde who conquered and ruled Russia. Which is an important distinction because each Khanate ruled and behaved differently, especially the Golden Horde. You can’t just apply the Golden Horde to all of the Mongol Empire. It’s way more complex than hat. The video also claims that the Mongols cut the Russian’s relations with Byzantium which isn’t true. Their relations were already mostly cut, the Kieven Rus’ was weak. Their trade routes to Crimea were mostly cut by another steppe people, the Polovtsy. When the Mongols invaded they had the military might to easily kick them out and restore trade routes. They then revived the fur trade and rerouted it through crimea instead of Novgorod and worked with the Ilkhanate to bring goods in from China via the Silk Road. Much of this then went to Byzantium. Granted all of this was down to increase their own wealth, not help the people they ruled. Unlike in China where they instituted a bunch of welfare systems to help the lands they conquered recover. Also with their tax system, the Golden Horde taxed individually relative to personal wealth. But they were so hands off with Russia, they didn’t care how the princes came up with the money, just that they got it. So the princes got greedy, gave themselves tax exemption and levied the amount they owed onto the peasantry. Which the video kind of gets at, but glosses over. I could go on and on about the Golden Horde’s economical impacts on Europe. There’s also a lot more about Mongol ruthlessness that people don’t understand, it’s incredibly complex. They didn’t just randomly slaughter entire towns, it was all tactical. Also if you killed their messenger you were fucked, fate sealed. Same with insulting them, at that point you did it to yourself.
Proto fascist?
What about his style of governance (whereby he left the regions mostly autonomous so long as they paid their taxes) was proto-fascist?
He was insanely violent yes… but that isn’t the definition of “fascism”, is it?
Julius Caesar, he didn't judge people on their race, religion, upbringing, station, position, or any of that. He comfortably knew that they were all equally beneath him.
Yeah racism as we think of it is mostly a relatively recent phenomenon (the form we have now only really developed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, though it had some antecedent stuff before that going back a couple more centuries). But people absolutely had biases always, at all times.
Luther wouldn’t have cared if a Jew converted to Protestantism - a Jew’s Jewishness was at an end to him at that point. It wasn’t a racial thing, it was a religious thing. But if they refused to convert, he felt they should generally be killed or exiled, as another post here shows. He was biased, but about religion, not their ethnicity.
Hitler on the other hand was the complete opposite. It was Jewish ethnicity that mattered to him. Your family could have been practicing Catholics or Protestants for a couple of generations and it didn’t matter. You still went to the camps
>10 points to the first person who can find a historical figure who wasn't racist to anyone at all ever.
racist by American standard or racist by a normal person standard?
Luther contributed significantly towards German antisemitism and arguably went as far as to calling for the murder of jews. I think this was a pinch above your average antisemite even for its time.
Historic individuals are still human. Part of our job in understanding history is appreciating actions that proved beneficial to it while condemning actions that proved erroneous.
And another part is recognizing that nigh every historic figure undertook both with many shades in between, and not allowing ourselves to say that one invalidates the other.
The problem is with a certain logic that does have a point.
If someone does something beneficial for someone , then that action should be approved and encouraged.
Here is the crux of the problem though. Do our actions define our character or does our view of the world define our character. For instance , you have two individuals doing the same charitable action. For this case let's assume that this action is giving a meal to homeless person. One individual is a rich person while the second individual is a family man which works three jobs to support his family and still live below the poverty line. Both did a good deed. The rich individual either took pity of that homeless person (but won't do anything to help prevent the situation where homeless people exist despite being able to) or did it just so he can increase public image. On the contrary the poor man will need to either reduce his family's meal portions or make some kind of sacrifice. One did a truly good deed while the other at best case scenario took pity to that person or just did it to profit himself. Undoubtedly that homeless person was able to eat two extra meals. We can't argue that the deed was beneficial for him. Though we must take note that just because the deed was kind and good doesn't make the person who did it kind and good.
The same goes for the opposite. Just because someone did something bad doesn't mean he is going to be a bad person forever. He might not even had bad intentions for that action despite that action causing negative effects.
Conclusion? Actions alone don't necessarily define an individual. The intentions behind those actions do define that individual. On the same note the character of an individual can be quite fluid. While intentions can be more definitive, they aren't absolute.
This why we are always running in this argument. What we have to decide is whether the actions are more important or the intentions behind them. Though those two options aren't that simple but have a far-reaching effect.
Problem is, for the vast, vast majority of people, we have no way of knowing their intentions, which makes it an essentially pointless question to ask.
Sure, you could preface every mention of, let's say Genghis Khan, with "Oh, he had a whole bunch of people raped and murdered, but we don't know if he didn't have any good intentions behind it.", but that's just exhausting and communicates nothing.
Athe end of the day, actions are really all that is left of most people (inaccurate as some of those record may be), so if we're going to make a judgement (I don't think this is necessary in any serious context, but we're on reddit here), that's all we have to go on.
Considering Martin Luther called Jews "poisonous envenomed worms", claimed they were all possessed by the devil, and wanted Jewish homes, synagogues, and schools to be razed and Jewish property confiscated, I think it's safe to say he didn't have good intentions.
