Over the years people have written quite a lot about freedom and one of the most brilliant descriptions of it is contained in these words. "... there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are: equality of opportunity for youth and for others. Jobs for those who can work. Security for those who need it. The ending of special privilege for the few. The preservation of civil liberties for all. The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living. These are the simple, the basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations... In the future days we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is the freedom of speech and expression – everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his (and her) own way – everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want – which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants – everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a worldwide reduction of all armaments to such a point and in such a thorough manner that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor – anywhere in the world. That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for the kind of world attainable in our own time and generation." Franklin Delano Roosevelt said those words in his State of the Union speech on January 6, 1941. Imagine a president of the United States saying those things, espousing such values? How many of us were alive and heard that speech? It is known today for its articulation of the four human freedoms. More, in articulating four human freedoms Roosevelt articulated an entire ethical system and postulated that such a system be used to govern all human relations. You might be aware that several of our members: Debi Clifford, Dave Belden, and Mike Ignatowski, are attempting to build a Network of Spiritual Progressives in the Hudson Valley. One might very well look to Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a prototype for spiritually progressive values.
Roosevelt outlined a description of freedom on four different levels. On the material level: freedom from want, freedom from economic deprivation. A healthy life for the inhabitants of every nation in the world. On the relational-social-political level freedom of speech. Freedom of ideas. The freedom of thought. Freedom of the mind and the intellect as the basis of a functioning democracy. On the level of the human soul, or on the level of our being: freedom from fear. A level of physical and emotional security that allows each person to blossom and to grow in a strong and healthy way. Freedom from violence, freedom from harm. Peace. "Peace is the climate of freedom." (Dwight Eisenhower) And finally on the level of our spirits, freedom of religion. Each person must be free to express his or her spiritual and religious beliefs with no compulsion or harassment from anyone else. What are the values underlying these four freedoms? They are relational. Materially, a basic form of economic egalitarianism. A baseline of survival and to some measure prosperity, for everyone. Economic justice and fairness. Relationally-socially-politically, a basic trust in the power of reason and in the free interchange of ideas. A trust that the better we think, the more clearly we think and articulate, the better off human society will be, on every level. This is the basis of a strong political system and a healthy social system. Emotionally, individually, humanly, a basic recognition that peace is the way. If we are, not only to survive, but also to thrive, we must live in peace. Spiritually, a recognition that the expression of religious belief is important to human beings and human society. Because human beings seek, not only to make meaning with our lives, but also to make connection with that which is greater than us, however one understands it and names it. This dimension of human life is as important, or perhaps more important, than the others.
Thus Roosevelt gave us not only four intertwined dimensions of freedom, but also a value system that points the way to our actually attaining and implementing such freedoms. Such a value system rests upon fairness, respect for human life and both trust and respect for the human mind and the human heart.
Others throughout history and in our recent history have also given us definitions of freedom. The jazz pianist and collaborator with Duke Ellington, Billy Strayhorn, also spoke about four freedoms: freedom from hatred; freedom from self-pity; freedom from fear that our actions will help someone else more than they will help us; and freedom from the pride that makes us think we're better than others. Strayhorn's ideas are not that far from Roosevelt's. They touch upon the material level, the relational-social-political level, the human being level and the spirit level. His freedom from fear that our actions will help someone else more than us is about scarcity thinking, especially on the material level. Scarcity thinking often leads us to greed and to the economic injustice that is so rampant in our society. Scarcity thinking feeds excessive individualism and leads us to think only about ourselves, only about what is advantageous to us. Strayhorn's freedom from the pride that makes us think we're better than others is a social freedom, a freedom that makes human relation richer and more peaceful. Freedom from hatred is about freedom of the human soul as well as about peace Freedom from self-pity is a spiritual freedom. It is an affirmation of justifiable pride in who we are. The values encased in Strayhorn's four freedoms have to do with peace, respect for human beings, and a way of thinking that is an inclusive "we" rather than an exclusive "I".
These four intertwined dimensions of freedom build upon one another, much like Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The first human need he posits is the need for food and shelter. Material freedom, the very basis for survival, freedom from want, is also the foundation upon which the other freedoms rest. When you are struggling just to have enough food to eat or just to have shelter in which to live that struggle can consume your whole life. That you may or may not be free to speak your mind or you may or may not be free to worship as you believe can take second place to simply trying to stay alive. One can look at the situation in Iraq as an example. The chaos of the infrastructure, the lack of electrical power, safe water etc., the lack of basic material freedom from want contributes immeasurably to the unstable and violent conditions and the inability, up to now, to implement other levels of freedom. On the other hand, when there is a measure of prosperity, other freedoms can flourish. When there is economic stability the freedoms that promote democracy take on increased importance. Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of expression. The freedom from fear, the freedom of our inner beings, the desire and the need to live in peace further grows out of stable social and political situations. And in such conditions the human spirit can flourish and the necessity for freedom to express one's beliefs and worship in ways most meaningful to one are the byproducts. The levels of freedom rest upon one another.
