Thoughts on freedom

The concept of freedom has been the focus of much discussion recently, particularly around 'freedom of expression’.

This follows the tragic incident a few weeks ago in Paris where some humans violently ended the lives of some other humans because they fundamentally disagreed with what the other humans said.

I have a few random thoughts on this, which are still being formed, but I wanted to express them here (thankful that I enjoy the freedom to do so). And before I say anything else, I need to clarify that I do not condone the use of violence for any reason, and I grieve for the loss of human lives, whatever their religion.

The assumption in 'the West' is that people (should) have the freedom to express their opinion. Okay. But what does this mean? (See David Ould’s blog about this.) But what is freedom? Is it really the ultimate value that people are making it out to be?

From what I understand, the perpetrators of violence in this case may not have disagreed with the right to freedom of expression per se. But in their view they did not have the freedom according to the Q'ran to ignore what they perceived as dishonour to the Prophet Mohammed. It was their duty to uphold his honour.

But according to the laws of most countries, ordinary citizens generally do not have the freedom to end the lives of other people for any reason, even if the other people do things you find offensive.

This is a right view of the value of human life, although it gets a bit blurry when authorities such as police end the lives of people without opportunity for trial (as in Belgium, Paris, even Groningen) - but that’s another matter.

Every action has consequences. When we exercise our freedom, we must also be aware of what the consequences of our actions might be, not just to ourselves but to others also. 

A person might deliberately aggravate a crocodile, and claim that it was their ‘right' to do so. But would anyone commend them for it? On the contrary, onlookers would advise them against it and say they were acting foolishly and would reap the consequences. 

The magazine employees were exercising their right to freedom of expression. But in doing so, I believe they lost sight of the wisdom and love that are needed to enjoy freedom responsibly.

Am I offended by the magazine’s (and many others’) portrayals of Jesus - whom I hold not just to be a prophet but God himself? Of course. But I am not free to turn to violence or slander in return. This is not just because of the laws of the country where I live, but also because of the directives of Jesus himself, who teaches his disciples to ‘turn the other cheek’ and trust God, who will bring perfect justice at the appointed time.

So freedom according to what? The law? Popular opinion? Common sense? The Quran? The Bible? An individual's own preference? Some appeal to the ‘harm principle’ as a principle to guide the minimal limiting of freedom; i.e. that freedom should only be limited in order to prevent harming others. But the definition of what constitutes harm can be slippery.

A wise and righteous man once pointed out that there is no law against the virtues of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Let these positive virtues - things we can seek to show towards others rather than try to avoid - be our guides so that we can enjoy our freedom responsibly.