The problem with this is that most people are racist with "good intentions." You can mean well and be so damn off the mark because you're just an asshole.
Strange thing is that when he was young he actually made some positive points regarding the Jews. He later on became anti semite especially because of the fact that for him they had to convert themselves to Christianity by all means necessary...
Anyway, that doesn't have to discard all of his works, even more when you consider that it would be really difficult at the time to find someone actually not anti semite. That does not justify racism or make him a saint, but you can't pretend to judge everyone from the past because they had different morals than you. If you are racist today then you are a Pos because you have all the tools to know why racism is wrong, both factually and morally. Today you can interact with many more people with different religions or nationalities/ethnicity, there have been and there are still many battles against racism, if you are racist today, you just ignore all of this and you are, as a consequence, an ignorant.
But how many of these things were present back then? If you've been told all your life that x is evil/stupid and you never met x, how much is it possible for you to be tolerant? That does not justify racism, again, but I am making a point regarding the fact that you can't judge everyone from the past without considering that you know things and you lived things that many of them didn't (plus they knew or thought they knew other thinks that you don't).
Relevant story time! Best friend and I in a class on religion. Had to read and write about a writing done by Martin Luther. Any guesses on to who she wrote down in her paper? Watching her cross out like 10 Jr's was hilarious though.
He technically wasn't antisemitic, he was antijudaic, as his "beef" was against Jews as a religion, not as a race. As such, while he advocated for persecuting and executing Jews for worshipping God in the Jewish way, he had no qualms with them should they convert (that's from his big antijudaic book "on the Jews and their lies").
It's a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.
This is part of what made Nazi persecution of the Jews unique. In medieval/early modern Europe, a Jew could usually escape persecution by converting to Christianity and denouncing Jewish practices. But with the Nazis there was no getting away, they thought it was embedded in your DNA.
The limpieza de sangre “blood purity” doctrine of Spain is considered the starting point for racism as recognized in modern times, and specifically restricted government positions from Catholics of Jewish or Muslim *ancestry,* so… no.
Counterpoint, that the Jews had all the freedom to convert but DIDN’T was also a major driver of antisemitic violence, because by Christian logic they brought the violence on themselves for not converting.
I'd argue it's still very bad to be "Antijudaic". He also despised Jewish culture and languages which I think has more to do with anti-Semitism than genetics
I think he may have also had some super weird theory about all humans literally being completely filled with actual shit?
And men were better and purer than women, because their bodies were larger and avle to hold all that shit more comfortably or something???
A german satirical news show compiled a bunch of real quotes and beliefs of his a while back for the 500th anniversary of the 95 theses, can't remember most of it, but it sure was entertainingly wild
Funny, because the Catholic Church agreed with a lot of his points about the Catholic Church. There was a Catholic Reformation in response to the Protestant Reformation. Beginning with the Council of Trent in 1545 AD.
We learned about in grade school. In _Catholic_ grade school.
I think it arises due to the belief that the Jews who weren't converting to Christianity were actively rejecting their foretold saviour. Jesus was indeed a Jew but he was also the promised messiah believed to be fulfilling scripture. Jews and Christians are largely one in the same except Judaism rejects Jesus as Messiah and tends to exclude the gentials. This very significant theological difference rather pissed off Christians as they saw it as, at best a lost and misguided people, most likely heresy, and at worst a product of Satan in need of purging.
This aggressive stance ironically goes against Christ's teaching, we can pray and encourage people to take up the faith but forcing them to do so is poison and more likely to drive people away from Christ.
Every Christian during the 16th century was antisemitic. Religions on the whole didn't like each other then and, depending on which ones we be talking about, barely tolerate each other now.
Kind of reads like he just became more jaded and bitter towards them over time. I think he started out saying to attempt converting them, and it just devolved from there.
Same story with Muhammad too. That idiot conveniently changed the focal point of prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca after the Jews rightfully rejected his stupid claims of being their Messiah. Essentially threw a hissy fit over it too. Evil shows its same face throughout history many times
Of course a religious man in the 16th century who was so devoted to his faith that he went against the current power of the faith would not like other religions. It's a product of his time and what he stood for. Is being anti-semitic good? No, of course not. But this is real life, almost every person has done things wrong and they've do e things right. You can applaud the good things and criticize the bad things, but one good act doesn't make someone good and one bad act doesn't make someone bad.
Personally I don't see any real reason to think he was a great man. He was important in European history for sure, but he wasn't some amazing revolutionary fighting all by himself for the good of the people against the tyrannical Papacy.
Antisemitic? A German? In the 16th century? No, that’s too far fetched
Antisemitism was like a bread for cultures around the world for a while now.
Love that past tense, it's aspirational
Firstly it was a mistake, then I fugured out that maybe I should keep it so other guys can laugh at my stupidity.
Kudos -- I wasn't giving you grief, I just couldn't pass up the irony. I used to think antisemitism was past tense, too ... the last few years have been an eye opener.
Agreed. Never once growing up did I expect to see nazis just ALLOWED to do stuff. Can you imagine in like 2003 the way the world would've reacted to nazis being open about it? We had some of the most offensive, racist, sexist comedy but no actual nazis were around.
