When Liberty Is Taken Away: Reflection on Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Remove all ads!

All this talk for and against the war has me thinking about how precious our liberty really is.

Today, back in 1945, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was captured by Nazi soldiers. He was not Jewish, he was a leader of the Luthern Church and stood up to Hitler. He would suffer in a concentration camp, and be executed a few days before that camp was liberated. Bonhoeffer was actually in America when the war started. He returned to Germany to stand with his brothers in the faith, knowing that his words had no impact unless he chose to suffer with his people.

He saw that without liberty, life is not worth living. Freedom is worth speaking about, working towards and dying for.

Would I do what Bonhoeffer did? I hope so. More, I pray that my country continues to be a place where my Liberty is not impeached.

 

I certainly hope you won't mind if I pray with you, Mat.

 

You are already losing rights in the name of defense.The new anti terror laws are pretty scary.
Some points that stuck out to me...
1.The goverment now has the right to tap your phone without a warrent.

2.They can take away US citizinship if they discover your money is used to support terrorist activity.This applies even if you had no idea where the money ended up.For instance supporting a charity that funneled that money to terrorists.

I will have to find the link to the list of changes and post it later.

 

I think most of us would fight to preserve our liberty. As for my hero from WWII, see Fr. Maximilian Kolbe.

 

You pray to god to protect your american way of life, your freedom? God is no lord of battle. The extremists in the current US gvt are going to form a world to america's advantage. They enforce what they perceive as interests, nothing less. This war has never been about anything else.

Some people may call the current US policy "forced entry to foreign markets". The american way of life necessiates, among other things like free trade, cheap oil to fuel the economy. A good deal of the price of the american freedom is atm paid by iraqi innocents rather than by heroic alliance soldiers "bringing the light" to iraq. No pun intended, I just didn't knew that Saddam was about to expand his realm to the US. So where do you defend *your* freedom when killing Saddam?

That reminds me of an episode of a rabbi, who, in a concentration camp, was asked by fellow prisoners where god was and with whom. He replied: "With the victims."

The freedom Bonhoeffer spoke of was freedom of conscience; of course, he also meant physical liberty and basic respect for human life. Liberty of conscience is something you can hold against your gvt. But what use is it when not the gvt reduces your freedom but your fellow american? How easy is it and has it been in the US recently to openly speak out against war?

[ April 10, 2003, 07:47: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Actually, Ragusa, I just have to comment on your last comment -- a whole whackload of people in the States have spoken out against the war. Not one of them is in prison that I know of unless they also committed a real crime along with their speaking out (like vandalism, assault, etc). Other people have exercised their individual freedoms in response to anti-war sentiment (like the boycott of Dixie Chick music) but that is not a case of the government impinging on Dixie Chick freedom -- I don't believe they faced any governmental sanctions based on their public statement against Bush and the war. For PR reasons they made a retractory statement, but there was no gun at their heads, and I don't believe their children and families were under threat from the Government at the time, either.

 

" God is no lord of battle."

This is dependent on if you read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Or Genesis and Exodus.

Also:

Jefferson thought that people need a revolution every 200 years. But more important is the reason for that revolution. He knew that change had to occur, little by little, just to keep up with the rest of the world. But there's a point at where you need to REBOOT.

It's been 200 years. And America has been stocking up on retards. I mean, we could prescribe 16,000mg of retard per day for every other single human on the planet that does not live in the US; we have retardness in surplus.

I would prefer that society take care of itself. And it would be nasty the first year or so. But after that first year, it would be a quiet, safe place to live.

 

Depaara, I think Ragusa pointed at the social pressure many anti-war-induhviduals ( ) recieved

 

Ejsmith,
don't you think that the new testament, to some point, differs in the perception of god?

Depaara,
Morgoth made a good point above

[ April 10, 2003, 16:24: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Fair enpough, Ragusa, but I stick by my argument that other people exercsing their freedom to choose whether or not to associate with you is not really an infringement of your freedom.

 

The question is more how free a land is where the constitution grants defence-right (freedom of speech/ conscience etc) against the gvt, but where citizens themselves don't feel bound.

What use is the freedom of speech or conscience, rights your gvt can't deny you - while your fellow citzens harshly sanction you for using exactly that right - completely legitimate and legal but unfortunately not on the PCness agenda?

