Diaz Del Castillo's The Conquest Of New Spain

Throughout the history of early modern Europe, toleration of those with differing philosophies and beliefs is a topic of constant discussion and action. Some like Locke would argue that a society had moral foundations, regardless of the type of religion as long as one existed. However, others like Heinrich Kramer would justify and rationalize the forced conversion and killing of those of different beliefs and religions. However, in order to gain an understanding of how these ideas function in the real world, one should examine additional texts. One such resource is Diaz Del Castillo’s the Conquest of New Spain, which details Hernan Cortes’ crusade throughout South America. Conversely, Cortes’ actions are not indicative of all explores, Matteo

Kramer draws upon his religious learning in his explanation of why one commits sin stating that” for the wicked, when a man begins to be influenced towards, and wills to commit sin, there must also be some extrinsic cause of this. And this can be no other than the devil” (Kramer Pg. 2). This type of thinking shows how Kramer is willing to dismiss the beliefs contrary to those of the Christianity as beliefs formed under the influence of the devil. In addition to this, Kramer is also quick to blame the majority of witchcraft and evil as a whole on women. He justifies this by saying, “they have slippery tongues, and are unable to conceal from the fellow-women those things which by evil arts they know; and, since they are weak, they find an easy and secret manner of vindicating themselves by witchcraft.” (Kramer Pg. 8). Through this reasoning, Kramer is able to rationalize intolerance against women solely for the fact that they are women and thus must be weaker and that evil can have a greater influence on their beliefs. Using this type of logic to Kramer is able to provide some type of pseudo moral grounding that would validate the targeting of those with non-Catholic beliefs in attempts to cure the ills that plagued Europe. However, Locke would provide a counter argument

Unlike Kramer, Locke is much more willing to accept the beliefs of another and states, “if any people congregated upon account of religion, should be desirous to sacrifice a calf, I deny that that ought to be prohibited by a law. Melibaeus, whose calf it is, may lawfully kill his own calf at home, and burn any part of it that he thinks fit. For no Injury is thereby done to any one, no prejudice to another man’s Goods. And for the same reason he may kill his calf also in a religious meeting.” (Locke Pg. 52). By saying, this Locke states that it matters not what religion one practices or the ceremonies or ritual that person preforms as long as the ceremony does not violate the laws of the land. In addition, Locke goes as far as to discredit those that use force in an attempt to convert non-believers to Christianity. Locke states that “Any one may employ as many exhortations and arguments as he pleases, towards the promoting of another man’s salvation. But all force and compulsion are to be forborn. Nothing is to be done imperiously”. Locke is instructing readers that an attempt to change one’s beliefs is just, when made using arguments and reasoning rather than force and suppression of free will. Although living many decades before the publication of Locke’s works, Matteo Ricci followed many of Locke’s ideals of