True Liberty … Freedom or License?

“Submit as free people, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but as God’s slaves.” (1 Peter 2:16)

FREEDOM!

We hear the cry for freedom echoing from the founding of our nation. Freedom is one of our most fundamental rights as United States citizens, granted by God and God alone.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty (read freedom) and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Did you catch that? Our Father gave everyone the right to enjoy liberty and live in freedom. That right is unalienable, meaning it’s not transferable to another or incapable of being taken away or denied (dictionary.com). Our Father’s standard and desire for everyone is to be free.

Sadly, the level of freedom for the global populous varies to significant degrees. It also has various interpretations depending on who you speak to.

Whether from the political Right or Left in our nation, the cry for freedom rings out continually, especially during intense political debates and every election cycle. The Right bellows, “Freedom, based on Constitutionally recognized rights!” The Left bellows back, “Freedom, based on our ‘living document’ interpretation of the Constitution (or their total disregard for the Constitution as their claim of what true freedom is).

During this 2024 election cycle, the Democratic party seeks to co-opt the Republicans’ claim as the “freedom party.” Through broadcast media, social media, and personal interviews, Democrats have tried to claim their party as the actual “freedom party,” a moniker that the Republicans have traditionally held for decades and decades. In the effort to flip the voters’ perception, the Democrats have broad-brushed the Republicans as the “anti-Democracy, anti-freedom party” because those wily Republicans “want to take away the people’s rights to live as free as they want to” (illinoistimes.com).

Freedom is a fundamental American value that resonates deeply with our national psyche. Therefore, the Democrats “at the local, state and federal levels are all using freedom as a catchall, believing the value helps promote their various policy ideas,” hoping to stir their Leftist compatriots to turn out the vote (governing.com).

In other words, during this intense political season, the Democrats’ appeal to personal “freedom” is simply a tool to reframe their image and gain votes.

But judging by the Democratic party’s track record since the 60s, they want freedom for themselves to do what they want to do but no freedom for those who oppose them. Just recall the recent spat over protesting elections for me but not for thee (Gore v. Bush, Trump v. Clinton, Trump v. Biden, et al.).

Both sides bandy the word freedom about. But in the words of Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

While people demand freedom (and rightly so), there’s a crucial difference in interpretation. Allow me to split a few hairs.

What we’re talking about is freedom as liberty or license.

Liberty is “the quality or state of being free: the power to do as one pleases” (merriam-webster.com).

License, as it applies to my point, is defined as “an excuse to behave in an irresponsible or excessive way” (collinsdictionary.com) and “freedom that allows or is used with irresponsibility, or disregard for standards of personal conduct: licentiousness” (merriam-webster.com).

As you can see, both liberty and license pertain to freedom. However, there’s a fundamental distinction between the two.

Liberty is freedom within boundaries, and license is freedom without limits.

To be fair, freedom has a general sense of acting freely without restraint. For example,

“Freedom: the quality or state of being free: such as,

a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action,

b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : INDEPENDENCE,

c: the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous” (merriam-webster.com).

Many dictionaries include definitions of freedom that include acting without restraint (dictionary.cambridge.org and dictionary.com).

These definitions are why using the word freedom loosely is confusing. By not using the responsibility/ irresponsibility, restraint/lack of restraint distinctions, freedom’s meaning swings from liberty to license, secure and respectful coexistence to societal anarchy.

Yes, I’m a stickler for accurate word usage for this very reason.

My hair-splitting concerns the question of when my liberty infringes on yours and vice versa. The genuinely free person exercises their liberty within constraints. The person with license strives to exercise their liberty in total disregard for any restraint that gets in the way of their desires.

“Freedom is more complicated than being able to do whatever we want. Taken too far, that approach would lead to dangerous anarchy—every person for themselves! Certainly, freedom can mean the right to do, think, believe, speak, worship, gather, or act as one pleases, but only until your choices start to infringe on another person’s freedoms.” (sigtheatre.org)

The person who wants freedom in the form of license desires to act with impunity, exemption from punishment, harm, or loss. Therefore, they seek permission to break the boundaries. The Democratic party thrives on their claimed right (philosophically and legislatively) to grant permission for their followers to do what they want. This permissiveness has its root in the 60s mantra, “If it feels good, do it.”

Freedom without restraints is dangerous because when acting thus, we will eventually infringe on someone else’s freedom. If we desire to do anything we please, regardless of harm or consequences, we will ultimately collide with someone else’s freedom, and the battle starts.

The licensee seeks to remove any restraint, internally or externally, by rationalization or outright defiance in pursuing self-gratification. The person seeking liberty recognizes that true freedom can only come within boundaries that restrain their behavior when out of control.

Anarchy, strife, and interpersonal conflict erupt when boundaries are removed. Freedom flourishes within boundaries.

The Democratic party and the political Left have embraced license, not liberty. Because most people recognize license as harmful to society, the Democrats are reframing their license as liberty and veiling it with the mushy, undefined idea of “freedom!” But as we’ve seen throughout history, when Leftists come to power, their aversion to restraint applies only to them. They have no problem with silencing, prosecuting, censoring, or removing anyone who stands in their way, especially those who take a stand for God. As Christians, we know the Lord has restrained human behavior from our creation.

This is the reason why the Democratic party and the Left are explicitly anti-God. Their worldview is man/self-centric. Don’t believe me? Well, “you know… the thing!”

The Democratic platform’s planks are either specifically anti-God or seek to achieve reasonable goals in ungodly ways through governmental diktat, revoking unalienable rights, and legal and economic force. They resist any restraints to their liberty (license) while placing onerous restraints on any opponent’s liberty.

