You have a point, but it is also best to remember that conquered tribes bowed to the new set of gods (or God) because they believed that the conquerors gods were better than theirs. Tribes resisted Christian missionaries until their God was put to the test. It is also true that there was blood shed between reformers and the papacy. Most of the bloodshed began as the papacy tried to reassert its authority over Christendom. I am no appologist for the papacy of the middle ages.
It's no coincidence that the Enlightenment, with its emphasis on reason over religion, followed hard on the heels of the Reformation period.
You are correct. Once mankind realized they were free from the tyranny of the papacy and could directly refer to scriptures, the next natural progression was to better understand the world it inhabited. During the French Revolution the Enlightment had thousands murdered in Paris alone, not to mention that many cathedrals, such as Notre Dame, were used as worship places where quasi-priests used the altar as a science lab where experiments were performed for the audiences pleasure. The Enlightment also gave rise to Hegel and Marx.
Nothing wrong with the Enlightenment as a general rule. The problem is that there were "enlightened" people who tossed God out of the equation.
We're not talking about conquered tribes, however -- the situation is far closer to medieval Europe, where nominal Christianity was the norm, but the practices and church structures were obviously in need of repair. Right now, as then, the arguments were about how to re-establish "True Christianity."
It is also true that there was blood shed between reformers and the papacy. Most of the bloodshed began as the papacy tried to reassert its authority over Christendom. I am no appologist for the papacy of the middle ages.
Well.... yes and no. The Thirty-Years War was a ridiculously complicated mess. The Reformation had profound political, as well as religious, implications. The Lutherans and Catholics had established an uneasy peace in 1555, in which the various German princes could choose whether to be Lutheran or Catholic. The spread of Calvinism upset this situation, as it demanded to be a "third choice." The combination of religious and political consequences of this dynamic led to war. It wasn't so much the Pope, as it was the Holy Roman Emperor, who wanted to reassert Catholic authority .... and the Duke of Bavaria (an ardent Catholic) was his chief supporter. And the Lutheran Princes, who opposed him. And the King of Sweden (a Calvinist) who intervened, and so on.... And don't forget the nominally Catholic French, who ended up on the "protestant" side of the fight, because their interests were more endangered by the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, and others, than by the protestants.
The results of that war were sickening.... Germany lost about a third of its entire population. The economies of the various nations involved were nearly ruined. England was convulsed by its own Civil War.... and it was all driven by religious enthusiasms. The Enlightenment sprang in significant part from a rejection of the religious enthusiasms that had wrought such carnage.
These days, although there is broad agreement on the degradation of morals and culture, I think people are rightly suspicious of those who attempt to marry religion and politics -- even the best religious intentions are too easily corrupted into the pursuit of power.
Which brings us to the "Religious Right." It enjoyed a fair amount of influence, but is now generally held in great suspicion by many, including by many devoted Christians. Why? Because their attitude smacks of the same sort of religious enthusiasms that gave rise to the unpleasantness of the early-mid 1600s. I think there's a strong cultural unease about it (and, similarly, about things such as the Salem Witch Trials), that has persisted all this time.
The problem is that there were "enlightened" people who tossed God out of the equation.
Agreed. Just like there were "religious" people who slaughtered those who followed the "wrong" religion. The common denominator there, is "people," who have the unfortunate tendency to kill those who disagree with their strongly-held beliefs.
The question for us as Christians is, how do we avoid the sort of "I'll force you into it" attitudes that characterize both extremes in this argument over religion? We know that people in general are yearning for God. We seldom admit to ourselves that those same people are often repulsed by "Christians."