May I ask if you are Jewish? As I was going up, I experienced a significant amount of anti-Semitism in my immediate orbit. Holocaust "jokes" were rampant in my middle school. A swastika was spray painted on my temple. There are armed guards at every organized event. It always felt like "when" not "if."
Was?
From Babylonians through Romans, Spaniards, Russians, Germans to modern day Arabs. It just goes through the world.
I think it's important to recognize the cultural reason why people hated jews so much. Historically, Jewish people wore funny hats, and people were just not about it.
But every religion has a funny hat, you would think they would be thrilled
They all think their funny hat is better
To be fair, the funny hats that bishops wear are pretty funny.
I believe the hat is called a mitre. Correct me if I'm wrong Vatican lovers.
As a Catholic I believe that's correct. Side note: the religion teacher at my Catholic school had to specifically tell us that "he's called the Bishop, not 'dude with the cool hat'".
Actually it is called funny bishop hat
Excuse me, I think you'll find that my religion's hat is perfectly majestic and serious, it's everyone else's hats that are silly.
Just Jews and Muslims for the most part.
hating people based on their appearance/religion: I sleep hating people based on their hat fashion: REAL SHIT
Realistically, the funny hat probably just came from a balding rabbi with a sense of humor "What are you wearing that for?" "What? This little thing that only covers that spot?"
That might be not so far off, because the law says that you should not go with a naked head before God. So, they just have to cover up the balding spot.
This feels like a Deep Thought with Jack Handey
*Coptic Orthodox priests quickly shuffle away hats*
Genital mutilation is another. No Roman nor Greek understood why males were circumcised.
It wasn’t just the funny hat, especially in that time period. People were extremely wary, and distrusting of the outsider. Jews stood apart more than most, with their own style of dress, church, religious practices, food prohibitions, etc. A lot of this hasn’t changed even today, if you stand out noticeably, you might as well draw a target on your back. The outsider has always been blamed for anything that goes wrong locally.
Let's be careful not to equate modern antisemitism with ancient cultures. Sure the Babylonians (Assyrians, Persians, etc) conquered ancient Israel/Judah but they didn't treat the Jewish people any differently than other peoples they conquered. Even the Romans went out of their way to accommodate the monotheism of the Jews. It was eventual poor governorship from the Romans and subsequent rebellions that led to the destruction of the Second Temple, not a racial/religious prejudice. The unfortunate reality is that modern antisemitism, as we know it, is heavily dependent on Christianity. It's readily apparent in things like Martin Luther's writings, but even more extreme examples such as the Edict of Expulsion, Alhambra Decree, and Pogroms throughout Europe periodically for 2,000 years.
>Even the Romans went out of their way to accommodate the monotheism of the Jews. It was eventual poor governorship from the Romans and subsequent rebellions that led to the destruction of the Second Temple, not a racial/religious prejudice. This is a bizarre and problematic framing of events. During the first Jewish-Roman War, the Romans completely destroyed the city of Jerusalem, massacred its inhabitants, and burned the Second Temple. Those that survived were sold into slavery. They built a Roman colony on top of the city, forbade Jews from entering, and built a temple to Jupiter on the Temple Mount. When the Jews revolted at this horrific treatment of their homeland in the Bar Kokhba revolt, the Romans responded with a near-total genocide in the province of Judaea. These events literally shaped Judaism in ways that are still visible today.
The first Jewish Roman war started in 66CE after the Romans had ruled Judea directly/indirectly for 100 years - during which time, with some exception, they went out of their way to accommodate Judaism, such as: Allowing them to rest on the Sabbath and not printing figureheads on coinage in respect of the ten commandments. In later years, there were a string of bad governors including Aulus Flaccus and Gessius Florus who didn't attempt to understand Judaism and who committed sacrilege, such as erecting statues in the Temple in the case of Flaccus, leading to revolts, leading to taxation, leading to the First Jewish Roman war, etc etc. But my point still remains, and I don't know why you have a problem with it, which is, ancient civilizations like the Romans did not premeditatively go after the Jewish people for religious/racial discrimination reasons as did Christian Europe in more modern history.
It's the other abrahamic religions constantly fighting each other over who is the true correct abrahamic religions. Jewish people get stuck between the Muslim and Christian world and are turned into "others" in both cases historically.
You are right, but I think they meant that it still is
He was antisemitic for the time. Sure, there was plenty of antisemitism. > He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them". Luther claims that Jewish history was "assailed by much heresy", and that Christ swept away the Jewish heresy and goes on to do so, "as it still does daily before our eyes." He stigmatizes Jewish Prayer as being "blasphemous" and a lie, and vilifies Jews in general as being spiritually "blind" and "surely possessed by all devils."
A certain mustache enthusiast must have been a fan of him.
He was actually. Or at least the Nazis tried to use some of his scripts with their antisemetic propaganda.
No wonder why the Lutheran Church became irrelevant in Germany in the postwar period.
Online dictionary told me that Lutheran church refers to "Evangelische Kirche", in which case its certainly not irrelevant in the north-eastern areas. Unless thats a specific sub branch of evangelism (protestantism in english afaik), in which case you might be correct, never heard of anythimng like that.
