Emerging Fellows
Group HomeGroup Home Blog Home Group Blogs

Does religious freedom constrain liberty?

Posted By Administration, Friday, May 10, 2019

Ruth Lewis a member of our Emerging Fellows program examines personal liberty in the light of religious freedom through her fifth blog post. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.


In today’s world, people of faith are seeking to preserve their practices of religion. These practices are generally based on conservative traditions and observances developed over hundreds, even thousands of years throughout various geo-political settings. They are often based on the belief in a higher purpose, being, god or gods and the commandments to behave in a certain way, and to educate their children within the religion.  They seek to protect their own against a confusing and threatening multiplicity of opinions and lifestyles. This is against typographic negative portrayals of the ‘other’, clinging to the mythical stories that they were raised with to cope with societal change.

 

Enshrined Human Rights practices allow freedom of religious thought and practice at the individual and collective level, as long as that practice does not interfere with the individual’s other human rights which may be encoded in law.  This sets boundaries for religious freedom, with many modern examples highlighting conflicts such as religious recognition of contraception, honor killing and non-heterosexual marriage.  In the eyes of the law, freedom to hold a view is absolute, but freedom to act on that view is constrained by other Human Rights. A ‘free society’ is one that allows freedom to think, debate and challenge the dominant beliefs system without fear of reprisal, as long as individuals and collective groups are not harmed as a result. 

 

In today’s society, the more conservative religious viewpoints argue that past traditions provided guidance and wisdom for current practice and lifestyle, carried through generations. These practices of faith are derived from divine providence or right.  These beliefs may provide protection against the uncertainties of change, as they have ‘stood the test of time’. Where this leads to crisis is where the conservative religious belief specifically rejects change and this may put it into conflict with changed societal views of morality and human rights. A resilient society will allow adaptation, integration and growth of belief and practice where these make sense, to support future generations’ health and well-being. A healthy society is one that looks to the future for sustainability. It derives wisdom from the past on what worked or didn’t, and is guided from a mature integration of cultural, social, intentional and behavioral practices and beliefs, rather than setting absolute rules on that basis.

 

In the post-scarcity future, it is postulated that the current resource crises may be overcome, and people’s basic needs will be met. Such a society may support the freedom of association of individuals with collective beliefs without the necessity to band together over scarce living supplies. This society may move beyond the need for the human rights recognition that the historical Enlightenment gave rise to.  Evolved from the separation of Church and State, the common law provided protection of individual rights and promotion of individual liberty of belief.

 

Such an evolutionary society will promote wisdom beyond the traditional tribal and magical worldview of religious belief and practice.  It will evolve into

a society that promotes a common recognition that the core of all religions and beliefs contain a series of trans-personal, trans-rational practices that seek a higher level of wisdom and being. With this evolution, true freedom will be found through individual and collectivist transformation to a holistic worldview of human flourishing. This will promote liberty of the mind, soul and spirit in the pursuit of higher purpose for being. But in this scenario, will we still need to define and enforce Human Rights?

 

© Ruth Lewis 2019

Tags:  liberty  religion  rights 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Is liberty compatible with public safety?

Posted By Website Admin, Tuesday, April 9, 2019

Ruth Lewis a member of our Emerging Fellows program checks the compatibility of liberty with public safety in her fourth blog post. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.


It seems that in today’s world our security and safety are constantly under threat. Every day brings more tragic news of innocent people murdered, women killed by strangers or beaten by violent husbands, children co-opted for economic or political gains, racists and extremist views given undue publicity. Political expediency demands quick response by governments to prevent such occurrences. They trade off our personal liberty for the good of public safety and security. The outcomes may make us temporarily feel safer, but actually apply discrimination or restriction upon society’s minority groups, the women and children at risk, restriction of freedom of expression or lifestyle for those under threat in order to secure their safety.

 

Many people argue that there is always a trade-off between liberty and safety, between freedom and security. Others suggest that safety response must cut through any considerations of liberty, and restrictions on minority groups must take priority for the good of the society. Still others think that security is a pre-requisite for liberty and freedom, to protect the collective well-being. A well-defined barrier will prevent ‘evil’ from seeping into society, so we can all sleep well at night.

 

Safety through restriction doesn’t necessarily mitigate the risk, and can bring unintended consequences that can harm long-term liberty. A well-intended curtailment of freedom for the sake of protection can turn into a vicious cycle of ever greater restrictions of liberty. We are told that the girl who is murdered in an alley shouldn’t have been wandering in the dark alone. The man with the funny headdress or dark skin is to be feared or discredited because he is one of the ‘other’ and shouldn’t be living amongst us. The evil of fear grows and ferments within our society, and no barrier can keep it out.

