Equality or Freedom?

If someone put a choice before you: “there is a country where there is only equality but no freedom, and there is another country where there is freedom but no equality.” And you are forced to choose one of them—which would you choose, and in which would you want to live?

Let us first dwell on the meanings of these words so that we do not make a mistake. Once again, in the book Basic Turkish Dictionary written by Kemal Demiray, these words are explained as follows:

equality, -ği n.1. The state of being equal. (1. (Two or more things) Being equivalent to one another in terms of quantity and quality (syn. equal) 2. Benefiting from the same rights, being on the same level: Women and men should be equal.

2. soc. Whatever the differences of body and spirit may be, the state in which there is no distinction among people in terms of social and political rights. Degree of equality ling. The way of expressing that one thing is no different from another by using the particles like, as, as much as.

freedom n. Ar. Liberty. (free 1. having the power and ability to act as one wishes (syn. at liberty) 2. Not being dependent on another in terms of governance, not being a slave (syn. free) 3. Not being bound by rules (to choose freedom 1) To flee and be delivered from a regime of oppression. 2) To lead a life answerable only to oneself.

In a simple form, this is the dictionary definition of both these words. But when one enters into the details of their meanings, their effects and results are not at all as we picture them in our minds. When one looks at the events lived throughout history, equality and freedom have in fact had very opposite effects on one another.

Most of the people to whom I posed this question at the beginning—or rather almost all of them—were in favor of equality. The writer named Eric Hoffer also points out that this is truly the case in his book The True Believer (The Fanatics). There Eric Hoffer says the following:

“In a place where freedom is real, equality is the great desire of the masses, of societies. In a place where equality is real, freedom is the great desire of a small minority.

Equality without freedom creates a more balanced social order than freedom without equality.”

It is written a bit like a riddle, but let us try to explain it. In a place where there is freedom, the greatest desire of society, of the masses—that is, of the majority—is equality. That is, they do not want freedom. He means to say that the majority of societies are in favor of equality. He states that in a place where there is equality, freedom is then desired only by a very small group. He also says, moreover, that an equal society without freedom is more balanced than a free society. That is, freedom brings imbalance along with it. It is actually an astonishing conclusion, but true. Let us dwell a bit on the reasons. Once again in his book Eric Hoffer says the following on this subject:

“Those who see their own lives as spoiled and wasted seek equality and brotherhood more than freedom. It is never freedom that will bring them the equality they long for. The desire for equality is, in a sense, the desire to hide one’s individuality (anonymity), that is, like one of the threads that make up a cloth not being distinguished from another. In this way no one can compare us with others and bring our faults to light,” he says.

The word ‘freedom’ was one of the concepts that the Jehovah’s Witnesses, among whom I once found myself, feared most, hated, and presented as though it were the root of every evil. As though it were a leprosy—an affliction that whoever catches it surely dies, perishes, and cannot be delivered from—this thought always lay slyly beneath all their teachings. These organization-type institutions, religions, or sects that I speak of throughout my whole book are not alone in this. Freedom is not at all welcomed by any of these institutions I have listed. As for those great religions whose claws were broken in past ages—they granted freedom out of necessity, because of causes such as revolutions, uprisings, and the Renaissance; that is a separate matter. But not willingly—out of necessity! Yet the way the religions and sects that have sprung up like mushrooms from the ground in the last century explain and define this freedom is as follows:

Disobedience to mother and father, refusing to listen, rebelliousness, a world filled with the spirit of open and shameless adultery, ill-mannered, insolent people, melancholics who do not know what they want, drunkenness, drugs, doing anything for pleasure, every kind of vileness arising from limitlessness, and so on—according to them, at the root of all such similar things lies this spirit of liberty, of freedom. They always explain freedom, liberty, by joining it with these things, so that once you hear the word, your hair stands on end. As I said, we see that not only the Witnesses but many other religions and sects have even been successful in gathering members to themselves with these teachings pointing in this direction.

Although the facts are like this, something draws those people there—but what is that thing? With my own conscience I bear witness that the reason drawing the great majority of the people there is not God. Or whether the fact that a single person is there merely out of love for God arises in perhaps one person out of a thousand, that too I do not know. And there is also the case of someone belonging to that religion by birth, because for such people it is usually impossible to use their freedom of choice. If they do not encounter an extremely severe reaction from society, then openly abandoning the religion they possess is generally out of the question. Even so, why have people gone beyond these categories and felt the need to actively change their religion?

The greatest reason is that they seek equality instead of freedom. We said that all the other religions are the same too. If they are the same, why does one come out of one and enter the other?