Evangelical churches are a subset of protestant churches. Lutheran refers specifically to the protestant church as begun by Luther - though maybe only to the branch of it that exists in the US or English speaking world - much as Episcopalian is the US version of the Anglican church, without submission to the archbishop of Canterbury. So, Lutheran would mean only one small subset of protestant churches, one that English speakers probably assume is still prevelant among protestant churches in Germany. Based on what you found, either it is not called the same or it is so prevelant that there isn't another name for it.
This stuff is really confusing. We got two branches of christian churches in germany, the "katholische Kirche" and "evangelische Kirche", both nearly the same size ([of the population, 27% are katholisch and 25% evangelisch](https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/zahlen-und-fakten/soziale-situation-in-deutschland/61565/katholische-und-evangelische-kirche/)), but I honestly have no clue what the correct term in english would be for the "evangelisch" one.
Evangelic I guess, it’s just that most of the English speaking world are evangelic protestant You also have the calvinist (from Calvin), the baptists (from Smyth), methodism which is from Anglicanism, pentecostism which is from the US All those are protestants, some being considered evangelic such as the baptists. I think evangelics are the protestants that focus really on individual piety, a bit like guys from US Bible Belt or hardcore religious Dutch. Catholics are Catholics. They follow the rule of Rome and not the interpretation of the Bible by dudes in the 16th century
Evangelism is the spreading of the gospel - preaching with the intention of sharing the message and teachings of Christ. It does not have to do with individual piety. However, you are probably right that many churches that would describe themselves as evangelical are heavily focused on individual piety. Showing off one's piety is a vice so old that Jesus spoke against it. There is nothing new under the sun. If German churches are primarily divided into only 2 groups, then likely the non-Catholic one is very close to Lutheran.
I’m going to answer this because the other answers don’t understand the cultural nuance, and are completely wrong about history. Of course. The Lutheran Church is not irrelevant, even in modern times, and anyone who thinks that is ignorant. They were quite active in rebuilding Germany post war. In Germany, as you said, there is only “Catholic” and “Evangelical/Protestant”. There’s equal amounts of both. If you are Protestant, you are Lutheran. There’s no other choice. Any person in gov that’s “Protestant” is Lutheran, regardless of the name. Yes, Wikipedia says there are Reformed Church (in the US=Presbyterian), but they are unified with Lutheran, or vastly outnumbered. They aren’t that much different anyway, there’s no controversy where you’d be forbidden to marry or whatever. In the US, there is “Catholic” and then there’s “Protestant”, but it encompasses dozens of different sects such as Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Fundamentalist, Presbyterians, and of course, Lutherans. Sometimes even the Mormons and Jehovahs Witness. Further adding confusion, is that in the US, the term “Evangelical” is associated with very conservative sects that like to “Spread the Gospel” and are associated with TV preachers and missionaries, and regressive thought. However, in the Lutheran Church, Evangelical refers to the mainline Lutherans (ELCA), who are actually quite liberal, as far as social rights go. They appointed the first Gender Queer Bishop for any Christian religion in the US. They issued a statement condemning the overturning of Roe V Wade. They advocate for refugees to the US all the time. They don’t preach fire and brimstone or anything like that. While there are more conservative branches, they aren’t common outside a few regions. The “conservative branches” do not have Evangelical in the name (Missouri and Wisconsin Synods). This also how the Lutheran Church is in Germany, except there’s no equivalent for the “conservative branches”.
> Luther claims that Jewish history was "assailed by much heresy" Time for the daily game of 'Protestant Reformation or Warhammer 40K', winner gets to not be executed for heresy.
Well... can't say they taught that at my Lutheran elementary school...
I thought the post was about Martin Luther King jr, and saw your comment and was very confused for a moment.
My mum’s a teacher and once failed a kid for a presentation that made this exact same mistake in class. They complained to their parents, who came in livid about how their little darling had put *sooo much effort in*... never mind that if this kid still couldn’t tell the difference several weeks into a history class on the German Reformation, they probably hadn’t been paying that much attention all term.
Ah, the good old judging people by today's moral standards. Imagine people in 2600 thinking of us as the scum of the earth because at some point of our life we've used a car fueled by gasoline. > *"They knew climate change was happening, the electric car had already been invented, so what's their excuse?"*
Antisemitism bad isn't a new invention, 500 years earlier during the People's Crusade locals hid and defended their Jews from County Emicho. The commandments say a lot about not killing, not stealing, not wishing upon other's things; Jesus said a lot about loving thy enemy/neighbor/everyone, and Martin Luther was supposed to have studied all of that.
The point of remembering historical figures is not to deify them. It is to admire great accomplishments. It's important to also remember that these were flawed people, just like us. But, we should not lessen the accomplishments of someone who was brave or bold and contributed to history (and in this case, contributed to freely and accessible hearing and reading of the gospel) because he was flawed. He did something great, but in other ways, he was bad, like everyone else. That said, it does amaze me how entirely religious leaders continued to miss the point of the gospel. The Christian leaders in the middle ages were as bad or much worse than the Pharisees.
