In Chapter Eleven we gave some idea of the nature of American freedom as envisioned by our nation's founders. In this chapter we will expand on that theme and give various examples to show that our American freedom as originally conceived is absolutely necessary to achieve our full allotment of Health and Happiness.

As discussed in Chapter Eleven, there are many types of freedom in the world - both past and present. The freedom envisioned and established by our Forefathers was unique in that it had a minimum of caveats and was the first established in full harmony with the Divine Law.

Such a freedom could be established only in a nation created by those fully knowledgeable of and imbued with the Divine Law. Such were the men who brought our great nation into being. They knew that only in a country where every person is free to seek his own answers to life's questions could they discover the truth of the Divine Law and eventually learn to live according to its beneficial mandates.

As soon as any government, at any level places restrictions on freedom that favor any component of society over any other, then to that degree freedom has been denied and the intentions of our founders thwarted. To demonstrate the nature of this freedom we have the adamant statement of Benjamin Franklin regarding the Post Office's responsibility. He admonished, "The only two things that should not be allowed to go through the mails, both for obvious reasons, are gunpowder and fresh fruits and vegetables." the new freedom that Dr. Franklin and his compatriots established was as close to an uninhibited, absolute freedom as they could fashion and yet remain in full harmony with the Divine Law.

The crux of this American freedom was this: Every American had the right to do whatever he desired as long as the right did not interfere with or restrict the same "unalienable" right of any fellow American. The nature of this freedom has been succinctly and colloquially stated thusly: "Your right to swing your arms stops at the tip of my nose."

If an American does or attempts to do something that restricts the rights of others to seek and enjoy their search for health and happiness, he has overstepped the bounds of American freedom and needs to be sanctioned. This is an absolute under the Divine Law. In time the Divine Law itself will bring about the sanctioning, but if we allow such injustice to take place and do not take action ourselves, we to will eventually be sanctioned by the Law for our "sin" of omission.

The purpose of our government is twofold as far as American freedom is concerned: First, to see that no laws or statutes are enacted that limit this freedom established by our Forefathers, and second, to protect all citizens from those who attempt to interfere with their freedom to seek Health and Happiness as they alone see fit without interfering with the same rights of others.

Unfortunately, the Government, in recent times, has not always been a champion of American freedom. The reasons for this are not hard to find. They are based on the same human nature that has motivated one man to attempt to control another since the beginning of civilization. These groups are twofold, and while the intent of each is directly opposite of the other, it is difficult to determine which does the more damage.

First, there are those who desire to rule their fellow man for their one benefit. This began long ago when the first man hit another over the head with a club to take from him something he wanted but was too lazy to work for himself. As we have become more civilized, the methods of stealing have become more sophisticated, but the principle remains the same whether implemented by a cat burglar or a tax collector. It doesn't matter whether we live under a dictatorship, monarchy, democracy or a constitutional republic, such as our nation; would-be thieves will always find a way to steal if the citizens are not alert and vigilant. It is interesting to note that the taxes levied by the English against colonial America that caused us to rebel were only a tiny fraction of those now levied on this same people by our representatives. As mentioned, those who would deprive us of our freedoms are now much more sophisticated than before. No king, potentate or dictator of the past has been able to extract as much in tribute from his people as have the present so-called democracies.

In their efforts to deprive us of our true American freedom the forces of despotism have devised many ingenious plans and programs. Of all of these, however, taxation is undoubtedly the most popular. The power to tax is the power to deny freedom. As the various forms of government take your hard-earned money from you to use for their own nefarious purposes they deny you the use of those funds to use as you will. Thus, by taxation they are able to prevent you from using that which under the Divine Law is yours because you earned it. By this ruse of taxation they are able to commandeer the results of your efforts from you to use as they see fit. Is this not the definition of stealing?

