Last modified on November 1, 2022, at 02:05


The flag of the United States, a nation founded upon principles of personal freedom, has become a symbol of freedom and liberty in a wider sense, despite efforts with mixed results from both conservatives and liberals to hinder the freedom of American citizens.

Freedom is the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or slavery or under physical, mental or spiritual restraint. More specifically, it can mean:

  • Ability to act freely: a state in which somebody is able to act and live as he or she chooses, without being subject to any undue restraints or restrictions.
  • Release from captivity or slavery: release or rescue from being physically bound, or from being confined, enslaved, captured, or imprisoned.
  • The condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints.

The desire for freedom was one of the founding principles of the United States of America thanks to the values of the Founding Fathers. Today, freedom still stands proudly at the top of a list of aspirations for Americans. All Americans, no matter their creed or the color of their skin agrees that: "we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all".

Freedom incurs responsibility. That is why many men fear it. -- George Bernard Shaw
Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit.-- Ronald Reagan

Freedom and equality

Milton Friedman said, "The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither; the society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both." [1]

Freedom & St Paul's Letter to the Galatians

John Hanneman wrote, "Inner freedom has to do with the very essence of our being." This "inner freedom" is the theme of St Paul's letter to the Galatians.

The Greek words for freedom appear 36 times in the New Testament. Paul uses them 28 times in his letters, and 10 times in Galatians alone. The purpose of this letter is clear: to explain how Christians have been released from the law and been given freedom in Christ, how the Spirit has replaced the Torah in our lives.

Galatians reveals why people struggle so much with law. It identifies the key ingredient to becoming free, and how people can enjoy freedom in Christ. Paul writes:

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Galatians 5:1 (NIV)

In his word of greeting in the introduction, he says:

Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us out of this present evil age, according to the will of God the Father. Galatians 1:3-4 (NASB)

Here the apostle defines what he means by freedom. Following his wish for "grace and peace," he uses two phrases that capture for Christians the two ways they are free as a result of their relationship with God.

The first phrase is that the Lord Jesus Christ "gave Himself for our sins." Here the Apostle is describing our freedom from slavery to the power of sin. This is the great doctrine of Justification. We are born into sin, separated from God, but this separation can be overcome because God sent His Son Jesus to die on the cross for our sins. Through this atonement, all of our sins, past, present, and future, have been paid for - all we need do is put our faith in Christ. John Stott comments: "The death of Jesus Christ was primarily neither a display of love, nor an example of heroism, but a sacrifice for sin."[1][2]

Misdefinitions of Freedom

See also: Liberal euphemisms and War on Freedom

In several cases, the left has often co-opted the term "freedom" when in reality they mean socialism, communism, and anarchism. This sort of misdefining of freedom has its roots with the French Revolution with its slogan of "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" as well as their concept of "total liberty" being closer in definition to "total anarchy".[3] Likewise, because they falsely conflate conservativism and the right as being "fascist" despite fascism being closer to the far left, they create a false dichotomy regarding what they defined as freedom and fascism, and often imply that freedom is often "given up" for what they defined as fascism. A notable example of this is George Lucas with the Star Wars saga,[4][5] who among other things falsely claimed, owing to his anti-war politics, that going to war at all results in a loss of freedom (despite America literally being founded in the American War for Independence among others).[6]

See also


    "While the French Revolution called for principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity, the concept of “total liberty” they proposed is best described as “total anarchy,” said Fr. William Jenkins, in a 1980s segment of the TV show “What Catholics Believe.”"
    He [McDiarmid] also bristles at the notion that the Star Wars films are totally hollow entertainments. "I remember when I sat there in the Evil Emperor's swivel chair and George [Lucas] said things like 'does it remind you of the Oval office?' And I realised that at that time Richard Nixon was in his mind.
    "And I see that in the Guardian's review of the DVD - not favourable, of course - mention is made of the fact that there are lines that sound really contemporary. But the reviewer decided that was by chance: no, no, no, no. Entirely by design.
    "George knew that eight-year-olds, for whom these films are primarily intended, are very impressionable, and he wanted to make the right impression. So the whole film is about the unnecessary rise of fascism. In other words: watch out, they're all after your freedom, particularly when they're talking about defending freedom. Without getting over-extended about it, that is at the heart of these movies."
  5. Revenge of the Sith invites Bush Comparisons, page 2 on
    "Lucas said he patterned his story after historical transformations from freedom to fascism, never figuring when he started his prequel trilogy in the late 1990s that current events might parallel his space fantasy.
    "As you go through history, I didn't think it was going to get quite this close. So it's just one of those recurring things," Lucas said at a Cannes news conference. "I hope this doesn't come true in our country.
    "Maybe the film will waken people to the situation," Lucas joked
    "When I wrote it, [the 2003 Iraq war] didn't exist," Lucas said, laughing.
    "We were just funding Saddam Hussein and giving him weapons of mass destruction. We didn't think of him as an enemy at that time. We were going after Iran and using him as our surrogate, just as we were doing in Vietnam. ... The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we're doing in Iraq now are unbelievable."
    The prequel trilogy is based on a back-story outline Lucas created in the mid-1970s for the original three "Star Wars" movies, so the themes percolated out of the Vietnam War and the Nixon-Watergate era, he said.
    Lucas began researching how democracies can turn into dictatorships with full consent of the electorate.In ancient Rome, "why did the senate after killing Caesar turn around and give the government to his nephew?" Lucas said. "Why did France after they got rid of the king and that whole system turn around and give it to Napoleon? It's the same thing with Germany and Hitler.
    "You sort of see these recurring themes where a democracy turns itself into a dictatorship, and it always seems to happen kind of in the same way, with the same kinds of issues, and threats from the outside, needing more control. A democratic body, a senate, not being able to function properly because everybody's squabbling, there's corruption.""

External links