Something I've been thinking about lately is the different kinds of freedom, freedom in the most abstract sense: freedom "to" and freedom "from." By freedom "to," I mean those freedoms we as Americans cherish the most, which are children freedoms from the ancestor freedom, the freedom "to [do what we want]." This is an extremely valuable freedom to have, for it makes many more necessary freedoms possible in society: those freedoms pertaining to the individual's rights as an individual and the individual's rights as a citizen. However, this freedom has eclipsed the other freedom, the freedom "from," and the subsequent effects on Western civilization have been extremely destructive.
Freedom "from" is the kind of freedom we experience when things have been denied to us, namely, options pertaining to life decisions. Now any obstruction of our freedom "to [do what we want]" immediately engenders immense opposition from both sides of the political spectrum. The idea that we can do what we want when we want has been so thoroughly engrained in Western society that we, from time to time, witness random and explosive violence on a grand scale, the primary means of malcontents expressing themselves. From what I have read, it appears the recent situation in England is such an example of this.
Tell an American that freedom "from [unwise options], [a destructive outcome], [generally immoral and unacceptable behavior]" is both valuable and possible in society, you might experience such a manifestation of random and explosive violence I have mentioned, though only on a small scale (if you are lucky). The whole concept of someone else knowing what may be best in your life is unacceptable to a vast portion of Americans. What is the root of this? Have we always been like this? Indeed, the root comes from our early history as Americans: through the American Independence, witnessed in the work of Crevecoeur, and increasing in scope and power up to our time. The root of this springs from American Individualism, and enough work has been done on the topic that I find it expedient not to rehash what has already been stated by more enlightened and educated minds.
However, I will say that this Individualism, through our few centuries as a people, has grown up in the hearts and minds of many of us to deny the power of authority. Now, the ways this hate of authority has manifested itself comes from our essential obsession with the keeping out of tyrants, or those who would force their will on the people. Early on, this was a good and proper obsession. The principles outlined in our founding documents call for a system of governance that does not push the citizen down, but lifts him up. Yes, he has been lifted up. He has been lifted up past that which was good, quite some time ago. He has been lifted up past the respect for freedom "from," because his entire worldview is centered on freedom "to." He has become so Individualistic that he no longer accepts even the highest authority, the authority of God.
This, however, is not without precedent. No matter whether you believe in Creationism/Intelligent Design, Evolution, or Progressive Evolution, and still call yourself a Christian, you probably believe in the Fall of mankind, when humanity denied the authority of their Creator, and instead accepted their own authority as solely legitimate. Whether it was Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden or early humans in the horn of Africa, the outcome is the same. Freedom "to" eclipsed freedom "from." I am not saying that the latter must have control over the former; rather, I think emphasis must be put on the latter, while the former is kept in a cherished place. It is only when the Self thinks it has power over its God and over its people's laws that freedom "to" gets out of hand.
However, since the founding of our nation, our nation's laws have been formed around the freedom "to [do whatever we want]," and this has had disastrous consequences. What once was the murmur of mob rule has certainly become mob rule. Somehow, my compatriots have it in their minds that "when two or more of them are gathered together," the spirit of Democracy descends upon them and blesses their actions and decisions. I do not think this is so. Just because they have strength in numbers, veering from moral bounds, does not mean they have legitimate authority. A restriction of action in freedom "from [from the ill consequences of immoral decisions]" only appears as an encroachment upon their freedom "to [do whatever they see fit for themselves, because its their life, their decision, and their prerogative]."
When our Constitution does not leave any room for the protection of freedom "to," and only seeks to spread the superiority of freedom "to [do what we want, because this is a free country, dammit]," we who believe there is a Natural Law in the world that restricts our behavior for our own good, and out of reverence for our Creator who gave us this Law, must make a decision: do we simply watch as our country slides deeper and deeper into acceptance of murder and a host of immoral behaviors, or do we seek to change things for the good of the citizens of this great country? Certainly we must pray. We must pray for the welfare of our people and for their salvation.
Either we change our Constitution or we refuse it. If things get worse, we have no option but to. The Church will have its own say when things get worse. I'm not sure what that will look like, but I'm sure things cannot continue this way without the itch getting too itchy to not scratch. My preference would be that the Constitution be changed. Of course, that would not be possible at the time being.
