Social harmony and order are genuine goods but not lexically superior to individual liberty. This formulation would justify authoritarian suppression of dissent on grounds that dissent disturbs social harmony. Liberty contingent on not disturbing social harmony is not meaningful liberty.
While stability is valuable, consistently subordinating liberty can lead to authoritarian outcomes. Freedom is a foundational principle that should not be broadly compromised. Trade-offs should be limited and specific, not general.
Social harmony and order matter, but they do not justify overriding liberty by default. Liberty is itself part of social stability.
Individual liberty is the foundational value of a free society and should not be traded away for the comfort of state-enforced harmony. History shows that when 'order' is prioritized over 'freedom,' it is often used as a pretext to suppress dissent and marginalize minority groups. True social harmony is a byproduct of justice and respect…
Social harmony and order are valuable, but often invoked to suppress dissent, minorities, and unpopular truths. Individual liberty is not absolute, but should not be generally subordinated to order. A free society tolerates conflict within lawful bounds.
Social harmony and order grounded in Christian moral principles is precisely what FCN is trying to restore. When order means Christian moral order — restraining sexual licentiousness, protecting children, enforcing immigration law, restoring family structure — FCN is strongly in favor. They qualify this: order must serve Christian values, not progressive conformity.
Is social harmony and order important enough to justify subordinating individual liberty?
Unanimous AI NO. Social harmony and order are genuine goods but not lexically superior to liberty; this formulation would justify authoritarian suppression of dissent on grounds it disturbs harmony.
FCN YES — social harmony grounded in Christian moral principles is precisely what FCN seeks to restore; order means Christian moral order restraining licentiousness. The qualification is essential: order in service of Christian values, not progressive conformity.
Q94 and Q95 together reveal FCN's stance: state authority is legitimate for moral order (94 YES), even at the cost of individual liberty (95 YES), but only when directed toward Christian values. The pattern is consistent and theologically coherent: liberty is properly subordinated to moral order, but moral order is defined by scripture, not by progressive institutions.
Would FCN accept that LGBT citizens, applying the same principle, can seek state enforcement of 'social harmony' as they define it against Christian practices they find disruptive? Or is the principle that the state should enforce specifically Christian moral order?