Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Chris Elvidge <chris@internal.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: 25 Classic Books That Have Been Banned
Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 12:49:11 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <101eqbp$13oet$1@dont-email.me>
References: <03gqqj562r4vi0kpi2vl8flsi59jsbot56@4ax.com>
 <physics-20250525180332@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <q3293kd3354ca22bf84g88
 <1rd58xk.1pvat5wzcmq1uN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
 <101ck6c$i6i$1@panix2.panix.com> <101cs5v$jr0i$1@dont-email.me>
 <Xuo_P.162289$9Syf.76878@fx11.ams1> <101d6lc$m5lo$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 13:49:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3e134329db95dd1eb839255264a5b461";
	logging-data="1171933"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+S1f7nWSmNJR8UwnZidB9DKs5h01cfPd4="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1 Lightning/5.4
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5p5Df564hMOy1ugNgB5RlMl23hM=
In-Reply-To: <101d6lc$m5lo$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB

On 30/05/2025 at 22:06, William Hyde wrote:
> 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 

I thought Quakers were/are notoriously non-violent.

> 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



-- 
Chris Elvidge, England
I WILL NOT FAKE RABIES