As taxation becomes greater and greater you have less and less freedom, since you do not have the wherewithal to do as you are able to plan and desire. Is not the end result of this process the same as the peasant servitude of the Middle Ages, only in a more "civilized" manner? Are not our political leaders only feudal lords and we their bonded slaves? If you think not, try to keep some of the tribute they expect from you each year and see what happens.

The second group that is ever working to take away from Americans the freedom established by our founders are those who believe that they have a mission to force "improvements" on their fellowman. The prime example of this form of "benevolent" dictatorship was the prohibition of alcohol in the nineteen twenties and thirties. Interestingly, as with all such efforts to forcibly mold society counter to the Divine Law, the end results were the opposite of what the implementing group had intended. Crime and degeneracy flourished under the restrictions of prohibition; that is to be expected when one group attempts to force others to its personal view of morality.

Today, the same sort of restriction, once used against alcohol are being imposed on various street drugs some citizens desire to use. As before, crime and degeneracy not flourish in our nation. We never seem to learn. No man(or woman) has the right in America to tell another what he may do or use as long as that action or use does not interfere with the same rights of another American. As soon as you deviate one jot or tittle from this principle you invite real trouble. It has always been so and will remain so until the end of time, since this principle of freedom is based on the unchangeable Divine Law.

All such efforts are a form of censorship, and all censorship of one adult by another is odious and counter to the American spirit and the Divine Law, because such censorship implies that one American citizen has a Divine moral right to tell other citizens how they must live their lives. This is the American equivalent of the Divine Right of Kings, something we thought we gave up long ago. Just as in America there are no kings, here can be no censors for adults, because as soon as there are, an American is empowered to control the rights of others as he sees fit. This is the very antithesis of the American concept of freedom. Remember the words of Dr. Benjamin Franklin mentioned earlier.

"But," you say, ‘what about our children? Do we not have a right to censor them?" They are the responsibility of their parents until they are of such an age (mid- to late teens) that their own Divine Spark is able to help guide them on their unique journey of life. It is the responsibility of parents carefully to guide their children through the pitfalls of human existence and to help them develop the understanding and wisdom to use American freedom to their advantage. The fact that some parents are no good at his job does not give the government, or anyone else, the right to circumvent the Divine Law and our American freedom by interfering with this natural order. No one has been able to document that a child raised by government do-gooders has any better chance of living to promote the general welfare than one raised by not-so-good parents. When we examine the childhood of a large number of individuals who brought to mankind a great variety of benefits, we find they ran the gamut of experiences from the most idyllic to the most traumatic. Some will assure you their idyllic (as normally understood) childhood is what made them what they are, but just as many will tell you it was only by rebelling from such an uneventful youth that they were able to do what they did. We will also find the same with those who had what at the time they considered as a traumatic childhood. In the last analysis we are what we make ourselves and what we have made of ourselves in past incarnations. Usually, the more the government and the wide variety of do-gooders keep their hands off our lives the better. Where we are and what we are is a combination of what we and the Divine Law have made for ourselves, and no government in the world knows better what is good for us than do we and the Divine Law.

Admittedly, it is often difficult for men and women to stand by and watch Nature and the Divine Law at work without desiring to interfere, but almost universally such interference later proves to be detrimental to all concerned. Nature and the Divine Law have been working to improve man for much longer than any government or private group of do-gooders. Nature and the Divine Law have the advantage of experience, wisdom and the help and sponsorship of a very high and credible authority - the Creator.

This is not to say that mankind as a whole or in part can just sit back and let Nature take its course, but we have to be careful in our efforts to help humanity that we do not enter the field of censorship or attempt to do for others that which under the Divine Law they are to do for themselves. To give some guidance in our efforts to work with Nature and the divine Law to help man and yet in no way interfere with his rights as a freeborn American we offer some comments on some of the controversies of our day and trust that our views will help you to discover a new meaning to American freedom.

