In light of the recent skewed definition of ‘religious liberty’:
Written by spiritual leader Ernest Holmes – published around the middle of the 20th century:
‘We all wish to be free, but at the same time we should realize that liberty is not license (to oppress). To say that we are free with the freedom of God does not mean that we are free to do that which contradicts the Divine nature. We are free only in that freedom that God is – – freedom to be alive, to enjoy living, to enter into the activities of everyday living with enthusiasm and interest. We are free to love and to be loved. We are free to give full and complete expression to every capacity we possess, provided this freedom harms no one and hurts no thing. This is freedom enough because if we were free to do that which is destructive we should ultimately destroy ourselves. And, in so doing, we would not only deny but would defame the nature of Divinity Itself. In Divine will we know there is scope enough for self-expression – – plenty of room to move around and express life to its fullest’. For all beings…regardless of race, creed, sexual or gender orientation, political interests, and economic status.