The Protestant Reformation is over 500 years old.

[Beet]

The anniversary actually passed in November 2017, but I did not notice it. That's not nothing. And Christians will be happy that the Catholic Church, given its recent scandals, does not have a monopoly on the Faith. The Roman Republic itself did not last 500 years. Is there any significance to this?

[darklordoftech]

The Protestant Reformation lead to Monarchs claiming to be the sole representatives of God's will (now that there was no Pope in their way) and removed the power of the one institution that kept nationalism in check. Now, nationalism was unleashed on the world.

[Blue3]

The only thing that really defines Protestantism is fundamental disagreement with the Catholic Church (and to a lesser extend the Orthodox Churches).

There's not much that unites all of them.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The Protestant Reformation lead to Monarchs claiming to be the sole representatives of God's will (now that there was no Pope in their way) and removed the power of the one institution that kept nationalism in check. Now, nationalism was unleashed on the world.

Interesting way of linking up phenomena of two different time periods but I can to some extent see what you're getting at--the Treaty of Westphalia is marked by IR scholars as the beginning of the doctrine of "state sovereignty", a concept still used today by leaders of various stripes, including dictators attempting to shield themselves from international criticism.

[Peanut]

The Protestant Reformation lead to Monarchs claiming to be the sole representatives of God's will (now that there was no Pope in their way) and removed the power of the one institution that kept nationalism in check. Now, nationalism was unleashed on the world.

Interesting way of linking up phenomena of two different time periods but I can to some extent see what you're getting at--the Treaty of Westphalia is marked by IR scholars as the beginning of the doctrine of "state sovereignty", a concept still used today by leaders of various stripes, including dictators attempting to shield themselves from international criticism.

I also see what he's saying, but I would tend to disagree. Nationalism as a concept and state sovereignity, with its more popular undertones (a nation for the people WITHIN that nation, rather than leaders of said nations, as anachronic as the idea may be in this particular point in timw) does not come until later in history (after the Enlightenment,) however, there are some precursors to the idea of nationalism, but not the concept per se as I would defne it. Then again, I do understand the points made.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The Protestant Reformation lead to Monarchs claiming to be the sole representatives of God's will (now that there was no Pope in their way) and removed the power of the one institution that kept nationalism in check. Now, nationalism was unleashed on the world.

Interesting way of linking up phenomena of two different time periods but I can to some extent see what you're getting at--the Treaty of Westphalia is marked by IR scholars as the beginning of the doctrine of "state sovereignty", a concept still used today by leaders of various stripes, including dictators attempting to shield themselves from international criticism.

I also see what he's saying, but I would tend to disagree. Nationalism as a concept and state sovereignity, with its more popular undertones (a nation for the people WITHIN that nation, rather than leaders of said nations, as anachronic as the idea may be in this particular point in timw) does not come until later in history (after the Enlightenment,) however, there are some precursors to the idea of nationalism, but not the concept per se as I would defne it. Then again, I do understand the points made.

While two concepts may be temporally separated, they may still be linked, even indirectly. I don't know if that is the case here, though we could speculate about how the Enlightenment might not have occurred without the Reformation ad nauseam if we liked.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Protestant Reformation lead to Monarchs claiming to be the sole representatives of God's will (now that there was no Pope in their way) and removed the power of the one institution that kept nationalism in check. Now, nationalism was unleashed on the world.

So because independence and religious freedom led to nationalism, independence and religious freedom are horrible?

The problem with this argument is that it leaves no room for other regions, not to mention for instance Eastern Religion, Islam, Judaism etc.

The desire to be free from the "distant oppressor" is not an evil development. It is the abuse of said desire by corrupt individuals that has led to where we are. Just as I would point out, there have been a number of dictators who have abused the Catholic faith and other faiths to obtain and maintain power.

[darklordoftech]

The Protestant Reformation lead to Monarchs claiming to be the sole representatives of God's will (now that there was no Pope in their way) and removed the power of the one institution that kept nationalism in check. Now, nationalism was unleashed on the world.

So because independence and religious freedom led to nationalism, independence and religious freedom are horrible?

I didn't intend to suggest any such thing. I don't think there's anything wrong with independence or religious freedom, whether it be historically or currently.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Protestant Reformation lead to Monarchs claiming to be the sole representatives of God's will (now that there was no Pope in their way) and removed the power of the one institution that kept nationalism in check. Now, nationalism was unleashed on the world.

So because independence and religious freedom led to nationalism, independence and religious freedom are horrible?

I didn't intend to suggest any such thing. I don't think there's anything wrong with independence or religious freedom, whether it be historically or currently.

I see.

Lately it seems there has been a shift in terms of historical views regarding several things that were long regarded as a positive thing, in the wake of the rise of nationalist sentiments in the US, EU and elsewhere. I think this reassessment is misguided because it basically leads to one siding with the Empire against the oppressed, simply because Trump won election/Brexit etc. Liberation of oppressed groups from the distant oppressors had previously always been regarded as a positive event by most people in the West when reflecting on historical events.

This new trend is evident in multiple historical events being recast on this "did it lead to nationalism" basis, from which side should have won World War I, to in this case the after-effects of the Reformation as a possible lead-in event for nationalism. I think in doing so, international oriented liberals are making a huge mistake because it essentially places them right into the box that the far right and the nationalists want them in.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Protestant Reformation was the beginning of the secular movement politically and religiously.  It was then, the Papacy and the Monarchy began, also with the Magna Carter to reform itself so that the Lay Man can have a representative Democracy in both aspects of politics and religion.

During the Papacy, no one but the pope had absolute power, and in politics, most Monarchs had absolute power. That's why the Greats like Lincoln, and Martin Luther King Jr and WEB Dubois followed Martin Luther. Also, Marxism came after this as well. 

Traditionalism and Conservatism and Communism still have roots, but reformation started our Democracies.