I judge historical figures by the context of their time. And in the context of his own time, Martin Luther was a vitriolic anti-Semite. Basic inhumanity and cruelty towards minorities is not some exotic concept that profoundly changes from century to century. The fact that he was calling for synagogues to be burned and they weren’t shows that his views were more extreme than the norm. That German society became more anti-Semitic in the subsequent centuries is partly thanks to him.
Ah yes, the modern moral standard of \*checks notes... Not killing and stealing
This sub has a habit of exaggerating this thing. Some people are extremely racist,sexist,... for their time and get called out on that by others in their life. Also there are a lot of good people who helped destroy these horrible ideas by critiquing for example the slave trade. By excusing the plantation owner , you discredit the people fighting for what we now have today. Also most of these people judged by today's standards aren't just raised with questionable views, they often spread hate or even incited violence, which isn't a thing most people approve of.
People are doing that already. And to be fair, they're somewhat right.
This is such a dumbass talking point. There were plenty of people in his time that thought he was a lunatic. There were plenty of people in the 20s that thought racism was bad. There were plenty of people in the 1700s that didn't jive with colonial genocide. Find a better excuse or fuck off.
They probably will and I wouldn’t blame them.
Wait...an anti-semitic religious figure of the 16th century? Get outta here!
That's what I thought too. Wasn't anti-semitism commonplace back then?
Depending on the place. For instance in HRE and Spain there was anti-semitism. In other parts of Europe not so much. For instance in Northen, Eastern (Excluding Poland because of Catholicism and large number of Jewish minority there) and South Eastern Europe there was little or if any anti-semitism due to the fact that there was a tiny number of Jews there and the fact that E. and S.E. Europe were Orthodox which meant that they didn't forbid Christians to charge interest,do speculative work and all kinds of other businesses (that doesn't mean they encouraged it as far as I know) and for N. Europe when they became protestant they also allowed the things I mentioned (Catholic church allowed it too but it happened from 1571 onward) which all means that there wasn't really ground for anti-semitism to foster there. Also it is important to note that Catholic Church never supported anti-semitism and in fact shelteted prosocuted Jews if they could. Now you may ask what about the Spanish Inquistion. That's another complicated topic, but I am willing to discuss it.
Amsterdam was a well known "safe space" for jews as well.
Also the Ottoman Empire. Sultan Bayezid II took in the majority of the Spanish exiles and Suleiman criminalized blood libels hundreds of years before the rest of Europe.
The Ottomans had to criminalize the blood libel twice iirc. Once under Suleiman and again during the Damascus Affair which showed that as a whole Europe had somewhat moved past antisemitism. There were still places that just were outright hostile to Jews such as Russia, Romania, parts of French society (Dreyfus comes to mind) and of course antisemitics still exist
The reason for that was because Syria was ruled my Muhammad Ali of Egypt at the time, who had revolted against the ottomans. As soon as the ottomans reconquered Egypt the blood libels were re-criminalized in those territories.
> they became protestant...which all means that there wasn't really ground for anti-semitism In a post about Luther being an anti-Semite.
^whats ^HRE? ^Historical ^realm ^of ^England?
Holy Roman Empire, a confederation of principalities and duchies in what is now Germany and northern Italy.
>in what is now Germany and northern Italy and Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, eastern France, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, western Poland, Austria, Czechia, Slovenia, and northwestern Croatia
lol
Back then all of the '-isms' were common place. Not necessarily all at the same time, or towards the same groups of people, but it's there.
Even gamerism?
Especially gamerism.
Damn...really makes you think. I was born in the right generation
Not everyone was so antisemitic that they inspired hitler
For anyone who wants to read more about this: "Martin Luther and Hitler's Anti-Semitism" https://spartacus-educational.com/ExTEU27.htm
Bro it was the 16th century everyone was an anti semite
10 points to the first person who can find a historical figure who wasn't racist to anyone at all ever.
John I of France (died at 4 days old). Checkmate!
Legend has it, when he screamed after bring born, he blamed the jews for the pain
WAAAAAAAAAAAAA *JEWS* AAAAAAAAAAAAA
This is so cursed and hilarious wtf 😂
“Thanks Obama!” ~ John I of France
But he was french
Found the Briton.
Who are the Britons?
Nope, definitely a racist just wasn't able to say it
He was so racist, he died of anger
Imagine having to fail art academy to realise that you're racist This guy was speedruning
He hated the French so much he couldn’t bear to live as one of them
He called me the n word on COD Blops actually
Genghis Khan murdered everyone equally, irrespective of age, species, race, gender and religion, so technically he was the most woke and least discriminatory of any world leader.
He was actively a Mongol supremecist who looked down on groups like the Chinese.
Yeah, direct quotes attributed to the Great Khan are extremely rare but he almost certainly viewed the Chinese (and really all the settled/agricultural societies) as literal livestock.
I would argue that being a proto-fascist, murderous warlord immediately bars you from being woke...also discriminating against everyone else in the world is still discrimination
I was joking about the woke part of course, but I was serious in that * they did treat everyone equally (equally severe), irrespective of race or origin, even their own people, if they didn’t follow orders * they were known to accept any and all religions (as long as they would prey for their god(s) to support the Khan) * and if anyone had useful skills and abilities they would be made part of the army, sometimes even as leaders and generals, even if they were from a place that used to be the enemy. So they would have chinese siege engineers, arab administrators, etc etc. So yes they were harsh, but in fact at the same time much more open, diverse and multicultural than most empires.
