'Not a pretty sight' A Virgin Mary statue was found hanging at Stewartstown Presbyterian Church.

It is not my presumption. It is a fact. All Protestant nations, save the USA, have become essentially atheist.

Generally speaking, the Catholic nations of Europe have a higher percentage of believers in God than do the Protestant nations or the mixed nations. (The two exceptions are historically Catholic France, where the level of belief in God is about the same as in historically Protestant Britain, and the Catholic majority Czech Republic.) There are some paradoxes: atheism is more prevalent in Canada (44% Catholic, 29% Protestant) than in the United States (51% Protestant, 26% Catholic), with the respective figures for atheists being 16% and 10%. Atheism is also least prevalent in the South, where Baptists represent a plurality of the population and Catholics are generally a small minority than in other regions of the U.S. where Catholicism represents a larger percentage of the population.

As for "essentially atheist," I am not sure what you mean. The upper classes in all Western countries, including our own, tend to be more atheistic than other classes. This likely holds true in historically Catholic nations, with Poland and Ireland being likely exceptions. Church attendance is declining in all Western nations, irrespective of their historic religion.

You wrote:

"However, by 1967, his government granted Protestants, Muslims, and Jews freedom to worship, as this Time story indicates:"

You can keep dancing all you like, but it won't work. Franco took power in 1939. From at least 1941 to 1967 (your claim) he persecuted Protestants in one way or another. That disproves your claim. Remember, this is what you claimed:

"The devout Catholics, Franco and Salazar, permitted non-Catholic worship and did not punish Protestant or other non-Catholic clergy during their rule of their respective countries."

Clearly you were wrong. Refine your error all you like. You're still wrong.

"With respect to the regimes of Franco and Salazar, my statement was too sweeping, but not entirely incorrect."

About Franco it was entirely incorrect. "during their rule"? Entirely incorrect.

You wrote:

"(The two exceptions are historically Catholic France, where the level of belief in God is about the same as in historically Protestant Britain, and the Catholic majority Czech Republic.) There are some paradoxes: atheism is more prevalent in Canada (44% Catholic, 29% Protestant) than in the United States (51% Protestant, 26% Catholic), with the respective figures for atheists being 16% and 10%. Atheism is also least prevalent in the South, where Baptists represent a plurality of the population and Catholics are generally a small minority than in other regions of the U.S. where Catholicism represents a larger percentage of the population."

All true I am sure, but none of that goes against what I wrote. France is Protestantized and has been since 1789. Canada, no matter how many French Canadians USED TO BE CATHOLIC, is a Protestant country with a culture, government, law code, etc. that is entirely Protestant except for some hold outs.

"As for "essentially atheist," I am not sure what you mean. The upper classes in all Western countries, including our own, tend to be more atheistic than other classes. This likely holds true in historically Catholic nations, with Poland and Ireland being likely exceptions. Church attendance is declining in all Western nations, irrespective of their historic religion."

True. All of Europe is effectively moving from the Protestant stage into the atheist stage (even Catholic countries) since all of them have governments or cultures heavily influenced by Protestantism. It is inevitable that this happen. There has been no earthly hope of changing this since the end of WWI and WWII.

Franco ruled Spain from 1939 to his death in 1975, although he did relinquish some of his powers in 1973. The victorious Nationalists were not monolithic, as, say, the Bolsheviks were in Russia, but included several factions: fascists (Falange), two types of monarchists (Carlist and Bourbon), and anti-Communists not dissimilar to American conservatives. The influence of the Falangists waned in the Nationalist government over the course of time. The Time article you cited from 1941 was at the height of the fascist and Catholic extremist influence. Franco was far more a pragmatist than an ideologue, but for whatever reason, the tiny Spanish Protestant community was not subject to direct state persecution after 1945. While Catholic extremists like Cardinal Segura of Seville agitated against the Protestant minority, he was effectively displaced in 1954 by the Vatican of Pope Pius XII with the blessing of Franco. Granted, Protestants were second class citizens, there were instances of mob violence in the late 1940s against Protestant churches led by Catholic extremists, and there were limits on their religious liberties. The restrictions lessened gradually over the post-World War II period, until 1967, when religious liberty was formally established. All this occured during Franco's rulership.

