« Fireworks Please | Main | Children without chests »

Freedom reigns...but not with free rein

Freedom is a possession of inestimable value.
- Cicero

One of the best ways to estimate the value of something is to consider what life would be like without it. Today, it has been 229 years since the U.S. officially declared itself free from England, establishing a government that ensured - at times wisely, and other times not so wisely - certain unalienable rights to citizens that had been denied the same by their former ruler. So the early Americans were painfully aware of what the absence of such basic rights meant, and over 200 years later, we still benefit from this.

But for another spin on the subject, consider a sharp bit of common sense from G.K. Chesterton: "To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it." While we should be duly grateful for how blessed we Americans are to live under a government that grants us rights, the fact that such an obvious point should have to be made - even decades before Roe v. Wade and "the right to choose" - is indicative of how highly this country has exalted the idol of individual rights. The principle behind "Let freedom reign!" has been extolled to the fatal disregard of whether or not our free choices have inherent moral value. In other words, America needs to be reminded that at the end of freedom, there are reins - held by a God whose absolute moral standard will, quite frankly, trump individual rights as the majority of modern-day America knows them.

On that lighthearted note, have a happy (and safe) Fourth of July, everyone. (And just for kicks, a quick poll: do you call them "fireworks," "firecrackers," or something else? I want to know if it is a regional thing, or what.)

Comments

Fireworks if they are the larger type set off by municipalities or required groundworks, but firecrackers if they are the kind you can do yourself by lighting a fuse.

Let's face it, humans like things that make a large bang and pretty sparks. And yes, I know they are terribly dangerous.

Posted by: MaxedOutMama at July 4, 2005 10:14 AM

Ditto MaxedOutMama's comment.

Excellent post, Laura. Favorite part:

"In other words, America needs to be reminded that at the end of freedom, there are reins - held by a God whose absolute moral standard will, quite frankly, trump individual rights as the majority of modern-day America knows them."

Posted by: Lexie at July 4, 2005 11:59 AM

Excuse me for starting out with a quibble, but according to our Consitutional statement our government does not grant us our basic rights, but recognizes and is to vouchsafe them.

They are granted by higher order than the government.
That is what makes them "unalienable".

Thanks.

Posted by: ilona at July 4, 2005 1:56 PM

Great Post - the good ones seem to most often open up a can of worms, to in a few words, touch upon a thousand ideas.

I see what you are saying and like Chesterton's quotes very much. Part of the delicate balance, however, is that God has granted certain freedom, despite its consequences. Therefore, man also ought to be very cautious in taking away 'freedoms" that God does not, even though they are not per se, the "right" choices. For example, divorce, power arms, or alcohol. Though these may be moral wrongs or have dangerous potential to be used immorally, it would not be the government's role to remove a freedom that God has allowed. Freedom is both a wonderful and terrible thing. The paradigm of a dictator begins when a man thinks God erred in giving humans too many freedoms and places it upon himself to remove them.

I am not an anarchist by any means and I certainly think government needs to restrain certain immoral actions, that is what it is there for. However, I think that many are foolishly zealous to have the government impose moral order in spheres where the government does not belong.

Rights are a "hot topic" right now, considering terrorism as well as homosexual marriage. I am wondering what many of you think of the patriot act passed after 9/11? Did this unwisely limit freedoms out of fear? Did we sacrifice freedom for safety? Again, at a certain point, that is when dictators are able to gain power, when the people are put in a situation when they will trade the terrifying responsibility of freedom for a loaf of bread and a roof over their head.

By the way, I think abortion is murder and is not a "right". That would be one for government to take, in my opinion!

Posted by: Annie at July 4, 2005 2:29 PM

Ilona - that's not petty enough to be a quibble! Thanks for the correction.

Annie - I totally agree. I'm pretty ignorant about the Patriot Act, though. I just remember some conservative friends being *quite* upset about it, so I'm assuming I wouldn't like it either. Guess I should confirm that by actually reading about it...

Posted by: Laura at July 4, 2005 7:24 PM

Fireworks, of course.

Posted by: benj at July 5, 2005 10:56 PM

If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.

About

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.