I strongly disagree. Man cannot exist as an atomistic individual, such a concept flies in the face of reality and the most basic precepts of the Judeo-Christian worldview. "Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.'" [Gen. 2:18 RSV]. On the contrary: a human individual can only exist a part of a human community, as Aristotle so aptly points out:
Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity; he is like the Tribeless, lawless, hearthless one, whom Homer denounces- the natural outcast is forthwith a lover of war; he may be compared to an isolated piece at draughts. Now, that man is more of a political animal than bees or any other gregarious animals is evident. Nature, as we often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is the only animal whom she has endowed with the gift of speech. And whereas mere voice is but an indication of pleasure or pain, and is therefore found in other animals (for their nature attains to the perception of pleasure and pain and the intimation of them to one another, and no further), the power of speech is intended to set forth the expedient and inexpedient, and therefore likewise the just and the unjust. And it is a characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good and evil, of just and unjust, and the like, and the association of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a state. [Politics, I, ii, translated by Benjamin Jowett)Therefore, we see that the idea of society as a mere "collection of individuals" goes against the traditional Western idea of man as a being defined by community; man outside of community is no man at all, but "is either a bad man or above humanity; he is like the tribeless, lawless, hearthless one, whom Homer denounces... a lover of war... an isolated piece."
As to freedom and liberty, God gave us that. He chose to give us free will to accept or reject him. He could have done it any other way he chose. He made us in his image, that is to say, with free will.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Economic freedom is about property rights. They were bestowed by God in the ten commandments. "Thou shalt not steal" confers property rights. Government and rights are how we relate to each other, not to God. Freedom may be an illusion to you, but it is the best way for men to live on this world.
That may be the central tenet of your namesake's American civic religion, but that statement does not reflect the orthodox Christian belief. The Christian faith teaches that man is by nature free, but only free to choose which master he will serve; that man is always a slave of some master, and that it is only when he is a slave to God and God's righteousness [Rom. 6:18-22] that he is living in the way God intended. "...[H]e who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ." [1 Cor 7:22]. The freedom you speak of here is the illusory freedom of the Enlightenment, the Liberté offered by the serpent in the Garden, in which man becomes a law unto himself -- "like gods, knowing good and evil". This satanic lie -- that man can be his own god -- is at the heart of every trouble known to man since the world began. Freedom is not the ultimate good; holiness (= obedience to God) is. The ideal of individual freedom unlimited by concern for our fellowman -- the "virtue of selfishness' that lies at the core of laissez-faire capitalism -- is really nothing more than slavery, slavery to our own desires. "For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by men and hating one another." [Titus 3:3]. A civilization where atomistic individualism is the core ethic is no society at all; a civilization where the goddess Liberty replaces the God of Love as the deity to whom all must bow may be said to be "free" in an economic sense, but it is certainly not free in a Christian or human sense.
Rights are a gift from God, what you do when you are enabled with them is to be taken up with him.
Modern man's obsession with his "rights" is another holdover from the so-called Enlightenment. Western, Christian civilization prior to the humanistic "renaissance" was a civilization where a man was defined by his duties (fealty to his family, his earthly masters, and his God) rather than by his rights (specified by written or social contract). In the centuries since then, the stable social order of feudal Christedom has been shattered into a warring jumble of "free men", each fighting an eternal Hobbsean battle of all-against-all in a vain effort to secure his so-called rights. I believe (and the Christian faith teaches) that we should each be less concerned with our self-centered rights and more concerned with our God-ordained duties, and I look forward to the day when Duty rather than Rights becomes the prime motif of our civilization.
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
It should also be noted that I think you misunderstood my comment about individuals and interpreted it to say that I think man should be alone or not part of a group. I meant no such thing. I will be happy to admit that I'm not the the most clear communicator.
My point is simply that man does not get judged (by God) by the behavior of some country he is in or group he is labled as part of. His relationship with the lord is defined by how he relates to him. That relationship will be judged as genuine by how he treats his fellow man. According to God's plan as revealed to us by Christ and the scriptures.
He allowed us free will and yet we somehow feel that we shouldn't allow each other the same even though he has given us his example.
You and I speak of a different kind of freedom. I refer to what I believe God meant for us to have in our relationships with other humans, you speak of a subserviance to God. They are both valid, but different.
Regards