Economic liberalization also occurred in the same post-World War II era, as Spain moved from a fascist-style centrally directed economy to more of a free market model, not too much different than Pinochet did in Chile (though he was abolishing a Marxist model) or Ludwig Erhard and Konrad Adenauer did in Germany. (Pinochet and Adenauer were Catholics.) The bottom line is that Franco started out as Mussolini-like, but wound up more like Eamon de Valera (who was, BTW, half-Spanish)

As an aside, though you may not like it, the Catholic scholars of the School of Salamanca in 16th Century Spain were "Proto-Austrian" in their economic theories. The Catholic founders of Maryland, along with the Baptists in Rhode Island and the Quakers in Pennsylvania, pioneered religious freedom on this continent. There is a considerable body of Catholic social and political thought that favored limited government and individual liberty: Lord Acton, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, and Alexis de Tocqueville in the 19th and early 20th Centuries; Joseph Sobran, Thomas Woods, Joseph Sirico, and many of the writers at LewRockwell.com in our own time.

The authoritarian, repressive model of Catholic monarchs like Philip II, Louis XIV, and Mary of England is far from the only type of polity found in the Catholic world or advocated by Catholic thinkers. Additionally, several of the Catholic libertarians appear aligned with the conservative and traditionalist factions of Catholicism, which would hardly make them vulnerable to charges of their being crypto-Protestants.

Corrections, please.

Did Franco persecute Protestants? ~~Yes.~~ To some extent at the beginning of his regime, but the policies changed to greater tolerance.

Did you deny that he did so? ~~Yes.~~ I erred in making a false assumption about his entire rule, but Spain did move slowly toward religious tolerance in that time frame.

Posting more than that is unncessary.

The purpose of the extended post was to demonstrate that there have been Catholic rulers and political philosophers who were not authoritarian, repressive, or corporatist. Also, as time progressed, Franco gradually went away from that model in his governance of Spain.

The only things worse for you to do than beating a dead horse, is to beat the WRONG dead horse.

You wrote: "Corrections, please....To some extent at the beginning of his regime, but the policies changed to greater tolerance."

I was right. You were wrong. You claimed Franco didn't persecute Protestants. I showed he did. You then decided to modify your position. That was pointless. You were wrong. I am still right. I never claimed Franco persecuted Protestants all the time, everywhere or in everyway. You said he didn't persecute Protestants. He did so. Why can't you just move on from your error?

"I erred in making a false assumption about his entire rule, but Spain did move slowly toward religious tolerance in that time frame."

You were wrong. You were entirely WRONG about Franco. That's what I said. I was right. You were wrong. Deal with it.

"The purpose of the extended post was to demonstrate that there have been Catholic rulers and political philosophers who were not authoritarian, repressive, or corporatist."

None of that changed your error. Nor did any of that change or alter anything I said, or show that I made a single error in this thread in any way.

"Also, as time progressed, Franco gradually went away from that model in his governance of Spain."

And he still persecuted Protestants which you denied. You were wrong. I was not. Move on.

Did Franco actually authorize the repressive measures against Protestants in the early 1940s? It would seem that with World War II going on and Franco trying to strike some middle ground between the Axis and the Allies, this policy would not have been too well thought out, especially since the major players on both sides of the war (Germany and Britain) at the time of the Time article you cited (1941) had large Protestant populations. The size of the Protestant minority was very small, less than 0.1% of the population, and represented no threat to the regime. Additionally, Franco was a ruler more in the model of Mannerheim in Finland or Pilsudski in Poland than a totalitarian ruler like Stalin in the USSR or Hitler in Germany, where there was a virtual unity between the ruling party and the state, including the secret police. The ruling party in Spain, the National Front, was a coalition of several factions, as I pointed out previously.

To draw an American analogy, local authorities, especially in the South before 1960, discriminated against blacks in the courts and government services. However, discrimination of this sort was not a Federal policy, and the various Presidents did not order or approve of the actions of Southern local governments. Franco was not a totalitarian ruler and may not have authorized what happened to the Spanish Protestants.

