25 Mar Freedom is Fundamental
If you don’t have anything better to do some time, ask your source of artificial intelligence this question: “Is freedom a biblical concept?” I did, and my phone tells me, “Yes, freedom is a central biblical concept…” AI continues to point out that biblical freedom is primarily spiritual, including freedom from the bondage of sin and death through Jesus Christ, and freedom to live in obedience to God and service to others.
I agree with all of that completely, and it is fundamental to my being. I live in that freedom every day.
I also like the framework of freedom from and freedom to. That same construct can just as easily be applied to the political world as it can to spirituality. Since this is a political blog, I will do so today.
Freedoms From
In addition to the Bible, many of you will recall Principle Based Politics gets its principles from the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (with a healthy dose of common sense). The Declaration, in its Preamble, substitutes the word “Liberty” – which means the same thing in my mind – and calls it an “unalienable Right” endowed by our “Creator” (i.e., God).
Our July 4, 1776, Declaration then reads as a list of charges against the King of Great Britain. Nearly all of these are things the American colonists demanded freedom from. To summarize, there were “a long train of abuses and usurpations” amounting to “Despotism” and “Tyranny.” It is a substantial list, and you can read the entire Declaration for yourself.
Then there are the specific freedom froms guaranteed 15 years later in the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. These included freedom from:
- Unreasonable search and seizure (Amendment 4)
- Trial by a kangaroo court instead of a jury of your peers (Amendments 5-7)
- Government-forced religion (Amendment 1)
- Soldiers living in your house (Amendment 3)
- Search warrants without probable cause supported by sworn, specific statements (Amendment 4)
- Excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishment (Amendment 8)
Another 75 years later, the Constitution was amended further to provide freedom from slavery and freedom from discrimination based on race (Amendments 13-15).
Freedoms To
Obviously, the Founders (and the post-Civil War amenders) were big on freedom from government overreach. They clearly also had had it with oppression – at least for themselves and ultimately for the four million slaves and other non-white people.
But they did not just leave a vacuum by prohibiting the government from these specific overreaches and “usurpations” of natural rights. The Founders and Amenders also specified numerous things we the people have freedom to do: (a) speak out, (b) remain silent when accused of a crime, (c) exercise religion, (d) assemble peaceably, (e) petition the government, (f) write and publish (THANK YOU!!!), (g) keep and bear arms, (h) be a citizen if you were born here, and (i) have equal protection of the laws. Those all are fundamental freedoms.
Oh, and vote. That’s another big one. A major freedom to. (Ridiculously, women did not get that right until 106 years ago, in 1920, via the 19th Amendment.)
Back to the Fundamentals
I believe strongly in each of these freedoms from and freedoms to. See, e.g., Freedom and Free Enterprise (May 11, 2021), which explains why freedom is one of my seven guiding principles for government. Freedom’s God-givenness and importance seems “self-evident,” as the Founders put it in the Declaration of Independence.
As a friendly reader has pointed out to me, proof of concept for freedom also can be found through what happens when governments attempt to remove freedoms. For example, my reader says, legislating away the freedom to marry a person of the same sex doesn’t stop homosexuality; and laws banning guns don’t stop murder. My reader thinks freedom always is a better governmental solution, and that morality and sin are better judged in the religious and private worlds.
That’s something else to think about. As I have written repeatedly, I certainly do like the principle of limited government, and my reader’s points coalesce with that principle, as well. I know our country was founded on these fundamental concepts of liberty.
Just like the Bible. Just like common sense.
Written by Quentin R. Wittrock, founder of Principle Based Politics.
Look for his periodic posts, as this blog and the Extremely Non-Extreme podcast explore and promote the ideas of principles and non-extremism in politics.
Principle Based Politics does not endorse or support any particular political candidate or party.
Rich Shirk
Posted at 01:47h, 26 MarchQuentin – I support your definitions of freedom (liberty), although I believe that your concept and my concept may diverge on some points. Your thoughtful analysis has sparked some thoughts of my own.