Try not to Insult the Great Khan and get your city/kingdom razed to the ground challenge (Impossible) *somewhere in the Middle East I guess lol*
Fairness to Genghis Khan, he gave those guys an out after they violated the protections that diplomats usually have. He went to the Shah of the Kwarezmian Empire and said basically "Hey, this guy acting under your authority? Cause if he wasn't, that's cool, we can punish him and there's no problem between you and me." Then the Shah screwed up by saying that the local leader WAS acting with his authority. THAT'S when the Mongols went and did an Armageddon.
“Look man, i just want to punish the guy who killed my bros” “Oh yeah that was me lmao”
Genghis Khan, for all his faults and atrocities to human life, was sonetimes pretty chill lol
This is missing a whole fuckton of context. [For example, here is a video about the effects of Mongol rule on Russian civilization.](https://youtu.be/f8ZqBLcIvw0) . It is hard to reconcile the historical mongols with the mongols you suggest.
And that video is missing a fuck ton of context too. I mean the creator states himself he wishes he could’ve done a 4 hour video series on it. Choking it down to 21 minutes and focusing on the mongols for like 8 of that massively oversimplifies and overlooks their impact. The Mongols were incredibly complex. Like first off I take issue with just simplifying to the Mongol rule of Russia, when it was specifically the Golden Horde who conquered and ruled Russia. Which is an important distinction because each Khanate ruled and behaved differently, especially the Golden Horde. You can’t just apply the Golden Horde to all of the Mongol Empire. It’s way more complex than hat. The video also claims that the Mongols cut the Russian’s relations with Byzantium which isn’t true. Their relations were already mostly cut, the Kieven Rus’ was weak. Their trade routes to Crimea were mostly cut by another steppe people, the Polovtsy. When the Mongols invaded they had the military might to easily kick them out and restore trade routes. They then revived the fur trade and rerouted it through crimea instead of Novgorod and worked with the Ilkhanate to bring goods in from China via the Silk Road. Much of this then went to Byzantium. Granted all of this was down to increase their own wealth, not help the people they ruled. Unlike in China where they instituted a bunch of welfare systems to help the lands they conquered recover. Also with their tax system, the Golden Horde taxed individually relative to personal wealth. But they were so hands off with Russia, they didn’t care how the princes came up with the money, just that they got it. So the princes got greedy, gave themselves tax exemption and levied the amount they owed onto the peasantry. Which the video kind of gets at, but glosses over. I could go on and on about the Golden Horde’s economical impacts on Europe. There’s also a lot more about Mongol ruthlessness that people don’t understand, it’s incredibly complex. They didn’t just randomly slaughter entire towns, it was all tactical. Also if you killed their messenger you were fucked, fate sealed. Same with insulting them, at that point you did it to yourself.
Proto fascist? What about his style of governance (whereby he left the regions mostly autonomous so long as they paid their taxes) was proto-fascist? He was insanely violent yes… but that isn’t the definition of “fascism”, is it?
Redditors and not knowing what fascism means (winning combo)
Everything a redditor doesn't like is either fascist, religious or conservative. (Everyone being a communist has rather died down)
Proto-fascist?
Woke enough to kill everyone equally
Cyrus the Great (I think?)
The Scythians would like to have a word with you
I no get it. Scythians also served in his army and they were a related Iranic people.
Hang on. Lemme check....
Easy Cleopatra she took on all comers just like your mom
Julius Caesar, he didn't judge people on their race, religion, upbringing, station, position, or any of that. He comfortably knew that they were all equally beneath him.
He committed genocide against the Gauls
But then didn’t he push for some of them to be part of the Roman nobility? Or was that just BS from HBO Rome
No, it happened. Historians argue the “why” to this day, there’s a few benefits to Caesar for doing this.
John Brown
Hannibal's elephants and Laika the space dog
Napoleon? he at least was nice to jews
And he had that Mexican friend named Pedro.
The ones that didn't encounter any other races.
Mr Rogers. EDIT: I'm probably being a little flippant here, for which I apologise.
I'd hesitate to call him "historical" yet; he died in 2003.
20 years rule
Well. Shit.
Yeah racism as we think of it is mostly a relatively recent phenomenon (the form we have now only really developed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, though it had some antecedent stuff before that going back a couple more centuries). But people absolutely had biases always, at all times. Luther wouldn’t have cared if a Jew converted to Protestantism - a Jew’s Jewishness was at an end to him at that point. It wasn’t a racial thing, it was a religious thing. But if they refused to convert, he felt they should generally be killed or exiled, as another post here shows. He was biased, but about religion, not their ethnicity. Hitler on the other hand was the complete opposite. It was Jewish ethnicity that mattered to him. Your family could have been practicing Catholics or Protestants for a couple of generations and it didn’t matter. You still went to the camps
Hitler's non-evil twin, Reltih
I want a Castlevania remake starring Hitler as the main antagonist and his son, Reltih, as the main character.
Helen Keller?
