Replies

I meant it to emphasise that:
1. This tithing was followed by Protestant as well as Catholic governments across Europe
2. This still IS followed by Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Austria, etc. i.e. mainly those who still follow it now are Protestant in name countries,
3. The diezmo was introduced in Aragon and Catalonia when they were frontier states (Marches) on the frontier between the CArolingian Empire and the Moors.
4. This was used to construct Churches and feed clergy (pretty important for the Reconquista)
5. In practice, the diezmo did not always retain its original purpose of subsidizing the Church. Feudal lords who were patrons of a monastery or church would gain the benefit of the tithe, or they might outright by the right to the tithe from the Church, becoming, effectively, tax farmers.
6. the diezmo was not always exactly ten percent. The actual amount differed in different places and times. Nor was it extended to all products of agriculture and husbandry, which led to market distortions as farmers shifted to whatever was not taxed.
7. In the Middle Ages, monarchs managed to participate in the benefit of the diezmo.(Joseph Pérez, Isabel y Fernando: los Reyes Católicos, Second Edition, Editorial NEREA, 1997, ISBN 8489569126. p. 83–84.) Ferdinand III of Castile proposed to Pope Innocent IV the possibility that the royal treasury would receive the third of the diezmo destined for the construction of churches, in order to pay the costs of the siege of Seville.[Enrique Ossorio Crespo, op. cit. mentions this, but incorrectly refers to Innocent VIII, an obvious chronological impossibility. Joseph Pérez, op. cit., mentions Innocent IV and confirms the date, but does not mention the context of the siege. ] A share of two ninths was granted in 1247 (Joseph Pérez, Isabel y Fernando: los Reyes Católicos, Second Edition, Editorial NEREA, 1997, ISBN 8489569126. p. 83–84.) Seville was captured in 1248.[Diego Ortiz de Zúñiga, Antonio María Espinosa y Carzel, Volume 5, Imprenta Real, 1796, p. 254] Once this first participation was agreed to, the royal share came and went for some years.(Joseph Pérez, Isabel y Fernando: los Reyes Católicos, Second Edition, Editorial NEREA, 1997, ISBN 8489569126. p. 83–84.) Beginning in 1340, a portion of the diezmo was repeatedly assigned to the State, under the designation of tercias reales ("royal thirds").[Joseph Pérez, Isabel y Fernando: los Reyes Católicos, Second Edition, Editorial NEREA, 1997, ISBN 8489569126. p. 83–84] This became permanent in 1494
6. Your statement "This is why they forced the country to become..." is wrong as Spain was conquered BACK from the Muslims. There was no forced conversion of Protestants as there were no Protestants during the years of the deizmo. Unless of course, you consider it ok for the Spanish muslims to remain followers of Islam and not moriscos.
7. The reason for the conversion (forced or otherwise) of Muslims (Moriscos) was because the enemy was the Muslim moors and any co-religionists were considered potential spies or worse -- wouldn't you agree with their paranoia?

Thank you. Interesting.

I think that one consequence of the utter neglect given to the period between, say, the reign of Augustus and the rise of Luther is that people have NO IDEA of the political turmoil and chaos all over the the Mediterranean littoral and Europe for hundred and hundreds of years. The idea that peoples from north eastern Europe stomped through Spain and occupied North Africa, or that Muslims went roaring back the other way and darn near got into France (and, much later ,Vienna) is just not known, and so its effect on society and on the wild fears of the people is not appreciated.

Tom Sowell, in related news, is very good on how far more white people have been enslaved than black -- and on how the slave trade persists. But it's an aspect of history that is just neglected unless one goes a-looking for it.

The point of my post was about state sanctioned religion.
When you have it and you are basically forced to pay to that religion it gives that religion power . The Roman Catholic Church was built on and gained it’s power this way.
(this is still going on in some south American countries and they are still persecuting Protestants too in areas which they controll)

It is not that I disagree that Spain had the right to expel muslims or fight them since they were invaders (invaders that also forced people to convert) But the state sanctioned Church also went after the Jews and forced them to convert or be killed (oh and they killed a lot of them after they converted also) The Jews btw have never forced their religion on anyone and they certainly did not in Spain either.

The Protestants are not free of this guilt either as the Lutherans basically did the same to the Anabaptist.