If the religion one is in happens to be a state religion whose numbers have reached terrifying figures—for example, Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam—then the person cannot find this feeling of equality there. As in Eric Hoffer’s analogy, the different colors of the threads in a cloth are noticed in those great religions. In short, in those great religions there is, even if a little, the freedom that they liken to leprosy. Partial, yes, but it exists. Because these religions have by now become state religions. Except for their dogmas (the unchanging fundamental teachings in Christianity, for example the belief in a three-fold God), which do not concern these states at all, their rules are certainly according to the laws of those states. For example, if it is a state very keen on freedom, that religion is obliged to be so too; if it is a state very much in favor of equality, then depending on the situation, willingly or unwillingly, they are still obliged to fall in line. If it is a dictatorial will, then in cooperation with those dictators it will again be these religionists who take the lead. That is, these religions closely resemble the chameleon, that famous animal that takes on the color of the ground it treads. The real direction they will go in, many of their beliefs, their practices, are drawn out for them by these states. Because we said that states, armies, ‘are an organization.’ Religions too are an organization. But no organization harbors within itself an organization that will say “no” to it, and does not even tolerate it. In this case, whoever is the strong one, one bows under his command, or if one says “no,” one is destroyed. States and governments are stronger than religions. And in most cases we even say, “thank goodness it is so.”

For example, because the Witnesses said “no” in the years around 1914, they languished in prisons in America. Under what conditions they were later released, only their leaders and that state know. Otherwise, when the state had already wiped them out and destroyed them back in the 1910s, why would it again change its mind and say, “come, we made a mistake; even if you ruin us, we will not touch you, organize however you like”? And the state saying this is to be America!!! As they say, “go on, tickle me so I may at least laugh”—this is exactly like that. Who knows under what conditions they sold themselves and got out of there. But no Jehovah’s Witness troubles his little head over these matters; thoughts like these are free thoughts, and freedom is very, very dangerous!

Now you who are reading these writings will arrive at the conclusion that I am against equality. Still, do not decide before reading to the end. Rather than my own thoughts, what we should most value and take as an example should be God and His thoughts. Let us see how God looks at this matter of freedom and equality.

In the Holy Scriptures, in place of the word equality, the word ‘likeness’ that occurs in four or five places is used. In the Turkish translations it is again used in the same sense but in a sense different from our subject. (Romans 5:14, 6:5, 8:3, Hebrews 7:15) These verses are used not in the sense of equality that I am now speaking of, but in the sense of “similar,” “the same thing.” For example, Adam was, in terms of perfection, just like Jesus—the likeness of Adam and Jesus. Or the likeness of committing sin. Even if two or more persons commit sin, their sins did not resemble one another. Again: some people died even though they had not committed a sin like Adam’s sin. The word equal that occurs in the Turkish translation of the Quran also has interesting meanings. For example, the words “equal” occurring in Sura Nisa 89, Tevbe 19, Hud 24, Rad 16, Nahl 71, 75, 76, Hac 25, Şuara 98, Rum 28, Fatır 12, Zümer 29, Hadid 10 are again not much connected to our subject. There are also places that are connected, and I will point those out as the subject continues.

A most important truth: people confuse equality with justice. In fact, the greatest error arises from here. Where there is freedom there is justice, and where there is equality there is justice, and there must be. We must not confuse these with one another. But when these are applied, from time to time they will also distort true justice; that is a separate truth. Before explaining with examples, I want to emphasize this: in God’s eyes no one is equal. One of God’s greatest attributes is also justice, but apart from His four greatest attributes (love, justice, power, wisdom), He does not have a fifth attribute called equality. Because if God were a God who defended equality, then it would become impossible for Him to be just. Again, so that it is not confused, let me also state this: before His justice everyone is equal. Let us never do this by confusing equality with justice. Before the law everyone has equal rights, is on the same level. (Whether or not it is applied is an entirely separate matter.) Indeed, in the dictionary too equality is expressed in this way as its second meaning. Without confusing your mind any further, let me try to explain these matters by giving examples.

For example, let us consider David—God’s prophet and the king He anointed—and a most worthless, poor person. If there is a crime at hand, these two persons are equal before God. The rights of both are the same. In this case, without any regard for anyone’s rank, ability, wealth, power, foolishness, poverty, or weakness, and so on, both are equal before God’s justice. Is this not precisely what is called justice? For example, if David, who was king and at the same time a prophet, took even a single lamb from the poor man unjustly, he had to repay it fourfold. Before God his kingship, his wealth, his label, and so on, count for nothing. (2 Samuel 12:1-6) Together with all this, David and that man, apart from God’s justice before His seat of judgment, are never equal, nor can they be. The abilities, knowledge, intelligence, faith, love, and a host of other qualities of both are very different from one another. Indeed, the equality used in mathematics means the same thing. 1=1. But 1.000001 and 1.000002 are not equal to one another. Even if this difference is one in a million, so small as to be negligible, they are not equal.