 

There are laws on the books to prevent people from being too harshly punished by their fellow citizens for being outspoken, but leaving that aside, how on earth could you change that? Government intervention? PC people aren't the only ones who react to statements they believe to be wrong. Both the Left and Right punish those who speak up. To me, such dialogue and interaction is the essence of democracy. It's also found pretty well everywhere.

I'll use an example here -- Ragusa, you're from Sweden, right? IIRC, you have (or had?) a cradle to grave social security net. If someone were to speak out against that, would there be a reaction? I think there would be. Some of the reaction would be negative, some positive. Some people would possibly ostracize the speaker. That's THEIR right, is it not? As long as the guy isn't jailed for his opinion, or beaten, then where have his rights been damaged? His right to speak does not mean I don't have the right to disagree with him. I'm bound by the rule of law not to commit crimes against this man, but no law exists that says I HAVE to associate with him or like him. If he were a musician, some stations may decide that they find his opinions distasteful and not play his music. The other option is to have the government mandate what the station plays, and that's not what we want, is it?

 

The problem, as I understand it, is that where a general climate of fear as a result of 9/11, has created the urge for reaction. Any reaction perhaps.
And beeing against the war means delaying taking action. As a result of that attack the reaction was an overwhelming patriotism. So beeing against the war for some people also means denying the GIs the support they deserve. And sanctioning opposition is just an expression of eager patriotism.

Now it is so that someone who protests on the street against the warn doesn't has very good cards. Fox iirc referred to anti-war demonstrants generously as "communists and socialists" ... sure. My thesis is in direct reference to the question: "Where's the opposition?"

Silenced.

Let's put it that way, more careful, the current public and media climate in the US does not encourage war-opposition.

 

First of all i believe that none of us is free. We all have someone to watch us (police, etc) and pose punishment if necessary. But in these treacherous times we live in these borders of "freedom" we are enjoying are shrinking every day. Not only in USA everywhere in the world. Right now this situation is coming to a critical point, goverments are entitled to jail us just for the suspicion that we might have done something. And this is definitelly not good for us. I hope that they will come to their senses. For our "freedom" i pray and will die if necessary.
We must not also forget that our "freedom" sometimes is someones else slavery. And this is something noone must allow to happen.

 

An individual's freedoms must be defined on how they impinge on another’s freedom. There is a hierarchy here. Life, then liberty, and then the pursuit of happiness. Freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, freedom to do whatever you want must be balanced to the freedoms that they might take away from others. You have freedom of speech in the US, but you can't yell "FIRE" in a theater. The reason is that you are likely to take away another's higher right, the right to life. Under this definition, none of us are truly 100% free.

Now that having been said, actions must also have consequences. Natalie Maines is free to say that she is ashamed that Bush comes from Texas, her home state, but she must also accept the consequences of that action. I am free to dislike what she said and refuse to buy her albums (like I was going to anyway!). I am sure that there are some people out there who wanted to show their support and actually went out of their way to buy DC material. There is a risk-reward factor here. She made a statement and risked the consequences. Had the majority of Americans felt the same way she did, the Dixie Chicks might have seen unprecedented success.

All actions must have consequences, positive and negative, what else defines living? Life would be awfully boring and sterile otherwise.

 

Darkwolf, i fully agree with the way you described free speech and the way people should be free to act, if they hear something, with what the do not agree.

My problem starts then, when the ways and the means of expressing one's opinion are not even. Like that example with Fox TV. It would be fair, if there was a TV outlet for liberals too. So you could only switch channels, on Fox are the right-wing clowns and on the other channel are the left wing clowns. So, every clown has it's chance.

I mean, people on TV are PAID to express their opinions. Thus, I think it's fair to say, that they are professionals. And a amateur makes always the second place, when he has to compete with a professional.

But how things are now, I think the Fox-Clown has a funding-advantage.

oops, just found out republicans share my view

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7214

[ April 11, 2003, 20:36: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Have had this discussion before. US TV is funded by advertisors. Advertisors pay the most for ads on the most watched networks and shows. For decades the liberals ruled with the alphabet networks. They have lost touch with Americans.

Sure Fox is biased to the right, but only because that is what most Americans want to see. ABC, CBS, and NBC's news ratings combined don't equal Fox's. Fox is better funded because more people watch it. Supply and Demmand, the ultimate form of democracy.