BATTLE FOR FREEDOM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25021, 15 September 1942, Page 6

BATTLE FOR FREEDOM

DANGER OF INDIFFERENCE CHURCH’S STRONG APPEAL (Special) AUCKLAND, Sept. 14. “ The price of liberty, we have been told, is eternal vigilance. But some of us are inclined to pay more attention to the vigilance than to the freedom. Rather, therefore, I should say that the price of freedom Is the constant exercise of freedom—that the best way of asserting your claim to freedom is not merely to be vigilant, not merely to talk about it, but to act like tree men and women.” In this way Professor F. Sinclaire, of Canterbury University College, and the principal speaker at the second broadcast public meeting in the National Campaign for Christian Order, concluded his address on •• Who Wants Freedom? ” in the Auckland Town Hall this evening. ff he were to call for a show of hands In answer to the question “ Who Wants Freedom? ” the vote would undoubtedly be unanimous, began Professor Sinclaire. But when we said we “ wanted freedom ” we nearly all meant something different. Some wanted it for this reason; some for another; and we had different plans for getting it and keeping it. Our unanimity was largely an illusion. Those who were of the speaker’s age had begun life with the comtorting feeling that, on the whole, the battle for freedom had been fought and won In the nineteenth century, and that the face of mankind was firmly set towards the light. The new century began in hope and confidence. Yet here they were in 1942, and mankind was engaged chiefly in the work of slaughter. What had gone wrong? Matter of Life and Death

" I do not pretend to answer that question with a neat and compact formula,” continued the speaker. “ I am not offering you a handy guide to the universe. But I have one thing to say which is literally a matter of life and death. The fabric of freedom is tottering because Us foundations have not been truly and securely laid; we have not dug deep enough. The foundations of freedom are mystical, religious, or they are nothing. Yet we have tended to overlook that religious basis largely because our conception of freedom has been coloured by the secularism of men like Mill, Huxley and Bradlaugh, who were the great champions of freedom in the nineteenth century.” Hitler, and the allegiance given to Hitler by the Germans, could only be explained by recognising the appea l which lie had made to certain idealist, mystical and religious motives—spurious, debased and perverted certaimy, but the world was not going to be saved by fluid denunciation. “We must meet the Fascist creed, not merely with denunciation or denial, but with a creed, a belief, a way of life as positive, as aggressive, and more truly creative, said Professor Si Where e ’t 0 find it? It was Einstein who had admitted that only the Church m Germany had stood squarely across the nath' of Hitler’s campaign to suppress the truth. And in that fact was to be found the answer to the question which he had just asked, continued the speaker. In Germany it would appear that the enemies bf freedom had carried all before them—all but one fortress. The purely secular conception of freedom was nowerless to defend or justify itself. “You may talk in fine phrases about the rights of man or the dignity of thought, the exponents, of the philosophy of might will make short work of such phrases. They are mere wind unless they have behind them and beneath them the intuitions, the faith, and reason of religion. Either man is a child of God with a calling and a destiny and a duty answering to that high estate, or freedom Itself is a meaningless word. We Christians believe with our fellow-Christians in Germany that we have that better and truer idealism which at once defines and safeguards freedom. We say this humbly, remembering our own weakness and unworthiness; but we say it confidently, too, as men and women who are conscious of their trust.” Freedom to Serve

Freedom for the Christian was nothing so abject and futile as the supposed right to "do as one likes.” for no such right existed. It was freedom to live a full human life, in loyalty to the highest they knew —freedom to serve, to obey, to be loyal. The freest man on earth—the only free man—was the man who had found his freedom in a satisfying allegiance. There were still two other points to be stressed. Professor Slnclaire said. “ Freedom is not the whole of life. Like fresh air, it is a condition of healthy Iving and a condition only; a means, not an end in itself. And let us never forget that the threat to freedom does not come solely from the enemy without. When the menace of Hitler and Hitlerism is reqioved—as please God it shall be! — there remain the enemies within. You know their names as well as I do—their names are pride and lust, avarice and selfishness, envy and malice, and selfrighteousness and sloth. And chiefly, I should say, sheer slackness and indifference.*’