Only a fraction of Protestant Churches are State Churches. The largest Protestant sect, Pentecostalism, is twice the size of the nearest actual State Protestant Church (Anglicanism), and there are many other Protestant sects that are of similar size to Anglicanism that are not state Churches, including Baptists, Methodists, and non-denomination Protestants, to name a few. Based on the actual numbers the majority of Protestant Churches are non-State Churches. I would also note that the largest sects of Protestantism also tend to be the most socially conservative ones, while those that embrace modernism have continually shrank in population and attendance. So sure, one state Protestant church in a highly progressive and secular European country blesses same-sex marriages, that doesn't mean that all Protestant Churches can or will follow the same path, nor does it mean the Catholic Church won't bend that way either, given the trajectory the current Pope is on.
Perhaps because you are Catholic you don't grok something critical about Protestantism: it is highly diversified and not at all centralized. There's not any kind of central authority or ideology guiding all Protestant Churches, thus what some random Protestant Church does or does not do is in no way reflectively of Protestantism as a whole, and painting with a broad brush as you tend to do doesn't actually convince anyone who understands even the basics of how Protestant churches have developed over time.
What does that have to do with my point? You claimed that Protestants only got rid of slavery when it became non-lucrative and implied that Catholics banned it earlier. Now faced with actual facts and history you're pulling a No True Scotsman.
What I linked in no way showed that. It indicated that 1/3rd of those executed for witchcraft were in a SINGLE CATHOLIC REGION, it didn't indicate which side did it more or less. In fact who persecuted more witches is an area of scholarly dispute and things varied wildly by region. Long story short, pinning this one exclusively on Protestants is ahistorical.
. . . You've never studied much of Chinese history, have you?
Chinese Emperors committed all sorts of atrocities to take and keep power, and the Chinese even had an entire philosophical tradition built up that justified that kind of use of power called Legalism. While yes, much of what Mao did in the Cultural Revolution was against Confucian ideals, it fell right into line with traditional Legalism, and it was that Philosophical tradition that informed and influenced Mao's Marxism. Maoism, it should be noted, is considered a distinct school of Marxism that originated with Mao and influenced the CCP, and, as I noted, the CCP has since been spreading its ideals.
Ideas cannot purely be placed on one society and culture. One could easily claim that Marxism wouldn't exist without Christian thought, for instance, and Christian theology and Philosophy originated in the Middle East as an offshoot of Judaism. Does that mean that Marxism is Middle Eastern? No, and likewise Maoism is not European even though it drew from ideas originally formulated in Europe.
With that we're back to the idea that Protestantism is not a modern idea. Which is it, are both Wahabism and Protestantism actually ancient ideas just repackaged for modern times, or are both modern reformation movements that justified their ideas by citing old ideas? You can't have it both ways.