Some Debated Controversies

the rights of smokers is one of the most debated subjects regarding American freedom before the public today. Smokers and some libertarians say that under the American Constitution smokers have a right to smoke even though they are aware of and accept the health dangers. On the other hand many others say that smoking causes much damage to the public's health and that all Americans have to pay high taxes to treat the diseases caused by smoking. Also, this latter group contends that the smoke released by smokers (the so-called "secondhand smoke") effects them and that smokers are thereby, figuratively, "touching the tip of their nose." Both sides of the course are frequently very adamant in their views, which only intensifies the debate.

Under the Divine Law and American freedom the situation distills down to this: An American citizen has a right to smoke as long as his smoking does not interfere with the rights of others and he accepts fully the personal responsibility for the results of his smoking on himself and others. What this means is that he has to find a place to smoke that does not interfere with the pleasure or rights of others to breathe smoke-free air. In general this would exclude smoking from all public places except special public smoking rooms that are sufficiently airtight and entrance-controlled so that the smoke would not contaminate the general air. His right to smoke in no way can take precedence over the right of others to breathe fresh air. Should there ever be an argument over these two rights there is no reason why that of the non-smoker should not take precedence since it is a negative, that is, a nonintrusive right, while that of the smoker is most intrusive. It is, therefore, up to the smoker to make the accommodation, not the nonsmoker, as is so often advocated by smokers today.

We must also consider the smoker's personal responsibility under the Divine Law. He is held personally responsible for all the consequences of his smoking by the Divine Law, and he should also be so held by society. In principle this means that he should not expect the general public to be responsible for the healthy problems caused by his smoking habit. The same is true for the health problems of his family that may have been caused by second-hand smoke. To implement this responsibility option, the government and other insurance carriers would have to impose a special charge for those who smoke to offset the added indemnity. This must be so arranged that none of the needed care for smokers is carried by the nonsmokers in the various insurance plans, private or governmental.

As you can see, it is not difficult to calculate the character of the Divine Law and American freedom in regard to our modern situations. Think only of what is just and fair. Leave out all sentiment that does not fit under the Divine Law, and you will find a way that allows for the greatest American freedom and compliance with the Divine Law.

While the drinking of alcohol and smoking are often grouped together (possibly since the smoker may also drink), the effect on American freedom is quite different. There is no such thing as secondhand drunkenness. The adverse effects of alcohol consumption, at least in the beginning, apply mainly to the individual who drinks. This situation changes, of course, as the heavy drinker interacts with society while under the influence. Many innocents have been killed by those driving while drunk, and these have been deprived of health and life as have the victims of secondhand smoke.

There is of coarse another group that is affected by the actions of a drinker: his or her family. Frequently, they are not properly supported and can even become wards of the State. However, the more common problem is the emotional effect on the family - both on the spouse (assuming the drinker is married) and the children.

Under American freedom and the Divine Law there is no need to restrict the use of alcohol by adults since the health damage is restricted to the imbiber. On the other hand, severe sanctions should be meted out to those who abuse this right and, in any way, cause harm to others. Also here, as with smoking, there are extra health hazards for the drinker and these, under the Law of Personal Responsibility, must not be passed on to the general public. Therefore, as with the smoker, the drinker needs to be charged special high insurance rates so as not to affect the general rates, private and governmental, for the nondrinker.

This is a very serious problem that today, like AIDS, is being handled politically rather then by the principles of American freedom and the Divine Law. The state of street drugs in America today is exactly the same as that of alcohol during prohibition. Authorities are fighting a losing battle, but since it is not politically correct to say so, the charade goes on.

Just as prohibition made Americans drink alcohol as never before, so does the prohibition of street drugs make these drugs all the more glamorous and intriguing. Legalizing these drugs may not stop their use any more than repealing prohibition stopped the consumption of alcohol in this country, but one thing the repeal of prohibition did do was to stop the crime associated with the prohibition did do was to stop the crime associated with the prohibition of alcohol. Is not drug crime one of the most egregious parts of American life today? Would it not be a wise and rational move to take the only action that history shows has worked to stop such crime?

The Law of Supply and Demand is always functioning because it works under the Divine Law. If there is a need or demand for a product someone will supply it, and no government has been able to stop this unless they throw out all human freedoms and function as a pure police state. Such a society is, of course, the antithesis of American freedom. Freedom can be legitimately restricted only by the caveats described before.

But is we make drugs legal, won't the nation become a sheer hell with everyone high on some pharmaceutical substance or another? Actually, is not this the situation today, except we have the added problem of the gangland drug wars because of the great profits to be made in the illegal drug trade? The real answer, however, is the same as with alcohol. As long as the drug user does not adversely affect others we have no right to interfere, but as soon as he becomes a danger to others we have the right to inflict very severe sanctions, up to and including banishment from civilized society for incorrigible offenders.

Here, as with smokers and heavy drinkers, those who use street-type drugs should be asked to pay much higher rates for insurance that the general public, the principle always being that the one who places himself in a position of needing more care than the average must take upon himself the responsibility for that care. With drug legalization in place, the insurance companies would have full information on the drug users so that they could easily monitor the need for such premium payments.

If you have followed me to this point on American freedoms you may have an idea of what I might say regarding abortion. However, abortion, like smoking, is not all that simple since the action also involves a second party - the potential human being. Furthermore, in abortion we need to take into consideration the intent of those involved as well and the act itself. This concern regarding intent has not been needed in our discussion of American freedoms up to this point, but we need now to ask what the woman (and her mate) attempts to do by an abortion. The intent is simple: to take a human life by preventing its development. Remember the words of Jesus, "Whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."___Matthew 5:28. It takes no real leap of faith for us to see that if our desire is to rid ourselves of the responsibility of our "act of Love," then it matters little if we kill the child by an abortion or wait until it is born and deposit it in a garbage dumpster. The result of the action is the same because the intent is the same, and that intent is murder - infanticide.

Now that being said, let us look at how abortion plays out under American freedom and the Divine Law. While the intent of abortion is murder, we all agree that murder may be justified under certain circumstances. What if a girl is raped of the victim of incest and is impregnated? She was not responsible for the act that created the child; therefore, why should she be forced to bear and raise the child? Here, the Divine Law can be very understanding. If an abortion were performed in this instance, I would think the Divine Law and American freedom could be will served, since the child born in either of these instances may will become a true malevolent to society.

However, some of these mothers-to-be may decide to bear their child, and this too is in harmony with American freedom and the Divine Law. It is not for us to judge this decision any more than that of a timely abortion. We cannot know how any action we take will specifically affect our future, but we do know if our actions are in harmony with the American freedom and the Divine Law, we have a right to expect the ultimate reactions of our choices will be to our long-term advantage despite the short-term effects and the various opinions of others.

While proponents of free and unfettered legal abortion are always ready to offer the example of rape- or incest-induced pregnancy as a reason for their position, these cases make up a minuscule part of the total abortions in our nation.

By far the vast majority of abortions are done on women who have been impregnated by their husband or boyfriend, and the main reason for the abortion is one of convenience and not necessity. For these mothers-to-be, should the principle of American freedom extend to the ability to prevent another Soul from entering a human body for its newest incarnation? This is not an easy question to answer. One has to look at the alternatives in harmony with this freedom and the Divine Law.

If we take away the right for a woman to have a legal abortion, will she have it illegally with possible dire results? Certainly this has happened in the past, yet should there not be a limit as to how far American freedom can go in helping a woman commit murder? Dr.R.Swinburne Clymer said, "The cure for all human ills is education, not legislation." In the long run, education - and only education - is the permanent answer to the question of abortion. The women of our nation should be educated in the principles of the Divine Law. They must come to understand that they cannot evade the results of their actions. They must come to know that abortion only compounds the Karmic indebtedness of their previous actions in creating an unwanted child. They cannot avoid responsibility by murder any more than can anyone else who commits this deed. All they do by their abortion is to set aside for a short time, often a very short time, the reactions of their previous action.