While I was incorrect in saying there was no persecution of Protestants under Franco, you have not proven that Franco persecuted Protestants any more than, say, Truman persecuted blacks.

You wrote:

"Show me where Franco authorized the closing of the Protestant congregations in the early 1940s."

No. Show me why I have to show you that.

"It probably was the act of some subordinate ultramontane loonies than government policy."

A conspiracy theory on your part neither constitutes reality nor a mission plan for me to go looking for evidence to counter it.

If you would think for a moment you would ask yourself how likely the shut down was NOT Franco's idea when it lasted so long. Would he let it go on for year after year if he didn't support it? That thought would occur to a normal person. For you, more is obviously needed.

Since you have no idea of what you're talking about you might want to read Jesus De Galindez, "Community Security vs. Man's Right to Knowledge," in Columbia Law Review, Vol. 54, No. 5, (May, 1954), pp. 809-820. Look at the info where Galindez actually talks about Article 6 of the national charter of Spain, written under Franco's auspices. You have no idea what the Article said or was about -- and I won't help you with it either. It's about time you actually made an effort to not be ignorant.

Did Truman or FDR authorize inferior schools for blacks or denial of black voting rights in the South? They may not have taken action on the matter for a number of reasons, such as their reliance on Southern electoral votes and Congressional support. Failure to act on the matter of black segregation does not mean it was authorized by Truman or FDR, although they were aware of the situation. Why couldn't the same have been the case with Spanish persecution of Protestants by Franco? But thanks for the background information from the Columbia Law Review.

BTW, how does my assumption that the persecution represented independent actions by subordinate officials constitute a conspiracy theory? How does it represent secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations? I hardly think some local magistrate or mayor was a part of a powerful alliance, or that he acted in secret, any more than local sheriffs and officials in the South were part of any grand conspiracy to suppress blacks. Weren't most of the Spanish Protestants concentrated in a couple of cities?

You wrote:

"Did Truman or FDR authorize inferior schools for blacks or denial of black voting rights in the South?"

Franco persecuted Protestants. Deal with it.

"They may not have taken action on the matter for a number of reasons, such as their reliance on Southern electoral votes and Congressional support. Failure to act on the matter of black segregation does not mean it was authorized by Truman or FDR, although they were aware of the situation. Why couldn't the same have been the case with Spanish persecution of Protestants by Franco? But thanks for the background information from the Columbia Law Review."

Franco persecuted Protestants. You have offered no evidence otherwise.

"BTW, how does my assumption that the persecution represented independent actions by subordinate officials constitute a conspiracy theory?"

Are you serious? You are assuming that years worth of persecution was conducted against Protestants either without Franco knowing (in a country he conquered and ruled over as dictator) which would have to mean that a conspiracy hid it from him. Or, a cabal, working against Franco orchestrated this persecution while Franco knew of it and fought it. Either way, for your nutty ideas to be true, there had to be a conspiracy of epic proportions -- especially since Franco couldn't possibly NOT KNOW what was going on this case over many years.

"How does it represent secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations?"

I just explained that. You can't refute that logic either.

"I hardly think some local magistrate or mayor was a part of a powerful alliance, or that he acted in secret, any more than local sheriffs and officials in the South were part of any grand conspiracy to suppress blacks. Weren't most of the Spanish Protestants concentrated in a couple of cities?"

You are merely proving my point. There was no conspiracy. Franco persecuted Protestants. If local officials were not involved in a conspiarcy then they were merely following Franco's policy. Period. If Protestants were persecuted in only a few cities, because they were "concentrated in a couple of cities" then it would have been impossible to hide what was going on in those cities so Franco had to have known about the persecution, and thus, he not only knew of it, but approved it since he was dictator of the whole country, controlled all police, and issued the national charter after writing it and approving it.

Thank you for proving you have no clue.

My understanding of Franco was that his power was less than absolute. Of course, he was hardly the president or prime minister of a representative government, either. His overall power was less than Hitler or Stalin, but greater than Roosevelt or Churchill. I think you see him more as a totalitarian than an authoritarian type.