In another place too, Jesus Christ gives this example: When a king was setting out on a distant journey, so that they might work, he gave sums of money to some of his servants according to their abilities. Notice, it does not say to each an equal amount; by saying according to their abilities, different amounts are given to each. (Matthew 25:14-15)

In yet another example, two brothers from among the apostles (Jesus’ disciples) once made a request of Jesus through their mother. The woman pleads with Jesus for her children: “Please, in your kingdom let these two sons of mine sit, one at your right and one at your left.” Jesus answers them: “You do not know what you are asking,” and also emphasizes that these things are not in his hands. (Matthew 20:20-23)

So there is no equality in the heavenly places either; there are differences of rank among them. Only let us not forget, at the same time there is also freedom. And everyone can change these ranks with their abilities, their efforts, the qualities they develop. Jesus again said plainly the following:

From the days of John the Baptist until now the Kingdom of the heavens is being pressed, and forceful persons are trying to seize it. Matthew 11:12

Here it is not a matter of violent force. To those who do not know the verse, on a first reading it may give such a meaning. What is expressed is this: those who, in order to enter the kingdom of the heavens, are not slack in effort, in faith, in love, in works, and so on, but are zealous, forceful, and who do not readily give in to this world. So this matter of selection is done not according to the rule of equality, but according to the law of freedom.

Again, in the book of Revelation it is written that of the book sealed with seven seals, no one on earth or among the heavenly spirit creatures except one was worthy to open it. So it is again plainly evident that there is no such thing as equality. And this is not unjust; on the contrary, it is just. (Revelation 5:1-10)

Think of it this way: ten people are to be hired at a workplace. As a condition, it is said that ten people who have finished such-and-such a level of school, at such-and-such an age, will be taken on. In a society where there is equality, the first ten people who meet those conditions and have applied there are immediately hired. Whoever the eleventh person may be, they will not be taken on. Because the others came before them, and everyone will be treated equally. Whereas here, even if they hold the same diploma, even if that eleventh person’s talent, ability, the potential lying within them, the joy they have in practice for that work, their honesty, their trustworthiness, are many times greater than the others’, they are not hired, because equality is being applied. But in free societies there is competition. There, one’s abilities, effort, endurance, reason, the joy one feels for that work—all these are extra points. In theory, the grades one received at school may be no different from the others’, and may even be worse. Just as this person possesses very different abilities in practice, they have the capacity to show far greater success in working life than in school life. On the subject related to organization I wrote about Edison, but let me repeat it again. In his whole life he had a total of three months of schooling. His teacher expelled Edison from school with the label “you are good for nothing” and also “cannot learn.” Yet Edison would later be someone with 2,000 inventions and close to 1,300 patents. That is, he did not merely invent the light bulb, his most famous. The light bulb he invented is only one of those 2,000 inventions.

Again, one of the most famous, the former American President Abraham Lincoln, in his childhood period had only a six-month school life. Only much later, in his youth, he goes to law school. Let it not be concluded from the examples I have given that these people learned nothing; on the contrary, they learn a great many things, but not necessarily in schools.

In short, in societies that are in favor of freedom people must prove their abilities. But in societies that are in favor of equality there is no need for these, and for this reason the person of that society is at ease. Communism collapsed for this reason. Because just as the thing called competition is at zero, because of the security that equality among people provides, no one is even in the desire to do a little more. The one who does not one but ten more is the same, and so is the one who does nothing. For this reason no one feels the need to bring to life that potential within them. Indeed, such people are even mocked, either openly or secretly. Let us again give an example from truths that the majority know.

In the past, whether it was Bulgaria or other Communist countries, there, when you wanted to eat something or buy something, no one would even look you in the face. In the places you entered to buy something or to eat, you would feel as though you had entered the government offices in the countries called capitalist. Let me give one of the famous examples I lived through myself. In Bulgaria, with the things we had bought in a store we entered, we waited at the cash register up to half an hour, and no one came. And the people working there who saw us scattered off as though they were shot pigs. It turned out they had their lunch break, and it would last who knows how many hours. The spirit that would not even deign to make those people tell us this is the spirit of that trust felt in equality. At the cash register there was just me and a German lorry driver. Ringing up those goods at the register would have taken them at most three to five minutes, or not even that. The store’s door was open and we were inside, and no one even looked us in the face. Why should they! There is equality there; at the end of the month they will all get their salary. What have you bought or not bought—what is that to them.

