Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: 25 Classic Books That Have Been Banned
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 17:06:16 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <101d6lc$m5lo$1@dont-email.me>
References: <03gqqj562r4vi0kpi2vl8flsi59jsbot56@4ax.com>
 <physics-20250525180332@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <q3293kd3354ca22bf84g88
 <1rd58xk.1pvat5wzcmq1uN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
 <101ck6c$i6i$1@panix2.panix.com> <101cs5v$jr0i$1@dont-email.me>
 <Xuo_P.162289$9Syf.76878@fx11.ams1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 23:06:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dd383a4f79c32cd80418fa866fb128e6";
	logging-data="726712"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/rArz+VcRIxrGwlMHG/TCH"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/128.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.20
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5K6YEXJ8xNZHuwpERNRkwGV0hxM=
In-Reply-To: <Xuo_P.162289$9Syf.76878@fx11.ams1>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250530-6, 5/30/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 3697

Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 30/05/2025 19:07, William Hyde wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> J. J. Lodder <jjlxa32@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Freedom of religion is fine,
>>>> but freedom from religion is far more important,
>>>
>>> In the end, they are really the same thing.  You don't get freedom to 
>>> enjoy
>>> your religion without the freedom from mine.
>>>
>>> Far too many religious people don't understand this.  But of course many
>>> of the people who founded the country were Puritans who moved to 
>>> Holland to
>>> enjoy religious freedom and discovered that they didn't actually want
>>> religious freedom at all, so long as it meant freedom for others as 
>>> well.
>>
>> This is a facet of history that gets lost.
>>
>> A number of "repressed" denominations were not seeking toleration, but 
>> domination.  I am not referring to any one group here - it might be 
>> the policy of one faction of religion X, but not of the rest.
> 
> I suppose it is understandable.
> With the exception of The Netherlands, it was the usual practice for the 
> Monarch or government to define the particular form of religion to be 
> followed in their lands.

This was even defined as a principle "Cuius regio, eius religio" meaning 
"whose state, whose religion".  Though as originally formulated it 
applied only in Germany, and only to Lutheran or Catholic rulers, 
Calvinists need not apply.

This was actually an improvement on the previous rule, which was that 
everyone had to accept the religion of the emperor.  Under the new 
principle the official religion and that of the ruler were more likely 
to be the same.

Things got difficult in a state like Brandenburg, where the population 
was Lutheran but the ruler Calvinist.



> They just wanted a place where they would be top dog.

They already had one: Scotland.

The parliamentary army was largely Quakers and other independent 
protestants.  It should have been obvious that they were not fighting to 
establish yet another  religion over their own.  Even Presbyterian 
elders would have been smart enough to see this, were they not blinded 
by their faith and/or desire for power.

William Hyde