The saddest truth about license is whether it’s on a personal or societal level, it inevitably leads to licentiousness because of humanity’s fallen, anti-God nature.

What is licentiousness? Well, it’s a great word to throw around at parties to impress your friends with your dazzling intellect. But seriously, licentiousness is “1: lacking legal or moral restraints especially: disregarding sexual restraints, and 2: marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness” (merriam-webster.com)

License inevitably devolves to licentiousness, which eventually devolves into anarchy.

That’s why our society has, through our Constitution and laws, based on God’s commands and biblical principles, enshrined restraints that allow great freedom within a framework of what’s best for the individual and society. As we all know, this is a delicate and dynamic balancing act.

True liberty must grip two freedoms – a freedom “from” certain external restraints and a freedom “to” exercise our wills autonomously.

The restraints we Christians must embrace come from God’s moral law. But within His moral law, we find His permission to exercise our wills freely. Does God restrain us because He’s some rotten parent trying to ruin our fun? No way. He knows we’ll be harmed if we live outside His boundaries.

A true parent puts up a baby gate at the stairway landing so their infant doesn’t tumble down the stairs, no matter how badly the kid wants to see the basement. However, the entire home’s main floor is still available and filled with toys, food, and a bed, everything the infant needs or desires to live securely and without fear.

But that’s not good enough for many of the “babies” in society today. They want whatever they desire and will kick and scream until they or the Democratic party or some other group, acting as societal parents, remove the baby gate and give the arrested development contingent permission to hurt themselves or others.

This drive goes back to our biblical beginning.

Humanity’s first liberty had boundaries. “You are free to eat from any tree of the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die” (Genesis 2:16-17). See? Liberty with boundaries and a clearly defined warning about consequences.

Then along came Satan with what humanity accepted as our “official” permit to sin (stupid people that we are). “Did God really say, ‘You can’t eat from any tree in the garden’?” Satan reframed the restriction to appear unreasonable, including the one tree off-limits

And next came the license.

“No! You will certainly not die (if you eat of that tree, the prohibited tree),” the serpent said to the woman. “In fact, God knows that when you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:4-5). Not only did Satan contradict God’s boundary, but gave the two future sinners the enticement to do so.

Sadly, humanity chose Satan’s license over God’s liberty. They bought into Satan’s illegitimate permission because their desires drove them to do so.

And is that not like what we see today?

“Did God really say, ‘You shall not commit murder?’ Au contraire. That’s not a baby. That’s a hunk of flesh attached to the mom’s body. Your body, your choice, remember? Don’t worry; there won’t be any consequences for removing that tissue. And besides, we gave you permission by legalizing abortion.” See? Philosophical and legal permission.

And then there’s “Did God really say, ‘You shall not steal?’ Nonsense. Sure, you took out the student loan, but you’re having difficulty living up to your financial responsibility. But that’s why we have the taxpayer. We’ll steal, I mean, utilize the money from them and pay off your loan, you poor, set upon an ex-student. Don’t worry. There won’t be any consequences for reneging on your promise to repay because we gave you permission by abusing an executive order.”

And finally, “Did God really say, ‘Marriage is only between a man and woman?’ Trifles. Love means love. God is love, so you can love anyone you want. So, you can have sex with anyone (or anything) you want, whenever you want, with however many you want, and you can even marry that person. Don’t worry. There won’t be any consequences for your same-sex marriage because we gave you permission by legalizing it.”

Oh, the hiss of the snake.

Did I mention that when you compare party platforms between the Democrats and the Republicans, you find one explicitly rejects God’s boundaries, and the other embraces those restraints? Food for thought.

At the heart of our liberty is God’s law. He sets the boundaries for remarkable freedom if we stay within those borders. That leads to our most wondrous purpose for our God-given unalienable rights with fenced-in freedom.

“True freedom is not primarily a freedom ‘from’ external restraints or a freedom ‘to’ enact our own will but a freedom ‘for’ something greater than ourselves” (adflegal.org, italics author).

Liberty means to live not just for ourselves but for God and others. License appeals to self primarily and usually above all else.

The Democratic party and the Left want freedom, as in license. The Republican party and the Right want freedom, as in liberty. The former want total freedom to do what they will, but not for those who oppose them, even if it means trampling on the opposition’s rights. The latter want liberty for all within boundaries that ensure a nation’s security, peace, and tranquility that recognizes God-given, irrevocable rights.

Sadly, that battle has raged in our nation for sixty years.

Regardless of how the battle goes, the Christian’s responsibility remains the same.

“Likewise, freedom also comes with moral duties and responsibilities. Peter says, ‘Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God’ (1 Peter 2:16). This principle is also echoed by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 5:13: ‘For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.’ In other words, freedom is for a purpose greater than ourselves: to serve God and serve one another. True freedom is not doing whatever we feel like or being able to make any choice, right or wrong. True freedom is doing the good that we were created to do” (adflegal.org, italics author).

That’s why we vote for the party of liberty, not the party of license.

Sources:

“Unalienable” vs. “Inalienable”: Is There A Difference?, www.dictionary.com/e/unalienable-vs-inalienable.

Democrats emphasize concept of freedom, www.illinoistimes.com/news-opinion/democrats-emphasize-concept-of-freedom-19028923

Democratic Groups Embrace’ Freedom’ for Their Policy Frameworks, governing.com/policy/democratic-groups-embrace-freedom-for-their-policy-frameworks

Liberty, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberty

License, www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/license

License, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/license

Freedom, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom

Freedom, dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/freedom

Freedom, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/freedom.

Defining Freedom, www.sigtheatre.org/signature-in-the-schools-the-spoken-word-educational-resources/defining-freedom