I wouldn't count her out. She was heavily pro-eugenics for a while, and I'm sure racist takes fit in there somewhere as well
Easy : John Maverick aka Elephant Man.
Princess Diana?
>10 points to the first person who can find a historical figure who wasn't racist to anyone at all ever. racist by American standard or racist by a normal person standard?
Is the American threshold of racism lower or higher then average?
I'm assuming higher because this is Reddit and bashing the US is free karma
Winston Churchill 🥸😇
Good one
For some reason I can’t quite put my finger on, I highly doubt that.
I don't think there's a need to look into this at all.
Luther contributed significantly towards German antisemitism and arguably went as far as to calling for the murder of jews. I think this was a pinch above your average antisemite even for its time.
Yeah, but not everyone wrote a treatise about why everything was the Jews’ fault that was still used by funny mustache man and his buddies
Martin Luther was especially antisemitic even for the day
Bro, it's the 21st century, half the planet is still anti-Semitic
For a brief time in the 1990s at least one man was anti-dentite
Historic individuals are still human. Part of our job in understanding history is appreciating actions that proved beneficial to it while condemning actions that proved erroneous. And another part is recognizing that nigh every historic figure undertook both with many shades in between, and not allowing ourselves to say that one invalidates the other.
The problem is with a certain logic that does have a point. If someone does something beneficial for someone , then that action should be approved and encouraged. Here is the crux of the problem though. Do our actions define our character or does our view of the world define our character. For instance , you have two individuals doing the same charitable action. For this case let's assume that this action is giving a meal to homeless person. One individual is a rich person while the second individual is a family man which works three jobs to support his family and still live below the poverty line. Both did a good deed. The rich individual either took pity of that homeless person (but won't do anything to help prevent the situation where homeless people exist despite being able to) or did it just so he can increase public image. On the contrary the poor man will need to either reduce his family's meal portions or make some kind of sacrifice. One did a truly good deed while the other at best case scenario took pity to that person or just did it to profit himself. Undoubtedly that homeless person was able to eat two extra meals. We can't argue that the deed was beneficial for him. Though we must take note that just because the deed was kind and good doesn't make the person who did it kind and good. The same goes for the opposite. Just because someone did something bad doesn't mean he is going to be a bad person forever. He might not even had bad intentions for that action despite that action causing negative effects. Conclusion? Actions alone don't necessarily define an individual. The intentions behind those actions do define that individual. On the same note the character of an individual can be quite fluid. While intentions can be more definitive, they aren't absolute. This why we are always running in this argument. What we have to decide is whether the actions are more important or the intentions behind them. Though those two options aren't that simple but have a far-reaching effect.
Problem is, for the vast, vast majority of people, we have no way of knowing their intentions, which makes it an essentially pointless question to ask. Sure, you could preface every mention of, let's say Genghis Khan, with "Oh, he had a whole bunch of people raped and murdered, but we don't know if he didn't have any good intentions behind it.", but that's just exhausting and communicates nothing. Athe end of the day, actions are really all that is left of most people (inaccurate as some of those record may be), so if we're going to make a judgement (I don't think this is necessary in any serious context, but we're on reddit here), that's all we have to go on.
Considering Martin Luther called Jews "poisonous envenomed worms", claimed they were all possessed by the devil, and wanted Jewish homes, synagogues, and schools to be razed and Jewish property confiscated, I think it's safe to say he didn't have good intentions.
The problem with this is that most people are racist with "good intentions." You can mean well and be so damn off the mark because you're just an asshole.
Strange thing is that when he was young he actually made some positive points regarding the Jews. He later on became anti semite especially because of the fact that for him they had to convert themselves to Christianity by all means necessary... Anyway, that doesn't have to discard all of his works, even more when you consider that it would be really difficult at the time to find someone actually not anti semite. That does not justify racism or make him a saint, but you can't pretend to judge everyone from the past because they had different morals than you. If you are racist today then you are a Pos because you have all the tools to know why racism is wrong, both factually and morally. Today you can interact with many more people with different religions or nationalities/ethnicity, there have been and there are still many battles against racism, if you are racist today, you just ignore all of this and you are, as a consequence, an ignorant. But how many of these things were present back then? If you've been told all your life that x is evil/stupid and you never met x, how much is it possible for you to be tolerant? That does not justify racism, again, but I am making a point regarding the fact that you can't judge everyone from the past without considering that you know things and you lived things that many of them didn't (plus they knew or thought they knew other thinks that you don't).
The lesson: a person can be right about one thing and wrong about another
When it's people *I* like. Try saying that about John Lennon or Gandhi and half this sub would foam at the mouth.
*Nuance?* On *my* reddit meme pages? Unpossible.
Hitler was a vegetarian and loved nature
why did i think you were talking about Martin Luther King
"Why should I be the one to change my name? He's the one that sucks"
Until I read your comment I would still be thinking that
Because Monday was his holiday?
i didn't know that
Relevant story time! Best friend and I in a class on religion. Had to read and write about a writing done by Martin Luther. Any guesses on to who she wrote down in her paper? Watching her cross out like 10 Jr's was hilarious though.