Another incident I lived through in the former Yugoslavia, again one of hundreds. On a very hot day I had stopped at a rest area on the highway. In the restaurant I entered to drink something cold, no one looked at me for a long time. And not only at me—although the inside was packed full, they were looking at no one. Again they had their lunch break, and they don’t even give water to the customers who come. Because whatever that person does, they will get their same salary and monthly wage this way or that, and indeed they do get it. So why should they push themselves! Time turned, the era changed, communism died, and along those roads there emerged people doing business, trade, in small, ramshackle huts. You stop with your car, and before you even get out of your car the men leap upon you, “oh, what do you need, what are you short of?” In fact, one time I was caught along those roads by the final drop of an illness that would require me to have surgery on my lower back, and that same Bulgarian who wouldn’t give water was spinning around me, “big brother, shall I call a doctor?” Before you even finish your water, three waiters are waiting beside you. Before you even take the goods in hand, the goods are being wrapped up, and so on. Why? Because the joy of that man is greater the more he sells. If he doesn’t sell but turns up his nose, you’ll immediately buy from someone else. If his goods are bad, the other’s are good. If he loses in the competition, how can he stay on his feet? And there is no longer any equality salary either! That is, there is competition. And competition forces people to be good. If it were done not by force, merely for money and gain, but from the heart, that would of course be finer, but that is not our subject. The same people, the same country, indeed at that time in an even more poor and wretched condition—why did these people change like this? If truth be told, they too understood that it was that original mentality that had brought them to this poor and wretched state, but they will also pay the price. Let there just be equality, let us be at ease, let no one compare us with anyone, let our faults not be evident. This was the whole mentality. But let all their things be provided automatically. Let them have their comfort, their luxuries, their cars, everything. And let those in the party do this—however they do it. Let their own equality never be spoiled. As if those in the party were more stupid than these people!

Just as we were talking about these very matters, Bernd, I, and my wife had gone out for a walk. My wife said, “Apparently they’re going to bring in a limit of 130 km per hour on the highways in Germany.” The top speed will not exceed 130. When I was a child, during that oil crisis—again if I’m not mistaken—there were these Social Democrats and this limit had come. Indeed, driving a car even on Sundays had been forbidden. It lasted a while and then all of it was lifted. Now, apparently, it will come again. Bernd said, “No, it won’t come; because for many of Germany’s car firms this would be a great ruin.” I said the same things too. But I noticed something from the conversation: my wife was in favor of this law. Because just as she hates driving a car, she is equally hesitant about and afraid of driving on the highway. I asked: “But you would want a law like this to be passed, wouldn’t you?” “Of course I would,” she said. “What is this, people flying at 200, one gets bewildered as to what to do on the road,” she said, defending how bad the situation was. In fact my wife has nothing whatsoever to do, near or far, with the economics of petrol and such. The only thing she was thinking about on that matter was the comfort arising from her own lack of ability regarding driving. But like everyone else, does she come right out and say: “This is my lack of ability, my inexperience, and so on”? She began to defend the matter in favor of equality. It should be 130 for everyone, let there be equality. And when I asked, “All right, if you too had the same abilities as us regarding driving, would you want this law to be passed?” after thinking a bit she said, “No, I wouldn’t want it.” I began to laugh and said, “this is the liveliest example for the subject I am writing about.” Bernd was laughing too. Although freedom looks beautiful, people, instead of limiting themselves, developing their abilities, love to put their comfort in the foreground in order to suppress and cover those abilities, and for this reason love to push freedom away and be in favor of equality. And they do this at the cost of stifling the abilities of others. Look at what Eric Hoffer again writes on this subject, again giving examples:

If a person does not possess the ability to secure a position for themselves, freedom is a tiresome burden for them. What use can freedom of choice be to someone who is without ability? We join a mass movement in order to flee our personal responsibility, or as an ardent young Nazi said: we join “in order to be delivered from being free.” It was not hypocrisy for the Nazi soldiers, despite all the wickednesses (evils, basenesses) they committed, to claim that they themselves were innocent. In the face of their being held “responsible” because they obeyed orders, they had seen this as a betrayal. Because in their own view, had they not joined the Nazi movement in order to flee “responsibility”?

But even so, they could not flee responsibility. These truths are very fine examples for the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the partisans of every kind of organization. They too have the same feelings. Within them there is not even the freedom of thought called “choice”. As for their not voting for parties, in my opinion it is so that no shadow falls on the laws they apply among themselves—not because they are neutral, and not because of the humbug they throw out, such as that they chose Jesus as king. Responsibility in the face of a crime belongs to none of this organization’s administration within them. If, in the face of a bad event, someone must certainly be held responsible, they say: “This was not I, I too obeyed the order,” and they defend themselves in this way.