In the early 1940s, Franco's main concern was to keep Spain out of World War II, even though he had every reason, from a nationalist standpoint, to take the German offer of assistance to help expel the Brits from Gibraltar, which they had taken two centuries earlier. After the fall of France, most of Spain's neighbors were in the Axis camp. He also "owed" the Germans and the Italians for their help in the Spanish Civil War.

Additionally, there were large numbers of Communists and regional separatists that had gone underground. Civil war and leftist rule had left the Spanish economy in shambles. Franco had more serious challenges than any of the major powers, except maybe Japan, which fought a war way beyond its capacity to fight.

The Protestants were small potatoes in comparison. You may be right in your assertion. BUT I may be right too, like it or not, Vlad.

You wrote:

"I think you see him more as a totalitarian than an authoritarian type."

I see him as someone who persecuted Protestants. You said he did not do so. He did. You were wrong. You have been dancing ever since.

"In the early 1940s, Franco's main concern was to keep Spain out of World War II,... He also "owed" the Germans and the Italians for their help in the Spanish Civil War."

No matter who he owed or how much he owed them, Franco persecuted Protestants. You said he didn't. You were wrong.

"Additionally, there were large numbers of Communists and regional separatists that had gone underground. Civil war and leftist rule had left the Spanish economy in shambles. Franco had more serious challenges than any of the major powers, except maybe Japan, which fought a war way beyond its capacity to fight."

No matter what Franco had to deal with he still persecuted Protestants. You said he didn't. He did. You were wrong.

"The Protestants were small potatoes in comparison. You may be right in your assertion. BUT I may be right too, like it or not, Vlad."

Whether I like it or not has nothing to do with the irrefutable, proven fact that Franco persecuted Protestants. Call them small potatoes all you like. Franco still persecuted them. Make a fool out of yourself by insisting you may be right "too" when you've already been proven wrong, but you'll still be wrong since Franco persecuted Protestants. You said it didn't happen. It did. You were wrong.

Keep beating that dead horse. It will still be dead. You'll still be dead wrong. Franco persecuted Protestants.

Sorry, but you were proven wrong. If you are saying you were not proven wrong then you must mean that Franco did not persecute Protestants. The problem is that you have admitted he did. Be self-contradictory if you like. You're not making any sense anyway so you might as well go the distance and just come across as out of touch with all reality.

After all, you first admitted being somewhat incorrect:

"With respect to the regimes of Franco and Salazar, my statement was too sweeping, but not entirely incorrect."

So you were not correct, but somewhat incorrect. I'll pass by the fact that it is nonsense to equivicate as you have.

You then made a further admission of error: "Corrections, please....To some extent at the beginning of his regime, but the policies changed to greater tolerance."

Yes, you're still equivicating, but that's a bit better. One wonders how 20 or more years means "beginning of his regime" when he ruled for less than 40 years, but oh well.

Then you just flat out admitted you were wrong while still trying to spin your blunder: "I erred in making a false assumption about his entire rule, but Spain did move slowly toward religious tolerance in that time frame."

You "erred". How would you know you erred unless it was shown to you? How would you have it shown to you unless it was proven? The only alternative is for you to believe that you were wrong without proof of your error which would mean you have other, deeper problems. Take your pick.

Then you wrote: "While I was incorrect in saying there was no persecution of Protestants under Franco, you have not proven that Franco persecuted Protestants any more than, say, Truman persecuted blacks."

Leaving aside the obvious idiocy about this having anything at all to do with Truman, notice how you admit that you were "incorrect in saying there was no persecution of Protestants under Franco"? So you admitted you were wrong. Either you had been proven wrong (and that led to a change of mind on your part) or you admit to being wrong when no proof is provided whatsoever. Which is it? Were you wrong about Franco - as you admitted here - or are you a nut? Those are your only two alternatives.

After admitting your error on more than one occasion you started to assert you might be right anyway (even though you already said you were wrong): "The Protestants were small potatoes in comparison. You may be right in your assertion. BUT I may be right too, like it or not, Vlad."

Small potatoes they were, but they were persecuted nonetheless. Whether or not they were "small potatoes" is irrelevant to the question regarding the actual existence of persecution.

And now you're saying you have not been proven wrong --- after admitting you were wrong in one way or another in at least 4 posts. Way to come across as a nut, Wallace!

Merry Christmas!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.