But not entirely. We have all seen examples of people living in deprivation and under conditions that were decidedly not free and yet their spirits were free. Ho Chi Minh said "Although they have tightly bound my arms and legs, all over the mountain I hear the song of birds, and the forest is filled with the perfume of spring flowers. Who can prevent me from freely enjoying these, which take from the long journey a little of its loneliness?" Nelson Mandela, in prison for 27 years, did not seem to lose the freedom of his spirit. African-American slaves, whose very bodies did not belong to them, left a legacy of freedom in their spirituals and in their stories. Maggie Baker, who comes to us this morning to tell us about her experiences in Darfur with the organization Doctors without Borders, talks about the spiritual strength and support that the people gave one another. Living in refugee camps, their homes and villages and livelihood destroyed, they nevertheless held onto the integrity of their spirits. The human spirit seems to have the capacity to remain free even when there is little other freedom. This is the freedom that Kris Kristofferson talks about in his song Me and Bobby McGee. "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." This is the freedom that Mary Chapin Carpenter talks about in her song Almost Home, in which she sings "I'm not running, I'm not hiding, I'm not reaching. I'm just resting in the arms of the great wide open. Gonna pull my soul in, and I'm almost home."
I think this is a side of freedom that doesn't completely rely on ethics and may not be primarily relational, except with oneself. What does it rely on? Sometimes it relies on religious belief. Imprisoned people have spoken about attaining freedom while incarcerated through their faith in Jesus. Sometimes it relies on the truths discovered through lived experience. "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. Sometimes it relies on strength of character. This kind of spiritual freedom has to do with the ability to let go. Buddhists talk about non-attachment. That is often misunderstood to mean a lack of caring, or detachment. But that's not what it is. Non-attachment is not depending upon a certain outcome. One can want a certain outcome and be very zealous in one's efforts to make that outcome happen, but that is different from being dependent on a certain outcome.
I have to say that when my son began attending college it was very important to me that he graduate on time and when four years later the time came and he did not graduate I felt the pain of that expectation unmet, of being attached to that particular outcome. I began to worry about his future, about what he would do, what kind of work he would find, or worse, what would happen if he never graduated college? I realized I was quite dependent upon my desire that he graduate. Graduating seemed to be the answer to all my fears concerning him. I realized that was an illusion, a myth I was telling myself in order not to feel anxiety. I had to let go of my expectations. I had to face my dependence upon his graduation. I had to look at what that dependence meant for me and what I found was a mother's fear that her child would not make a successful transition to the adult world. Do I still want him to graduate? Yes, he's come this far and this close. Nor have I let go of my concerns about him. How could I? I'm his mother and this is 2006 and the world is a tough place. But I have learned to let go of my dependence upon his graduating college. I have learned to admit my own anxiety. In my spirit I am far more free for the acknowledgment of what goes on for me; of what it means for me to get wrapped around graduation. I am far more free for admitting my concerns because with such acknowledgment comes a level of confidence that whatever happens we can and will deal with it. I am far less attached to graduation, though I care about it not one whit less. This really, this really is freedom when one can acknowledge whatever it is that's going on in one's mind, in one's heart, in one's world, acknowledge whatever it is that's going on, caring very much about the outcome, but not thinking our whole world rests upon it. Not being dependent for our happiness, or our self-esteem, or our definition of success etc. upon any one outcome. It asks us for a certain strength of character in order to do this. The freedom of non-attachment. The freedom of the spirit. It's a freedom of relationality with ourselves. Of honesty with ourselves. Of not running away from our deeper or more difficult fears. Our more troublesome expectations and behaviors.
Freedom is relational on both sides: with ourselves and with one another. It emanates from the relational spiritual values of respect for human life, for the human mind, peaceful existence and economic justice. Material freedom, socio-political freedom, and freedom of our beings interconnect and to a large extent are inter-dependent. Spiritual freedom has to do with our interior relational work. What is our relation to that which is greater than us? What is our relation to the truth of our own experiences? How much do we let in? How much of our experience do we deny, shut down, lie about? To what extent can we let go of being dependent upon a certain outcome? We can provide for one another the conditions for material freedom, social and political freedom, even freedom of our beings, but without freedom of our spirits we can only partially achieve the others. Which is why in this United States, a country founded upon the ideals of freedom, we are not fully free. We are not free in our spirits.
Freedom, like any relationship, asks us to work at it. To practice it; to be ever mindful of the conditions and values which promote it and the conditions and values which diminish it. In the land of the free, what enslaves your spirit? May we figure that out and, to whatever extent we can, let it go. May we say, with Franklin Roosevelt, that the practice and implementation of the four intertwined freedoms: material, social-political, of our beings and of our spirits, is "no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for the kind of world attainable in our own time and generation." May we attain such a world.
May it be so.
Back to top