Furthermore, these Witnesses’ going door to door to preach also suits those women very well. They would not even want to put a glass of water before their husbands who come home from work. And usually there is nothing at home for them to put out anyway. The name of it becomes that we went preaching for God’s sake. It looks as though the Witnesses have solved this problem—housework and such drudgery, the thing our era’s women hate most—by preaching. No one can even say anything to such a woman among them. On the contrary, if that husband has come home from work, should he not cook a meal and also wait upon his wife who has come home from preaching? If the husband goes preaching too, then this problem has also been removed. Now, according to the hunger of their stomachs, each of them chooses where they will go accordingly too. The door of a home where one is treated well, where every time one goes the table is set and the hand is open, is the first one knocked on. Did Jesus not say: “Stay in the house you have entered; eat and drink whatever they give you. For the worker deserves his wages. Do not move from house to house.” ? (Luke 10:7) True, even though these people love very much to move from house to house, whereas Jesus said this to the disciples of his own time while he was still living. But before he died he also gave this warning:

Then Jesus said to them, “When I sent you out without purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “We lacked nothing,” they said. And he said to them, “But now let the one who has a purse take it with him, and likewise the one who has a bag”… (Luke 22:35-36)

By these things I am not emphasizing that eating and drinking at someone’s home is wrong; but I mean that it is wrong for the majority among them to keep this mentality in the foreground when they go door to door to preach. Alongside this, such things do not much happen in German circles. Because the German will not give anyone even a glass of water. As I said, the women’s fleeing this simplest of responsibilities, and as an excuse saying “I preached in God’s name,” arises from the spirit of that organization. They even make their plans accordingly. For example, if there are three or four families they know who are generous and give food and drink, they go to each on separate days. They never visit these three or four families on the same day. They see to it that they go to each on an empty stomach. In this way their kitchen expenses are reduced by about 70-80 percent compared to a normal family. And also, when talking among themselves, they try to portray the generosity of those people as a small and simple weakness. That is, by giving food and drink that person is doing a good deed—it is not the one who gives food and drink. How else is he to cover his own filth! There are of course those who do not attach value to such things. Not because they attach no value, but because they do not deign to, not being in need. Such people did not much come to me anyway.

Those who suppose they thus flee responsibility receive only order upon order from their organizations, and those organizations keep issuing law upon law. (Isaiah 28:10-13) The whole responsibility of the others now becomes carrying out these orders. Basically you can count them all on the fingers of one hand. Preach, attend the meetings, hand in reports, help (either give money or give your strength, such as working for free on the buildings we will construct). And, most important of all, “always obey us!” The Islamic world too has bound the love of God, faith, and the works based on these to conditions it made up out of its own head. Saying the pillars of Islam are five. And these have 32 obligatory duties as well! These organized masses greatly resemble one another. So as not to squeeze too hard they will stay at five conditions, and for the one they want to compel they will bring out the 32 so as to shut his mouth, to frighten him. And the whole duty of the members is to carry out these conditions. For the Witnesses, taking inspiration from the Muslims, I threw out five off the top of my head. You, according to your own head, if you know them, will either subtract from or add on to these. If you dig very deep, a similar 32 obligatory duties of theirs will pop up too! Whereas those who suppose that by fleeing responsibility they have taken refuge there will absolutely never be able to flee the responsibility that is in their own name before God. And while supposing they will be at ease, on top of it all, becoming a donkey in carrying the filthy sins of the others too, they only bear this one’s and that one’s dirty loads. By their saying, “I personally am not doing such a thing, I am only obeying. They will give an account in our name for the things they do,” God will not free them from the sin of those places to which they belong. Was this not what they themselves taught? “Come out, abandon your old religion, otherwise you will take a share in their sins.” What they said is very true too. Well then, why should this rule lose its validity for them?

Do not suppose that with these things I have strayed from the subject I really want to speak of. The reason I have described the members of a religious organization I chose at random with examples is that I want you to understand people’s abandoning freedom and how they apply the equality to which they cling. Is it as though in our world equality is applied in this way and freedom is applied in some quite different way? The aim of my writing, rather than dwelling on reasons that have been distorted with bad intention, is to say: what happens if those things are applied even with good intention? And to bring to light the real aim of us humans.

Let us come again to the examples God has given on this matter of equality. For instance, after Israel came out of Egypt, out of slavery, they were to go to the land of Canaan and take that place as a possession. To each of them, to every individual, land was to be given equally by lot. If I am not mistaken, the sole exception concerned two persons. They were Joshua and Caleb, who brought back a positive report from among the twelve spies. Only these had the right, by a special privilege, to receive a portion from the place they themselves desired. (Numbers 13:30-33; 14:20-24 and 36-38; Joshua 19:49-50) God had given them this opportunity as a reward.

