Must read essay on the relationship of freedom and constraint

From City Journal, a great magazine, a wonderful essay on freedom and happiness. But more than that, on the relationship of freedom and moral constraint. As I have long argued, we cannot be a free society unless we find a way to be a virtuous, self-governing people. If not, if we descend into libertinism and license, especially in the sexual realm, then we will have a need for a big, huge state to clean up the consequences of our "free" moral agency--the fatherless children, being the main consequence.

Arthur C. Brooks writes:

The earliest American definition of liberty—stated frequently by the Founding Fathers—is about constraints on personal actions: if I don’t hurt anybody else, I should be free to pursue my own will. As Thomas Jefferson put it in his first inaugural address, “A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” Despite more recent attempts to expand our understanding of freedom to include claims on one another or on government—FDR’s 1941 State of the Union speech, for example, which mentioned “freedom from want”—about two-thirds of Americans still define freedom in terms of doing what they want, being able to make their own choices, or having liberty in speech and religion.

Understanding freedom is a matter of no small importance. The Founders believed that it was one of at least three fundamental rights from God, along with life and the pursuit of happiness. These three rights are interrelated: not only does liberty, of course, depend on life, but the pursuit of happiness depends on liberty. In fact, evidence shows that freedom and happiness are strongly linked. But what kind of freedom makes Americans happiest? And what can government best do to promote freedom and help us pursue happiness, as is our inalienable right?

. . . .

But in cases where all can agree that our private, immoral behavior does not harm others, our happiness is best served with rules in our private lives that constrain our morality and protect us from excess in moments of personal weakness. The recipe for happiness is a combination of individual liberty, personal decency, and moderation. And government protects our freedom best when it forgoes infringements on our moral choices but vigorously defends our right to restrict these choices ourselves.

Yet in Canada, illiberal forces through government agencies are restricting our rights to teach, preach and practice moral restraint in public settings. The recent Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decision against Christian Horizons is a case in point.

One of the key restraints is sexual restraint. As Michael Coren argues today:

Christian welfare groups tend to be the most successful in dealing with the needy, much of their work is performed by volunteers and most of their money comes from donations. They are motivated by their faith -- the same faith that leads them to sign morality statements and not to lie, cheat, be promiscuous or, sorry, engage in homosexual sex. Goodness, this isn't brain surgery. If people want to be homosexual, that is their business. If people want to be Christian, it should be theirs.

In California the Salvation Army was forced to close down several inner city missions because officials refused to sign a document approving of homosexuality. The destitute suffered terribly as a consequence. In Britain the Roman Catholic church similarly was obliged to shut the doors of its adoption agency.

This is not about justice, equality or discrimination. It is about crude bullying and triumphalism. The campaign stopped being about tolerance a long time ago and now is about penalizing anyone who will not embrace a particular social and sexual agenda. It's enough to drive you to drink -- unless you've signed the morality clause!

Now, a little lunch and more cleaning house.