Re: 25 Classic Books That Have Been Banned

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> 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.

That's a bit exaggerated. The Netherlands had a state church too.
(a kind of orthodox Calvinist protestantism)
It was required for holding official jobs.

In practice belonging to the upper classes
counted for more than religion.
Look at Rembrandt's 'De Staalmeesters' for an example.
Portrayed are two Catholics, a Mennonite, a Remonstrant,
and only one Reformed Protestant. (and their servant)

The difference with the rest of the world was
that other religions were tolerated,
provided they kept a low profile.

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

Yes, always the same with religions.
When a minority the demand tolerance,
once on top they oppress,

Jan

At the end of the English Civil War, for example, the Presbyterians of
that time assumed that now *they* would be the established church in
England.  Cromwell convinced them otherwise.