1999-5-24 15:57:00
Question: Can you name some freedoms on both sides of the pendulum that those in illusion wish to restrict? What is the only reason that freedom should ever be restricted?
I thought Glenys gave a good answer to this. Let me quote:
"Both conservative and liberals deny freedom of choice in one way or another eg the conservative's commitment to tradition and the liberal's commitment to the power of the state (depending on which branch of 'liberalism' is practiced). Throughout history, freedom of religion and self-determination have been sacrificed by people who describe themselves as being one or the other. Both look to eternal sources for answers to life and purport to know what's best for the individual, going so far as to devise severe penalties for those who choose to control their own lives and destinies."
Christopher's comment on the blind spot fits in with our comment here. He mentioned that we only seem to have a blind spot when one eye is shut and that it seems to go away when both eyes are open. It is an interesting correspondence that the left eye is male-conservative-logical and the right eye is female-liberal-emotional. In other words, we can greatly eliminate the effects of the blind spot by balancing the male-conservative-logical and female-liberal-emotional energies within us.
Those who have a mindset on either the conservative or liberal side will have a blind spot and be out of balance in their total vision. Hence they will feel justified in restricting the freedoms of those on the other side of the pendulum.
Let us bring this home with specific examples.
(1) Abortion is a great example. Liberals claim conservatives are seeking to restrict their freedom over their own bodies.
On the other hand, conservatives claim liberals are seeking to totally eliminate the freedom of the unborn child.
Who is really seeking to take away freedom, or are they both in the wrong?
(2) Liberals claim that freedom is increased through expensive social programs. Those who receive the money have more freedom to spend money.
Conservatives claim that freedom is decreased because the State takes by force from some and gives it to others. Those who have money taken from them lose freedom.
Who is correct, or are they both wrong?
(3) Liberals support free speech in most creative endeavors even if it distorts and makes fun of God and Jesus, has lots of curse words, has kids in trench coats blowing people away and open pornography.
In this area conservatives take a stand and say we should restrict some freedom of speech in these areas.
On the other hand, conservatives support free speech in areas considered politically incorrect by the liberals. They think it is ridiculous that anyone should be offended by a name like "Washington Redskins". They do not like being restricted to the word "person" instead of "him" or "he" and want the freedom to continue to use the word MANkind as a designating word for the race. They want the freedom tell jokes about Italians or Mexicans if they want.
In these politically correct areas, many liberals want to make it a law that takes away freedom to use politically incorrect words and phrases. Even now, in most government jobs, you can be fired for being politically incorrect.
Again, who has the right idea in the restriction of freedom?
(4) The liberal thinks we should correct our children with kindness on the physical level - that kids should have freedom from fear of spanking.
Again, good and decent people have differing views of freedom here.
Conservatives believe they should have the freedom to spank their kids when necessary.
(5) Conservatives generally want to restrict freedom to smoke pot and liberals generally want to restrict the freedom to smoke cigarettes.
Now earlier someone mentioned that they thought that most of the people on the list have chosen the path of light, but before the final choice can be made, the principle of freedom must be correctly understood.
My guess would be that in these three areas, part of the list would identify with the conservative idea of restricting freedom, and part with the liberal side.
Hopefully, we have illustrated here that the choice between light and dark is not that simple. If we make a wrong choice for the restriction of freedom now, it will be very difficult to change directions in the future.
The dark side is not entered in one giant step or decision, but is preceded by hundreds of small wrong illusionary decisions that later have to be undone with steps retraced, if we are to make the correct choice in the end.
When we do make a wrong decision concerning freedom, what do you suppose our soul does for us later in life (or a future one) to help us back on the path?
Copyright 1999 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved