Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!djhawley
From: djhawley@watmath.UUCP (David John Hawley)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Catching up
Message-ID: <6255@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Dec-83 00:43:03 EST
Article-I.D.: watmath.6255
Posted: Mon Dec  5 00:43:03 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 5-Dec-83 02:53:09 EST
References: <678@qubix.UUCP>, <725@ulysses.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 26

It might be interesting to define "freedom". Freedom to do what ?
Freedom is always restricted by physical, emotional, etc limitations,
and of course, the effects of our behaviour on others; which may be
quite subtle (what we think affects our behaviour, and the climate
between people). Freedom to be enslaved by our own weaknesses,
say violent-pornography/drugs/junk-food (to name a wide qualitative
spectrum) doesn't seem to be real freedom.

I am aware I have just opened myself to charges of paternalism.

To continue, true freedom to me is the freedom to live up to our
full potential and purpose. Christians don't believe this can truly
happen outside of an intimate relationship with God. Meanwhile,
the secular state should serve to limit evil, and to encourage
goodness. Tempered with virtues such as non-judgementalism, and
concern for people as people - not machines or "souls-to-save" -
that are part of the christian (practical) ideal. We remember that
God allows us to disobey, and even refuse Him eternally (goto hell).

To sum up, I'm not sure "freedom" as it is normally meant is the
highest good society can aspire to. We all agree there must be limits,
I just think they could be tighter than they are. Please comment.

   David Hawley
   (*** please no flames, I don't believe in state religion either ***)