• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Suppression of Free Speech on Covid

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
I think they are. They're in the subset of Christian theology.
You thought wrong. King Alfred's doom's includes a reference to the Council of Jerusalem, which addressed the issue of the relevance of Judiac law to converts to the first century Messianism that was associated with Christianity.

My LLB with hons says otherwise.
Can your LLB with hons refute the actual facts about the origins of the common law?
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
During my three years of study, not once did King Alfred or the Bible come up.
Yes, the underlying issue one of religious prejudice. According to Pauline doctrine the law was nailed to the cross.

The Monarch is head of the Anglican Church. Yet neither determine the law.
It matters not when those who do have sworn allegiance to someone who has endorsed (by implication) the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.

The administration of the law follows this by treating people as persons. Article 9 conflates men with persons in the context of Paul's doctrine of original sin. That doctrine is based on the misrepresentation of David's sin.

9. Of Original or Birth-Sin. Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, ,(which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
What one believes constitutes his religion. If a person doesn't believe that wearing a mask makes a difference, he's practicing his religion when he doesn't wear one—he's not acting to injure others. On the other hand, if he is forced to wear one because someone else believes it will make a difference, he's now being forced to practice someone else's religion. And that is immoral; that is injurious.
What do masks have to do with religion?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Not a great comparison, since government is not authorized to regulate citizens' health but is authorized to regulate its road systems. But the example you offered for applying judgment is sound and I agree with it. IE, If I understand the thing I'm doing to result in the injury of others—if that is my judgment—I'm not going to do it.
It's a pretty good comparison, imo. Both involve risking the health/lives of others and the government restrictions placed on those behaviours.
 

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
What do masks have to do with religion?
That depends on whether or not a person holds a belief related to maskwearing and personal safety. All beliefs are religious in nature as they are extensions of conscience and judgment and point to things not provable or immediately known. If I say "I believe God will save me from getting COVID-19," or I say, "I believe maskwearing will save me from getting COVID-19," I have expresses a religious view in either case. I can't prove either in the moment I speak them. The object of one's belief does not bear on the question of a statement's religiosity; the fact of one's belief is what makes the nature of the statement religious, or not.

Does that clarify?
 

Little Dragon

Well-Known Member
All beliefs are religious in nature as they are extensions of conscience and judgment and point to things not provable or immediately known
On the balance of probability however, beliefs for which there are testable evidences, are superior to those beliefs without testable evidence, such as religious claims. Superior meaning, in this context, more reliable. More probable.
 

Bthoth

Well-Known Member
The Biden administration "ran afoul" of the First Amendment by trying to pressure social media platforms over controversial COVID-19 content, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Friday.



I think not only did they pressure websites -- but also silenced opposing medical voices to maintain a narrative. IMV

Makes one wonder how many platforms were forced to police, or make their own decision, as to what was right and what was wrong violating Constitutional free speech and the conversations that were pertinent to the issue.
Covid kills..... Misleading people is wrong and one day it should be made illegal. Or like charles Manson, impose a liability for the death(s) caused if proven to come from the person(s) that mislead them.
 

Little Dragon

Well-Known Member
Covid kills..... Misleading people is wrong and one day it should be made illegal. Or like charles Manson, impose a liability for the death(s) caused if proven to come from the person(s) that mislead them.
Agreed, the deliberate and wilful misrepresentation of the facts and or creation of misinformation is bad enough, with regard to a health pandemic, but when these acts are committed wholesale by influential people, disseminated widely, in the public sphere, then they become criminal in my view. Free speech is all very well, but all considerations must be balanced, with pragmatism and realism.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
Your law maybe friend.
The lost tribes of Israel didn't just cease to exist. Britsh = bryt eysh, meaning covenant male, and Saxon is like Isaac-son. Isaac was the son of Abraham was was of the covenant of circumcision, his half brother Ishmael was not.
 

Bthoth

Well-Known Member
Agreed, the deliberate and wilful misrepresentation of the facts and or creation of misinformation is bad enough, with regard to a health pandemic, but when these acts are committed wholesale by influential people, disseminated widely, in the public sphere, then they become criminal in my view. Free speech is all very well, but all considerations must be balanced, with pragmatism and realism.
Well said.


Free speech is part of our culture and why a republic works but falsely accusing and misleading people is just wrong.
 
Top