Spot light too bright?Well, I'm certainly not being enlightened.
Covering your eyes does that.
Rather than thinking that my view of Protestants (of which I once was) is too bitter...
Oh, we do. It's nice seeing all of the indirect self-loathing going on though. If you disdain past versions of yourself, it's likely that you just hate yourself altogether. Freud!
From what I can tell, you've gone from being right (Islam) to righter (Protestantism) to rightest (Orthodoxy). Eat some humble pie and chill out, or you're going to have an aneurysm.
Well, you stepped in it from the get go (besides quoting Freud, which a lot of psychiatrists and psychologists avoid doing. Too passe and discredited):I've never been a Muslim.
As for the OP, he has stated some vague glory of Protestantism, so vague that when there has been a call on it (British Imperial policy, the existence of parliament, the absolutism of Henry VIII, etc.) he has wiggle room out of it.
I don't know what he means by puting quotation marks around "Catholic" in the phrase "Catholic England." Besides producing one pope for the Vatican, England also produced the atonement theory so popular in Latin scholastic theology (Anslem, who also defended the filioque), invented and promoted the Immaculate Conception, and housed Our Lady of Welsingham (whose image I venerated in a Western Rite Church just this Sunday) was a major pilgrimage site. Then there's Duns Scotus, William of Ockham,....England was well within the realm of the Vatican.
I am also not sure what is the point of arguing that England was "a bit unlike" the rest of the Patriarchate of the West, as Geneva and various German states were far more Protestant than England. Did Sweden-Finland, whose Prostestantism resembles Anglicanism, make any of the accomplishments attributed to English Protestants?
When the OP states: "What IS Providence or luck is all those things coming together in a relatively short period of time in a relatively concentrated geographic area at a time when trade and travel were increasing and the new world had been discovered and was being settled by alot of people for whom individual and religious freedom and economic opportunity were paramount" I don't know what people he is talking about. Jamestown was founded by the English equivalent of the conquistadores. Plymouth was interested in religious freedom for itself (if you were not Puritan enough, you found yourself in Rhode Island in short order, if you were lucky. Btw, that includes another lovely thing that Protestantism helped promote: the Witch Hysteria of the period), and conformity (one of the reasons that they left Holland was fear of influence from the dominent Dutch culture). Australia was a penal colony where a lot of Irish loyal to the Vatican were dumped. Canada was started by French strongly loyal to Catholicism (the vestiges of which can still be seen glaring) and English who chose the king against the new American Republicanism. I still haven't seen an explanation for the larger success of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires.
How "The Protestants didn't make your folk convert. Maybe they faced some discrimination when they first got here, but they were always free to keep and practice their religion and ethnicity. Which is more than can be said of some of the Orthodox and Catholic lands that they came from had the shoe been on the other foot!" can be posted with a straight face is beyond me. The Irish, Welsh and even the Scotts (especially the Highlanders) can only laugh (if not cry) at such a claim. Even today, the Vatican is not allowed to restore bishops to traditional sees in England.
"Because the divine right of kings and the supreme pontiff in Western Catholicism and the intertwined relationship of emperor and metropolitan in the Eastern Church could never have spahned such notions of religious freedom, individual autonomy, and economic opportunity, coupled with political institutions for self-government. Hence no desirable place to emmigrate to." The Protestants produced plenty of absolute monarchs (in Norway, for instance, that is exactly how it became Protestant). The OP also ignores that Protestantism in Russia existed because of immigration to it. Finland became Finnish and autonomous under the czar, not the Swedish king.
The OP is going to have to be clearer on what he is claiming and what is his evidence, beyond his problems of digestion.