Should abortion be legal? It is probably in the public interest that it be so, although it might be well to alter the process by which an abortion can be authorized. I envision a process in which the mother-to-be would apply to a special court for an abortion. She and her mate, if he is available, would appear before the judge along with a court-appointed lawyer speaking for the unborn child. If the woman or couple could convince the court that it is in the public interest that she be allowed to proceed with an abortion, permission would be given; if, on the other hand, the defender of the embryo prevails, the abortion would be denied.

No doubt such a proposal would meet with heavy opposition from both proponents and opponents of legalized abortion, and, therefore, may be the best "middle" ground of this controversy, since it would take into consideration the American freedom rights of both the mother and the rapidly growing child within her. The objections to it would be the same as to legal adoption versus illegal adoption, that is, that the legal process takes too long. Most certainly the legal process for abortion would have to be sped up considering the time limits for a viable abortion, but this could be done if the judiciary desired it.

We have addressed AIDS in Chapter Nine on Manhood, but will expand this subject further here. The main purpose of the public health departments in our country is to protect the public from health dangers from which they are not able to protect themselves. By not applying to AIDS the same public health standards that are applied to all other venereal diseases our government has deprived the citizens of this nation of a most vital American freedom, the freedom from fear of such a deadly communicable disease. We have every tight to expect our government to place the general welfare of its people above the political pressure of any minority group. By not doing this in regard to AIDS, our government is unnecessarily exposing millions of Americans to a death-dealing disease that could and should control. One of our fundamental American rights is the right to life and this right is now being jeopardized by our government's insane policy regarding AIDS.

The homosexual, like the smoker, has a lifestyle that carries with it responsibilities beyond that of the heterosexual and the nonsmoker. The sexual activities of the homosexual are counter to the Divine Law, and therefore, carry within them the seed of disease and destruction. Society has an obligation to see that the homosexual does not interfere with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the majority of Americans by spreading his diseases through the laxity of the public health authorities.

Most certainly the homosexual has a right to enjoy the same rights as all other Americans, but as with the rest of us, with these rights come corresponding responsibilities. While we have no right to force our lifestyle on the homosexual, neither has he the right to force us to give him special attention because of his sexual inversion. Most certainly if an employer does no desire to hire a homosexual, he should not be forced to do so. This is simply his exercise of American freedom. If an individual desires a certain type of employment, it is up to him to make himself fit the requirements of the job, not the other way around. Both employees and employers have the same rights as every other American, and we must be careful to not destroy the one while we attempt to assure the other.

We live in an age enamored with politically correct euphemisms. Affirmative action is the name given to an effort to promote those who are members of the present politically favored ethnic groups whether or not they are worthy of such promotion. The result of such action is directly counter to all we know of American freedom, the Divine Law and Scripture. This policy is tantamount to a political reversal of the Parable of the Talents. As such, affirmative action was doomed to fail from the beginning, since it eventually beggars those it was intended to help. We have long been told that two wrongs do not make a right, but apparently we are ever ready to cast aside such homespun wisdom when it is perceived that some political advantage is to be gained thereby.

At present many of the laws intended to promote affirmative action have been repealed or are in the process of being repealed. Something of a precedent is being set by our efforts to repeal these laws. We are learning that the more we attempt to write laws that are not in harmony with American freedom or the Divine Law, the more often we will be forced into the painful and laborious process of repealing them. Maybe, just maybe, we will eventually learn to think of the true nature of American freedom and the Divine Law when we make such laws so that we will not need to go through this onerous repeal process time and time again.