Alongside this, God also set down a law. Come what may, every 50 years a jubilee year was to be held. And this meant that, come what may, everyone would return to their own land. (Leviticus 25:10-13; 27:24 Numbers 36:4) In short, the law meant the following. For whatever reason, a person may have sold their own land, may have lost it under harsh conditions; there may also be the one who, after selling their land, gave in to their whim and threw themselves into adventure. Even so, the coming generation would not suffer the penalty for this. For example, I do not have even enough land to set my foot upon, nor did I ever. I do not say enough to lie down on; I say enough to set my foot upon. By the laws God gave to Israel, with this piece of land falling to every individual, that person was born into a means by which they could secure their livelihood. We are born with the obligation to pay for the mistakes our grandfathers and fathers made, and even, as a nation, the debts they incurred. This one right that God gave only at that time, no state among the countries of the world has applied, nor could apply. By means of this law there would be no needy class called the very poor. Even if that person acted foolishly, brought all sorts of troubles upon themselves and lost all their lands, this was prevented by their returning to that family again in the jubilee year. And that too without any seizure costs, without any obligation to pay a certain ransom, and so on. As it was, it would return to that landowner to whom each portion originally fell by lot. (Joshua 14:1-2) The Israelites who knew this, when selling or buying a property, calculated the value of that goods according to the jubilee years. For example, if five years remained until the coming of the jubilee year, the value of that land decreased; if there were still 40-45 years, then, normally, its value increased too. (Leviticus 25:14-17)

Under communism too people became landowners, and they did this out of equality, but they did not possess freedom. Israel, however, was free; they had their freedom. On their lands, which were justly and equally apportioned to everyone, they could freely do as they wished. Whether they cast it away or sold it, whether they dwelt on it or not. Whether they worked that land or did not work it. Everyone could do what they wished in accordance with the law of freedom. The one who worked hard could also earn much; the one who was lazy would remain poor. But there was no notion that, out of equality, everyone will get their salary this way or that.

Well then, what would become of those who had fallen into poverty, been left widowed, the sick, those who had no strength, no ox, and nothing at all to work the land, the strangers who later became guests in that land? God gave laws on this matter too. For example, the land and vineyard were to be worked for 6 years; in the seventh year there was to be neither sowing nor reaping. In this very seventh year those strangers could gather from the vineyards and all the produce growing in the soil. Of course they would not go hungry only once every seven years. In all the normal times, whatever was gathered in the field, whatever fell to the ground would not be picked up. Those were for the stranger, for the widow, for the one who has no one. (Leviticus 23:22) Apart from all this, God had again commanded all Israel: “these kinds of people, whoever and whatever they may be, you shall never see in destitution and forsake them.” The things that were vital for their livelihood—for example the upper stone of a mill—God was saying, however much debt they may owe, “you can never take in pledge.” Or He commands, “even if you take in pledge the garment on his back, you shall return it by evening,” and He also reminds, “because he will be cold.” (Exodus 22:21-27; Deuteronomy 24:17-22; Proverbs 23:10-11) Truly we have a God who is in favor of freedom and at the same time abundant in mercy.

By all these things, what do I mean to say? Again I repeat: people confuse equality with justice. We said that where there is equality there is no freedom—not justice. Where there is equality and where there is freedom there must be justice. Where there is no justice there is not, and cannot be, any humane rule. I am not speaking of this. And also, the inequality in people’s minds is perceived as being humiliated. A strong, powerful, rich person and a poor, wretched person who has nothing of course cannot be equal. Not before the law—I am speaking of daily life, of the things they possess. But freedom does not humiliate that poor person, does it? Does my being humiliated depend on the wealth of the one across from me? Is there such nonsense? But if that person, spoiled by wealth, kicks a poor man he sees on the road, or insults him unjustly, and the law too keeps silent, then this becomes injustice. Everyone knows that even in the most honorable states on earth justice is strained, is not applied and is one-sided. (Is there even an honorable state on earth, I wonder!) But these too are outside our subject. Because if justice is not going to be applied, this problem is the same whether it is not applied in societies in favor of equality, and the same whether it is not applied in societies in favor of freedom.

