Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Robert Carnegie Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,alt.usage.english Subject: Re: 25 Classic Books That Have Been Banned Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 22:44:53 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 63 Message-ID: <101qeoj$12dsf$2@dont-email.me> References: <100u0d1$15sv8$1@dont-email.me> <10129t8$21e2l$1@dont-email.me> <5lob3kperj3f91gsmc3dvoln99iodmlgh7@4ax.com> <101828q$3f0bs$5@dont-email.me> <29vg3kpcmr9is7jiqmh5osci7khiadk2dg@4ax.com> <101ampi$2sp0$1@dont-email.me> <1rd58xk.1pvat5wzcmq1uN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <101dkn7$oifi$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2025 23:44:52 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="45d68266ec27cbf3886bb80d5efade3f"; logging-data="1128335"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+GgdAYVvSh1Q7m8IOJ46WhmxFxq8UOkSs=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:CJHoOUNoU2cXv4ZKAUUj/6TZyr4= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-GB On 31/05/2025 16:56, Paul S Person wrote: > On Sat, 31 May 2025 02:06:47 +0100, Peter Fairbrother > wrote: > >> On 30/05/2025 17:05, Paul S Person wrote: >> >>> "Freedom from religion" is a dogma of one or another of the religions >>> that deny their own nature. >> >> I don't really understand that, but I think it's freedom _of_ religion, >> in the Constitution. However, at least to some extent, one implies the >> other. > > The part you removed without notice distinguished between the two. > "Freedom from religion" is quite commonly heard from certain groups. > >> Take the Supreme Court decision on abortion as an example. Perhaps those >> judges with strong religious views in the subject should have recused >> themselves. > > /That/ is a very hard question. The actual issue was whether abortion > was allowed under a particular Amendment. At the time, some pointed > out that it might still be allowed under a different Amendment, but > that legal theory has yet to be tested. > >> The rest of us * now have to comply with their religion. Is that not >> forced participation? > > Only in Republican-controlled States. In the sane States, we have to > comply with a secular religion that allows abortion -- with whatever > limits, if any, that religion desires. > >> IMO you can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. > > If you check back, you will see that my assertion is that pretty much > everying has a religion. Some have a religion that denies it's own > nature, so they believe (as an article of their religion) that they do > not have one. > > The bigger point is that, when these people try to convince people > acting and believing explicitly based on religion by claiming to > produce "facts" instead of "fantasies", it doesn't work because > religious people recognize religion, even when it denies itself, and > resist conversion. > > I am, IOW, trying to determine /why/ all those efforts to convince > people of really good ideas fail. And I think I have found it. "Opinions" are not the same as "religion". Even unreasonably firmly held opinions. Most but not quite all religions consist of systems of behaviour to appease gods and obtain favourable treatment from them. Individual religious leaders differ on whether that leaves concerns such as climate change, pandemic disease, economics, and abortion laws as problems for us to deal with, or whether those matters are reserved to the gods, as well. Gods whose ideas are unavoidably old-fashioned.