I'm sure the only two ways the Constitution could be changed would be firstly via a radical cultural change (which could happen, though it seems unlikely), and secondly via the installation of a great authority to lead our people. Authority is the backbone of freedom "from," and only authority will bring us back to sanity. I don't know how this authority could manifest itself. Seeing how little we knew about our current president before he was elected, who knows what kind of person could be elected president in the future?
Freedom "from" is the kind of freedom we experience when things have been denied to us, namely, options pertaining to life decisions. Now any obstruction of our freedom "to [do what we want]" immediately engenders immense opposition from both sides of the political spectrum. The idea that we can do what we want when we want has been so thoroughly engrained in Western society that we, from time to time, witness random and explosive violence on a grand scale, the primary means of malcontents expressing themselves. From what I have read, it appears the recent situation in England is such an example of this.
Tell an American that freedom "from [unwise options], [a destructive outcome], [generally immoral and unacceptable behavior]" is both valuable and possible in society, you might experience such a manifestation of random and explosive violence I have mentioned, though only on a small scale (if you are lucky). The whole concept of someone else knowing what may be best in your life is unacceptable to a vast portion of Americans. What is the root of this? Have we always been like this? Indeed, the root comes from our early history as Americans: through the American Independence, witnessed in the work of Crevecoeur, and increasing in scope and power up to our time. The root of this springs from American Individualism, and enough work has been done on the topic that I find it expedient not to rehash what has already been stated by more enlightened and educated minds.
However, I will say that this Individualism, through our few centuries as a people, has grown up in the hearts and minds of many of us to deny the power of authority. Now, the ways this hate of authority has manifested itself comes from our essential obsession with the keeping out of tyrants, or those who would force their will on the people. Early on, this was a good and proper obsession. The principles outlined in our founding documents call for a system of governance that does not push the citizen down, but lifts him up. Yes, he has been lifted up. He has been lifted up past that which was good, quite some time ago. He has been lifted up past the respect for freedom "from," because his entire worldview is centered on freedom "to." He has become so Individualistic that he no longer accepts even the highest authority, the authority of God.
This, however, is not without precedent. No matter whether you believe in Creationism/Intelligent Design, Evolution, or Progressive Evolution, and still call yourself a Christian, you probably believe in the Fall of mankind, when humanity denied the authority of their Creator, and instead accepted their own authority as solely legitimate. Whether it was Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden or early humans in the horn of Africa, the outcome is the same. Freedom "to" eclipsed freedom "from." I am not saying that the latter must have control over the former; rather, I think emphasis must be put on the latter, while the former is kept in a cherished place. It is only when the Self thinks it has power over its God and over its people's laws that freedom "to" gets out of hand.
However, since the founding of our nation, our nation's laws have been formed around the freedom "to [do whatever we want]," and this has had disastrous consequences. What once was the murmur of mob rule has certainly become mob rule. Somehow, my compatriots have it in their minds that "when two or more of them are gathered together," the spirit of Democracy descends upon them and blesses their actions and decisions. I do not think this is so. Just because they have strength in numbers, veering from moral bounds, does not mean they have legitimate authority. A restriction of action in freedom "from [from the ill consequences of immoral decisions]" only appears as an encroachment upon their freedom "to [do whatever they see fit for themselves, because its their life, their decision, and their prerogative]."
When our Constitution does not leave any room for the protection of freedom "to," and only seeks to spread the superiority of freedom "to [do what we want, because this is a free country, dammit]," we who believe there is a Natural Law in the world that restricts our behavior for our own good, and out of reverence for our Creator who gave us this Law, must make a decision: do we simply watch as our country slides deeper and deeper into acceptance of murder and a host of immoral behaviors, or do we seek to change things for the good of the citizens of this great country? Certainly we must pray. We must pray for the welfare of our people and for their salvation.
Either we change our Constitution or we refuse it. If things get worse, we have no option but to. The Church will have its own say when things get worse. I'm not sure what that will look like, but I'm sure things cannot continue this way without the itch getting too itchy to not scratch. My preference would be that the Constitution be changed. Of course, that would not be possible at the time being.
I'm sure the only two ways the Constitution could be changed would be firstly via a radical cultural change (which could happen, though it seems unlikely), and secondly via the installation of a great authority to lead our people. Authority is the backbone of freedom "from," and only authority will bring us back to sanity. I don't know how this authority could manifest itself. Seeing how little we knew about our current president before he was elected, who knows what kind of person could be elected president in the future?
No comments:
Post a Comment