Let us dwell a bit more on inequality being seen as injustice. Why is there such an association in our minds? Perhaps it is because we immediately think of a court? Because if inequality is applied there, this becomes a terrible injustice, and its name is not even a court. Unfortunately our world is full of such courts and judges. With the absence of equality there come before our eyes downtrodden people, despised people, people who have no rights and cannot obtain their rights, slaves, and so on. Whereas the concepts we were comparing with equality were liberty, freedom. Can freedom, liberty, be spoken of to the wretched people who are within this category we have listed? And if it is spoken of, do they not hate these concepts? So the understanding of freedom we have possessed up to now is deficient, or the knowledge of freedom given to us is crooked and has been forced into our minds in a way that makes a reverse association; exactly as in the religions, the states, the armies, the Witnesses. Let us repeat once more how freedom was defined in the dictionary: did it not read, “having the power and ability to act as one wishes”? It says “power.” This is not only a material power; it also encompasses bodily strength and health. Can a sick and bedridden person be free? Yes, perhaps he is free, but his physical freedom is limited within that bed. His illness has taken his freedom from his hand. The things he can do are very limited. Or are people who have a mental illness, who cannot control their passions to an extreme degree, alcoholics, drug addicts, and so on, free? The Holy Scriptures write: “Whatever a person is overcome by, to that he becomes a slave.” In fact, since we are sinful, we are all slaves of sin, because we cannot help but sin. If sin is stronger than us and overcomes us, then are we not slaves of sin? (John 8:32-34; Romans 6:6 and 16-17; 2 Peter 2:19)

Again, the understanding of freedom I speak of is such that it can be realized even within this sinful state of ours. I said God is a God who is not in favor of equality. Well then, if the situation is so, it means there are superior ones, and alongside the superior ones there are also lower ones. Because inequality creates this situation. Again, when I say lower, let us not draw out a thought in the sense of being humiliated. With the examples I will give I may be able to explain this situation better.

For example, angels possess a strength and a creation superior to humans. They are spirit creatures. They can go from one place to another with great speed. And in doing this they have no need, like a human, of a spacecraft, of special clothing, and so on. For example, when the book of Job speaks of that gathering of the angels, although we do not know where the presence of God in that gathering is, Satan’s saying that he came from the earth leads to the meaning that the other angels too are responsible for other planets. If they were all responsible for the earth, Satan would have no need to specify this separately as the earth. Moreover, if this gathering were being held on the earth, saying “I am coming from the earth” would also be absurd. Well then, did God not know where he came from, that He asks Satan “where do you come from”? Of course He knows, but this kind of expression is used so that we who read these writings may understand. Not for God, but for us to know and understand. Indeed, there is not, and cannot be, anything God does not know. (Job 2:1-2; Luke 4:5-6; 2 Kings 19:35) Even just this much knowledge that I have spoken of shows that the angels were created superior to humans. The Gospel speaks of humans—and indeed the flawless, that is, the perfect human—being created in a way lower than the angels. (Hebrews 2:7) Again, these expressions will evoke wrong meanings in our minds. For example, like the difference between the animal and the human. Just as the human is superior to the animal, are the angels superior to the human in this way? No, there is a very great difference; angels and humans were created in the likeness of God, in a manner possessing His attributes, but animals were not. (Genesis 1:26) The love, justice, power, and wisdom that God possesses, the human, like the angels, also possesses. Again, these attributes of both the angels and the human are limited. Moreover, because the human is sinful, these attributes work in an unbalanced way. In animals, however, all of these attributes are not present together. Again, since the human is a creature capable of thought, possessing intelligence, this quality too makes it superior to the animal. If the situation is so, then equality cannot even be spoken of, because they all possess a different creation. We must accept one truth. Humanity and the whole universe cannot be forced into an equality in the mathematical sense. I said God is not in favor of equality; well then, how should the freedom that God means be understood, and how should it be applied? Because it is written thus:

The Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 2 Corinthians 3:17

Especially if you read all of those laws of God known as the Law of Moses, at the end of many laws there is always the granting of freedom, the proclaiming of liberty (release). At every opportunity God has encouraged people and Israel to be free. Because this is the most ideal for humanity. (Isaiah 58:6) Because the concept of freedom is spoiled by slavery and equality. In those laws, the granting of freedom to slaves does not emphasize the meaning that every human should be equal either. What is desired to be emphasized is love, mercy, forgiveness. And these qualities have nothing to do with being free, being equal, being a slave.

One of the apostles in the Gospel—look what he says about those angels created superior:

Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve those who are going to inherit salvation? (Hebrews 1:14) As for Jesus, he left an even more open and clear example.

Moreover, there arose among them a dispute over which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.

Jesus said to them, “The kings of the nations rule over their nations with a lust for dominion. And their leading men have the title of benefactor bestowed upon themselves.”

“But you will not be like this. Let the greatest among you become as the youngest; let the one who governs be as the one who serves. For who is greater, the one reclining at the table or the one serving? Is it not the one reclining at the table? Yet I have become among you as one who serves.” Luke 22:24-27; you may also compare this with Ezekiel 18:5-9.

