FREEDUMB

When it comes to expressing individual ideas about freedom, no country’s citizens are more vocal about their personal beliefs than those of the United States. One possible exception may be when a country is in the middle of a crisis and is being unjustly robbed of its personal freedoms but overall, Americans are unapologetically the loudest and proudest at verbalizing what freedom means to them.

Perhaps it’s in our DNA.

Our foreparents – yes, we should never underestimate the sacrifices and dedication shown by our female patriots – were not going to stand for anyone dictating how they were to exercise their freedoms. The Stamp Act of 1765 may have been the final straw that united the 13 colonies to begin their struggle for self-rule and individual freedom.

Freedom is and will always be precious and sacred to us. After having celebrated it 248 times, perhaps we may even feel a bit entitled to it.

Although the meaning of freedom has gone through countless transformations and evolutions, the struggle to understand and define its true meaning will remain the subject of spirited and contentious debates. And with freedom’s current state being so volatile and polarized, I find myself not willing to remain silent or dumb on this issue.

The word freedom seems to imply being in a place or realm where there are no limitations. Whatever anyone chooses to do is not only that person’s right but also their obligation. In a perfect world, this would undoubtedly be a suitable definition.

Is it possible, though, for this definition to work in real-world conditions? What happens when one person’s idea of freedom tramples on another person’s idea? Is it okay for that person’s beliefs about freedom to supersede everyone else’s? If this ever becomes a reality, would that not spell the end of freedom in this country?

The word freedom can have various meanings depending on the context in which it’s used. For this article’s sake, the Oxford English Dictionary has a clear and concise definition. “The state of being able to act without hinderance or restraint; liberty of action.” When it comes right down to it, the ability to act without hinderance or restraint is possibly how most people would choose to articulate it.

But as straight-to-the-point as this definition is, it still doesn’t answer the earlier question of can one’s person’s notion of freedom eclipse everyone else’s version? Thankfully, we don’t need to hunt far and wide for that answer. There are already certain barriers in place limiting one’s ability to trample someone else’s freedom. Those are called laws. There are also parameters denying people from abusing someone else’s freedom. Those are called warrants and restraining orders.

Freedom, by default, has limitations. If they were not in place, it would lead to some form of anarchy. If anyone feels these restrictions are not fair, they can attempt to change them through the legislative process. If someone decides that they only care about their own principles of freedom, they can choose to act accordingly, but they’ll face suffering the consequences of any reckless decisions. For if there are no repercussions for our poor choices, there would be nothing to stop anyone from abusing others at their own whim.

The irony of freedom is the more we insist that our ideas are the standard bearer, the more likely we are to rob others of their freedoms. There are plenty of examples in today’s headlines. Politicians, religious leaders, and influencers of all kinds are trying to force their ideas of freedom while trying to strip others of theirs.

What we, the US, must come to grips with is that the debate over freedom is not where the problem lies. The issue is how we engage in those discussions. Are we arguing simply to prove a point and show how ignorant the other person is? Do we engage only to find fault with the other person’s reasoning, then take their own words, wrap them up in bold sarcasm, and throw them back in their face to “get one over” on them? No matter how clever you may think your retort is, it only serves to deepen the chasm currently dividing this country.

Frankly, I have grave concerns over the direction in which our country is headed. But if I cannot sit down and discuss my concerns with those who disagree with me, I will never be a part of the solution. If this country is going to heal, it’s up to the individual citizens to take on that personal responsibility and mend the social wounds. We cannot depend on elected officials because we’ve witnessed that many of them are a huge share of the problem.

Healing is possible. It won’t be a simple journey, and it often points out faults and imperfections within us, US. I would even suggest that if you cannot find anything about yourself to change, then that may be a good place for you to start looking for a solution.

We must realize that healing is a crucial step and become aware of what needs healing. When our mindset is “I am right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong,” there is no possibility of healing nor finding a solution.

Remember, the founders of this nation constantly disagreed with each other. Their arguments, at times, were very malicious, nasty, and were aired out in public as well as published in newspapers. Hostile debates will likely remain part of the journey as we continue the search for what defines freedom. The key is to have the will to come together and work for a solution.

When it comes to my ideas about what freedom means, I would never expect anyone to hold my beliefs as the gold standard. But I will do my best to stand up for those whose freedoms are being threatened, stolen, or ignored. If we all could adopt a similar mantra that spreads concern for those being oppressed, this would be a great healing and unifying step for our country.

If the US waits much longer before heading down a healing path, we may no longer be able to express ourselves freely, and we will be living in a society where Freedumb rings. If we enable a randumb leader who only wants their opinions of freedom to be the law of the land, then we’ll be forced to rely on their wisdumb, which will likely turn this once pillar of democracy into a divided kingdumb.