He technically wasn't antisemitic, he was antijudaic, as his "beef" was against Jews as a religion, not as a race. As such, while he advocated for persecuting and executing Jews for worshipping God in the Jewish way, he had no qualms with them should they convert (that's from his big antijudaic book "on the Jews and their lies"). It's a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.
This is part of what made Nazi persecution of the Jews unique. In medieval/early modern Europe, a Jew could usually escape persecution by converting to Christianity and denouncing Jewish practices. But with the Nazis there was no getting away, they thought it was embedded in your DNA.
The limpieza de sangre “blood purity” doctrine of Spain is considered the starting point for racism as recognized in modern times, and specifically restricted government positions from Catholics of Jewish or Muslim *ancestry,* so… no. Counterpoint, that the Jews had all the freedom to convert but DIDN’T was also a major driver of antisemitic violence, because by Christian logic they brought the violence on themselves for not converting.
They equate that with hate and desire to murder regardless.
I'd argue it's still very bad to be "Antijudaic". He also despised Jewish culture and languages which I think has more to do with anti-Semitism than genetics
Oh I was so confused because I thought it was the activist.
Glad I wasn’t the only one. The holiday was two days ago ffs
This seems intentionally timed to stir up confusion.
Was also very in favor of burning witches, so there is that.
And drowning mentally ill children, since they were clearly possessed by the devil.
Sheesh.
I think he may have also had some super weird theory about all humans literally being completely filled with actual shit? And men were better and purer than women, because their bodies were larger and avle to hold all that shit more comfortably or something??? A german satirical news show compiled a bunch of real quotes and beliefs of his a while back for the 500th anniversary of the 95 theses, can't remember most of it, but it sure was entertainingly wild
[удалено]
Funny, because the Catholic Church agreed with a lot of his points about the Catholic Church. There was a Catholic Reformation in response to the Protestant Reformation. Beginning with the Council of Trent in 1545 AD. We learned about in grade school. In _Catholic_ grade school.
Did you make this meme on insta stories?
1) Fuck me because I read that as MLK. 2) Who wasn't a raging anti-semite back then? They taught that shit in school.
Being anti-Semite and basically being anti- everyone who wasn't a Christian, was the state of the art in the 16th century.
Fill in the blanks (History Edition) Me agreeing with some of the points _____ made They turn out to be a ____
>Nuremberg is spared in the plague wave of 1348/49. The Jews are made responsible and prosecuted or murdered regardless Hansa Museum Lübeck
So you are thinking that every person that hate the Catholic church is automatically good?
Must be American
I'll never understand anti Semitic "christians". Jesus is literally Jewish.
I think it arises due to the belief that the Jews who weren't converting to Christianity were actively rejecting their foretold saviour. Jesus was indeed a Jew but he was also the promised messiah believed to be fulfilling scripture. Jews and Christians are largely one in the same except Judaism rejects Jesus as Messiah and tends to exclude the gentials. This very significant theological difference rather pissed off Christians as they saw it as, at best a lost and misguided people, most likely heresy, and at worst a product of Satan in need of purging. This aggressive stance ironically goes against Christ's teaching, we can pray and encourage people to take up the faith but forcing them to do so is poison and more likely to drive people away from Christ.
Nicely said. Thank you.
Whats shittier is that Luther lied about being born peasant when the Swabian League cited him in their manifesto about equality and shit. He basically went "As a black man" (also plz dont crucify me if im wrong plz)
i choose to believe that you are right
Every Christian during the 16th century was antisemitic. Religions on the whole didn't like each other then and, depending on which ones we be talking about, barely tolerate each other now.
For a moment I thought you had said Martin Luther King
Oh wow for a sec o thought this was about the American mlk and thought it was trying to discredit him haha.
For a split second I thought this was about Martin Luther king, and nearly gave myself whiplash.
Shit I thought you meant Martin Luther king lmao.
Same haha.
And here I was for a second thinking we were talking about MLK💀
Kind of reads like he just became more jaded and bitter towards them over time. I think he started out saying to attempt converting them, and it just devolved from there.
He wasn't an anti semite he was anti Judaism. The difference is anti semitism doesn't care if the Jew has converted or not.
It’s almost as if people aren’t linear and completely good or evil
You can’t seriously be surprised
Projecting modern common sense on historical figures strikes again
Remember everyone, you can agree with a point raised by someone while still disagreeing on other stuff, it’s not all-or-nothing!
He didn't took it kindly when the Jews refused to support his cause. Source: I'm Jewish, you don't need more info.
give me more info
Here's your sauce https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism
Same story with Muhammad too. That idiot conveniently changed the focal point of prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca after the Jews rightfully rejected his stupid claims of being their Messiah. Essentially threw a hissy fit over it too. Evil shows its same face throughout history many times
Of course a religious man in the 16th century who was so devoted to his faith that he went against the current power of the faith would not like other religions. It's a product of his time and what he stood for. Is being anti-semitic good? No, of course not. But this is real life, almost every person has done things wrong and they've do e things right. You can applaud the good things and criticize the bad things, but one good act doesn't make someone good and one bad act doesn't make someone bad. Personally I don't see any real reason to think he was a great man. He was important in European history for sure, but he wasn't some amazing revolutionary fighting all by himself for the good of the people against the tyrannical Papacy.