Historians can never agree on anything. Whether it be debating the disappearance of the Anasazi Indians in the west or whether George Washington really did chop down the cherry tree, they always seem to leave us hanging. In the New York Times article "Religion and Nationalism, Historians Trace and Unholy Alliance," four historians debate the fundamental causes of war. Most of the wars in pre-enlightenment Europe were heavily rooted in religious differences but as the world progressed, conflicts became less about religion and more about cultural difference.
             Historians Anthony Marx, a political science professor at Amherst College, and Linda Colley, a historian at the London School of Economics believe that nationalism "begins with an act of demonizing a religious other." Pre-enlightenment Europe was a very turbulent time in the continent's history. Conflicts between Catholics and Protestants not were not only happening in the streets but between the governments as well. The clash between Henry VIII and the Catholic church where Henry wanted an annulment and the Catholic church didn't want to compromise its power demonstrated how demonizing religious others can bring a country together. The same goes for the French Wars on Religion. The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre is the quintessential clash between Protestants and Catholics not only in the streets but also between members of the royal family. The Edict of Nantes, granting Protestants freedom of religion in France is by far the quintessential law granting religious freedom in France.
             Historians Eugene Webber, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, and David Bell argue, " Early modern states were fundamentally different...entities in which the sense of a nation had not yet been firmly established." However, most countries masked their political conflict with that of religion. This statement encapsulates the ...