 

By engaging in Sir Isaiah Berlin’s two-toned notion of personal liberty as both freedom from oppression (safety) and freedom to do what we want to do (liberty), we see a symbiotic relationship between safety and liberty. Their practices must exist together and evolve sustainably over time. Every citizen must be equally free and safe to reach their potential in accordance with human rights principles for today’s societal needs. Future generations must similarly be accorded the same rights. This can only occur in an open, just and inclusive society, where we recognise our bonds and obligations to our fellow human beings and their individual rights within an integrated society.

 

In order to promote human flourishing, we need to recognise and celebrate the diversity and temporal position that we hold in our universe. We must undertake custodial responsibility as a society to look after the security and safety of our environment, the food, water, shelter, energy and climate that we all need to survive. We must create a virtuous cycle whereby the positive contributions of all humanity can be celebrated, protected and encouraged.

 

We must promote both liberty and public safety with a long view to the consequences of today’s decisions on today’s complex society, as well as tomorrow’s generations, their health and their environment. So, liberty is absolutely compatible with public safety, but only if we recognise and share a common and equal entitlement to these aspirations. But does that mean that we must all believe in the same thing? How then does religious freedom affect personal liberty?

 

© Ruth Lewis 2019

Tags:  freedom  liberty  rights 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Is liberty compatible with capitalism?

Posted By Administration, Friday, March 22, 2019

Ruth Lewis a member of our Emerging Fellows program examines the compatibility of liberty with capitalism in her third blog post. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.

 

The current economic theory of the ‘free market economy’ and capitalism requires a world of scarce or finite resources, together with ‘infinite wants’ of the consumer, in order to work. Scarce resources drive consumer acquisition and increases the market value of the resources. This balances nicely with a key tenet of the liberal view: the freedom to acquire whatever you want, even (or especially) at the expense of others.

 

The free market economy with unconstrained and unrestricted growth at all cost is now impinging on the freedoms and livelihoods of others. This effect occurs within the market supply chains who manufacture and supply goods, services and natural resources. It occurs with those who do not have the means to afford current market value. This causes even greater scarcity in key earthly resources such as food, water, mineral deposits and energy. It also has a clear link to climate change.

 

We have the strange paradox of capitalist freedom of acquisition that leads to the undermining of liberty and human rights of others. This has been the pattern as long as the market economy has operated throughout history. Whilst the individual is encouraged to be competitive and individualistic, from a spiritual point of view consumerism proves to be an empty vessel that contains no nourishment. Capitalism promotes ‘happiness’ through acquisition of money and goods over community and individual spiritual prosperity and growth. It undermines the public ‘good’.

 

What other models can we consider going into the future that can promote liberty and freedom? It is interesting to explore some models that reverse the paradigms that we live within today and speculate on futures driven under different mental models for both liberty and economic good.

 

One model that we see today is the governance-driven capitalism model, where societal benefit is promoted alongside profit. This can be seen for example in the ‘B-CORP’ model, where capitalist endeavours can be nurtured spiritually by knowledge that they are promoting good in the world, or at least not causing harm.

 

Others observe that the future will evolve into a post-scarcity economy, where resources are abundant through greater utility and efficiency of innovation, and digitisation will provide both basic and greater needs of the world’s population. This is predicated upon greater information about the world we live in. However, when the commodity underpinning the economy is data or information, where will ownership lie?

 

Another model suggested is that of ‘Commoning’, where ownership and control of resources is participatory. Resources are protected from sale in the market and belong indefinitely to the community that created them or nurtured them - in the same way that a river might be maintained by communities along its banks, instead of being consumed or sold by a third party to outside interests. In such a model, data would be owned and consumed by those that generate it.

 

In all of these models, how will the desire of the individual to acquire at the expense of the community be balanced with the community good? One presumes in the manner that this has always been resolved, through some form of political governance, either provided internally by the community, or presided over by a benevolent external body. Benevolent governance seeks to balance the needs and wants of a community against the resources generated or available. It seeks to regulate the internal and external stakeholders’ interests against moral or ethical dilemmas.

 

Accountable benevolence, ethics, morality and human rights must be clearly defined in accordance to a normalised common good. This clarifies what the community finds tolerable for the welfare, safety, security and health of the community members. The result is the antithesis of capitalism, to which liberty is incompatible.

 

© Ruth Lewis 2019

Tags:  capitalism  economics  liberty 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)