Martin Luther and the Eurozone: Theology as an Economic Destiny?
by Stephan Richter
The Globalist
May 14, 2012

If a European country turned from Catholicism to Lutheranism (or, more broadly, to Protestantism) after the early 1500s, when Martin Luther (and a few other reformers, such as Zwingli and Calvin) launched the Reformation, that would have been a good indication that the nation would qualify for the adoption of the common European currency about five centuries later. If it had stayed predominantly Catholic, or even Greek Orthodox, then not.

With few exceptions, that simple rule would have saved hundreds of millions of people around the world a lot of despair, along with much of the animosity and frustration that now prevails — never mind trillions of euros in asset value.

Obviously, Germany would have been in the eurozone under that rule, as would Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Interestingly, financially solid Switzerland would have been in, too. So would, even more tantalizingly, the United Kingdom.

Ireland? Spain? Portugal? Italy? No. Never mind Greece, that highly (un-)Orthodox country when it comes to conducting a clean and proper economic policy.

Luther, if asked at Maastricht, would have nixed any suggestion of including these countries straight away. "Read my lips: No unreformed Catholic countries," he would have chanted. The euro, as a result, would have been far more cohesive — and the European economy in far less trouble...

 mzpro5 wrote: 

 hippiechick wrote: 
Sorry but the correct liturgy is "I yam what I yam".

Popeye had little regard for proper grammar.

My religion: Popeyeism: I Yam Who I Yam

                                          
                                         click

 Zep wrote:
I am so there.
 

 
congratulations! you've just been ordained

 miamizsun wrote:
I am so there.
 

 oldslabsides wrote: 
i'm thinking about starting a religion

"Cult for the Adoration of Wonderful Women"

where we worship and appreciate "nice" women

are you in?

wellokaythen...

'Star Wars' Chosen As Religion In Czech Republic On New Census

 oldviolin wrote: 
Not you. Not me.

 Umberdog wrote: 
define other...

 winter wrote: 
It does to the 'other belief.'

I was baptised in an army chapel as "christian" and my father, a multiple divorcee married a young catholic woman who was promptly excommunicated, to help raise me after my Mother's suicide - which damned her to hell in most, if not all, religions.  I was allowed to attend any service I wished and make up my own mind. In a southern baptist church,  I watched as a curch leader pulled his daughters out of a summer youth camp because the youth leader had been a jew at one time and had converted to the baptist faith.  I was twelve or so.  The catholic church told me my step mom was not worthy of membership for marrying my father.  I felt sorry for the jews - my Russian birth mother shared the concentration camp experience with them.  I never understood the different divisions of christianity, but I read the bible hoping to learn why things were as they were.  I watched friends who spoke in tongues and spouted scripture as though it was written in brail on the surface of their brains, scheme and plot and steal their way through their lives as though they were entitled because they were born again.  I'm no longer confused.  My connection to "God" is probably stronger than that of those who attend church every Sunday and I haven't stepped foot in a church in years.  Organized religion certainly seems to me to be a necessity to those who really need the guidance to keep them from hurting others as they struggle through their otherwise meaningless lives.  It offers hope too, for those who have none of their own.  We have to be patient with those who think differently.  We are all really one here on this planet. 

 winter wrote: 
I have far more respect for you than most "believers" - of whatever organized religion, my friend.  As for space, we have a guest room whenever you care to visit.

 oldslabsides wrote: 



Christians don't bother me. I don't have a problem with any religion, really: believe what you like, so long as you afford me the same space and the same respect.

 winter wrote: 
Believe it or not "Christians" probably get me about as upset as they do you.  Like you, I was raised in one of the more fundamental wings of the religion and bought it hook, line and sinker for most of my life.  When I realized what I'd been sold, well, let's just say I'm only just now getting over the anger.  Doing so has required a conscious effort.

 oldslabsides wrote: 

I just went back to find this article and to see how it was reported elsewhere.  The speech didn't make a ripple here as far as I can see- he was making a speech to a bunch of church of england clergy and clearly choosing his words for his audience.  Absolutely no commentary pieces about it, loads on the ongoing spat with the French though!!

 winter wrote:  Whether you know it or not, my friend, you are a crusader.

 oldslabsides wrote: 



I know that you didn't intend any insult. That's not you.

The whole Church of England issue is as much a non-issue to me as "In God We Trust" on our currency. People see it for the basically meaningless formality it is, I think: saying that supports Cameron's assertion seems to me like calling their government a tyranny because they still have hereditary monarchs.

When people in positions of power and leadership say stuff like "this is a Christian nation", they encourage the more overt bigots to come out from under their rocks. The more obstacles we place in the way of people participating in our society, however subtle, the more we widen the divide between the In Crowd and Those Jerks. It's one thing to be marginalized by idiots writing letters to the editor, and quite another to hear it from a respected national leader with a wide following.