Every one of us has our own conception of what freedom means in our own life, but we can all agree that we are in favor freedom. Every one of us has our own conception of what “limited government” means, but the vast majority of us can agree on the broad outlines of a definition.
Having said that, I believe we are in danger of seeing some, if not many of our cherished freedoms slip away from us if we are not careful. There is a very conservative, evangelical movement that has taken root in the current administration in very influential seats within the government.
This is known as the 7 Mountain Mandate. It is fundamentally, theologically based but has taken on a political dimension among these conservative adherents. The expressed intent is to gain influence in what they see as the seven essential spheres of influence, those being: family, religion, education, entertainment, arts, science and finally, government. All based on some theocratic, biblical interpretations. They want to impose their ideas across the government and society.
This is not a movement of free thinkers with some loose affiliations, but is very well organized among some very, very conservative influencers. Among them people like Pete Hegseth, Loren Bobert, Paula White and a number of others that are close to President Trump. The origins of this movement date to the mid-1970’s, but it has gained a great deal of influence in the past 10 years.
They will use the language of “freedom” and “liberty” in their public pronouncements, but these are people who seriously wish to transform American society, culture and politics into something most of us, including most Republicans do not recognize as America.
I only make this statement because this movement has some influence within the current administration and they are, fundamentally, antithetical to many of the freedoms that you speak of in your piece. They do not believe in freedom of religion. They do not believe in freedom of speech and expression. They do not believe in what we would historically call liberal education. They do not believe that all citizens should have the right to vote. And there are other rights that they oppose. At least according to the public statements of much of the leadership of this movement.
You will find this theology under a few titles on the far right of the political spectrum. Christian Dominionism, 7MM theology, Seven Spheres, and other similar titles.
Like many others, today, I believe that American freedoms are in danger. I may believe this is so for reasons that are different from some of your other readers, but I do not believe that any of your readers would find us in a better place if this theological/philosophical position were to win the day in America. Thanks for what you do to give voice to a multitude of different views. This is a great space.
DKnight
Posted at 04:06h, 26 MarchWith respect, I believe Mr. Shirk is overstating any danger of an evangelical/Christian takeover. We are far away from that–and much closer to a giant government takeover from the left. Dictators since WWI come more from the left–than the right. Regardless, as we say freedom is not free. We must preserve free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of religion and freedom to bear arms–for everybody. This approach has been messy at times throughout our 250 years–but it has worked so far and can continue to do so. We can tolerate neither tyrants nor tyrannical government. Iran is a great example of how freedom can be tenuous–and how the freedom to speak and protect yourself is crucial. If the common folks in Iran had the ability to protect themselves from the thugs in charge–the situation would be remarkably different. Thugs and dictators of all kinds are often cowards. They may not shoot at those who can shoot back. Iran’s citizens needs the rights we sometimes take for granted. Same deal with the Cubans and the Venezuelans. First thing the dictators come for are free speech–and freedom to bear arms.
V. Putin
Posted at 19:03h, 26 MarchIt is a fundamental flaw to analyze fundamental freedoms by referencing freedom from “Government-forced” religion without referencing the freedom to practice the religion of one’s choosing. “[E]stablishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is not a one-sided coin.
In our fever to ensure nobody is mandating people to adhere to a specific religion, folks — primarily on the left — are careful to not label specific views as religiously based. As secular concepts, they are thrust into areas such as schools in a manner that goes beyond the school mission and into the range of preventing Americans from freely exercising their religious preferences.
It would be appropriate to identify secularism as a religious practice to enable or more legitimate assessment of whether government action is in accord with the freedoms to be protected by the U.S. Constitutions. Until then, the symbols that now hang in classrooms where crosses and Crucifixes once hung will perform the same function without the same criticism from the intellectual hierarchy.
Quentin
Posted at 19:34h, 26 MarchHi Vlady,
I did list the free exercise side of the coin in the “freedoms to” section. I also have written about free exercise of religion in at least one earlier post. I am a huge believer. And in the free exercise of beliefs.