The line between American freedom and harassment may appear very fine at times and often depends on the degree to which one's action imposes on another person. Perhaps, for example, I am a "born-again Christian" and you are an Orthodox Jew working in the same office. If I leave a religious tract to two at your desk now and then, you probably will just dump them into the trash and think little more of the incident. On the other hand, if I do this every day and make frequent verbal attempts to convert you to my religious beliefs, you might consider my conduct as harassment. Certainly I am attempting to usurp your time, time you have a right to use as you wish. The cardinal point here is one of lost time. If it is less a waste of time for you just to throw my tracts away than to take time to confront me, then that is the best way to go; but if it comes to a point where it is a better use of your time to confront me and even to talk about harassment proceedings, then this is the thing to do. We have become very uptight about such things today and often common sense is lost in our effort to assure our "rights."

Many things in life are not immoral or illegal, but may or may not be in "good taste." The question, as far as American freedom and the Divine Law are concerned, is, "whose taste?" As an American citizen, is not my sense of good or bad taste just as valid as anyone else's? Since when has someone been anointed by the Creator to tell me what is good or bad taste?

Carrying this matter a little further, who can tell what will be considered as good or bad taste in the future? Many things we now accept as being in good taste were not considered so a few years ago, and this rule applies to bad taste as well. Taste, like beauty, is not only in the eye of the beholder but in his mind as well.

These statements are not an effort to defend bad taste or to deny the value of taste judgments. We all make value judgments every moment of every day, as we should, since under the Divine Law it is desirable for us to constantly do all we can to improve not only ourselves but all Creation as well. In the final analysis it is we, and we alone, who have the right under American freedom to judge for ourselves what is good and bad taste and no one else, especially the government, has the right to impose on us a particular sense of good or bad taste.

One of the most dwindling freedoms in America today is the freedom to choose one's method of health preservation and treatment. Because of the ever growing incidence of third-party payment for health care in America, our entire health system has become politicized. Members of the medical community who were most politically active in past attempts to remove or neutralize their competition were able to use this new development to their advantage and so arrange matters that they soon had a stranglehold on the delivery of medical care in America. By their self-seeking efforts, American freedom is being severely restricted, a large segment of our nation's citizens are being forced to pay out of their own pockets for the care they require or are forced to go to physicians not of their own choice. This situation is the antithesis of the America our forefathers attempted to establish.

Persons who are familiar with both the English and the American political systems tell us that the average Englishman would not for a minute put up with the infringement of his freedoms that Americans now take for granted. Freedoms that were granted to the Englishman by the Magna Carta in 1215 are still denied to Americans at the writing of this book. Of particular interest to us is the inability of the English government to prevent anyone from engaging in his profession. In this country, it the powers-that-be decide they do not like your profession (one such a naturopathy) they not only can stop you from working, but even can put you in jail if you make a resolute attempt to pursue your rights of American freedom.

Summary

Never before in the history of the world has a citizenry been offered the equivalent of the American freedom established by our Founding Fathers. This freedom was based on the principles of the Divine Law and as such was ordained and applauded by our Creator. Since this freedom made it difficult for one man to take advantage of another citizen, diabolical attempts have been made to dilute and corrupt it ever since its establishment. The mind set of all evil men is to control others for their personal benefit. To do this in America, our basic American freedoms must be perverted and denied. It takes little imagination, understanding the corrupt and evil hearts of many men, to assume that there are those who spend many waking hours conceiving of new ways to take advantage of their fellowman by stealing away more and more of his American freedoms.

The basic laws of American freedom are:

1. We have the right to do what we will as long as we do not interfere with the same right of any other American.

2. While we have the right to do what we will, with the caveat above, we are to be held fully responsible for all our actions both by society and by the Divine Law.

We have discussed the modern corruption of our American freedoms. Those who early in America's history stated, "The price of liberty [freedom] is eternal vigilance," knew of what they spoke. Today we must have a rebirth of the real American freedom inharmony with the Divine Law if we are to be fully able to achieve Health and Happiness.
|Top|