Behold, the inequality that God desires, and therefore also freedom, must be understood in this way. Everything according to the law of freedom, but on the condition that in that law it is applied without anyone being humiliated, despised, trampled, or permitted to be crushed. It must always be with a spirit that serves, that saves, that considers the good and benefit of persons. In this understanding, the strong must be the savior of the weak.

For such is the will of God, that by doing good you may silence the ignorance of foolish men—as free men, yet not using your freedom as a cover for evil, but as slaves of God. 1 Peter 2:15-17 Freedom must be realized in this sense. There is no equality of the kind we have understood up to now, but all are free and building one another up, in a constructive way.

Why always liberty, and why always freedom?

Because freedom develops the human, enlarges them, helps them discover many of their abilities and superior sides they did not know of. Again, because the human God created is a very precious being and must be free. Even though Satan, in order to prove that this is not so, has been waging war for thousands of years against humanity in our world for this cause, this is a truth. Equality, contrary to all of these, is like a brake. Instead of developing the person rapidly, it always makes them brake. Freedom wants to advance; equality wants to stop. Because even our creation shows that no one is equal with anyone. It is certain that those we call identical twins, who appear exactly the same, have many separate and distinct sides—from their fingerprints, their genes, to what will be proven with the technology we possess in our time. And for this reason no one, not one bit, is in a bad situation. Because we humanity are very inclined to evil, since we use and apply inequality in the same sense as crushing others, destroying them, exalting ourselves and shaming them, and climbing onto their backs, this word makes a terrible impression on us. In fact, the things we have listed have to do not with inequality but with injustice, mercilessness, not loving. Again, as I said, justice must already be applied in societies where both rules are valid. Alongside this, as in the example I gave, for someone in favor of freedom, in the eyes of that eleventh talented person who was not hired, this is an injustice. At the same time, the failure to give freedom to, the suppression of, the abilities of such people at that workplace, in that society, in that state, is a great loss. On the other side, in the eyes of the talentless people in favor of equality, justice is the hiring of those first ten people who came. The eleventh is either unlucky, or is foolish for not coming, not being able to come, early. According to them, this is justice. And this is precisely the thing I want to emphasize on this whole matter. The concept called justice becomes a thing that undergoes much change through the effect of laws, of rules. Sometimes, while we suppose we are making a very just decision with those laws, whereas being captive to those rules, those crooked laws, with their crushing, repellent, destructive qualities that harm humanity more than benefit it, we have strayed far from righteousness. But the justice I mean must be Divine. No law outside the rules He set down is just, and their application only brings pain to humanity. However just and impartial a judge may be, if the laws to which he must remain bound are far from Divine justice, then the decisions that judge will give will necessarily be crooked too. As an example, just look at our world.

I have known many women who cried out “equality of woman and man,” who grew angry at God’s giving man the responsibility to govern, and who, solely for this reason, denied God; and the world is full of them. For this reason most of them are in favor of equality. Their possessing a weaker creation than man in physical, mental, and spiritual respects, their seeing man as a rival and wanting to limit them too the way they themselves are limited, is all in order to suppress their own weaknesses. There will be equality and there will be no freedom. But the ruler will be a woman too! And man, with all his strength, his reason and ability, will serve that woman! You will very rarely see those who defend the equality of man and woman going to work in construction sites, in mine pits, alongside men, and going to do garbage collection. In the past, when the men who went to war did so with spear, sword, shield, and most of all with bodily strength, where were those women in favor of equality? Let them not go and say, “men make war willingly anyway.” Because it is a fact that among those who are addicted to war and wage the war of equality, women are more numerous. And besides, making war does not look at gender! Just as I have never heard that women’s groups are always in peace, if I were to say that those who feel jealousy most of all toward their own sex, who backbite and cannot stand one another, come more from women than from men, would I be telling a lie? When women are asked, they prefer to be in men’s groups rather than in groups with their own sex—why, I wonder? They confess that getting along with men is far easier than with women who are their own sex. I am not writing these things in order to make a distinction between man and woman. The reason I have given examples from women is that it will shed a living light on the subject I want to speak of, and it is of a kind everyone can understand. I am not taking anyone’s side either. But I do approve of the order and laws God set down concerning man and woman. Not only God’s order concerning man and woman—even though I too sometimes have difficulty in keeping these laws because of my sins, I approve of all of God’s laws. But if, because of my own deficiencies, my flaws, my sins, I were to say “wrong” to God’s laws, His counsels, this would be the greatest insolence. It is not my aim to quarrel with anyone over such subjects. As the apostle Paul said, “let the one who quarrels quarrel; I do not want to make a custom of such a thing.” (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)

Alongside this, men, with the responsibility they possess, have reduced woman’s freedom to nothing and have not fulfilled those responsibilities of theirs either. They have generally used this responsibility for their own pleasure, benefit, and comfort. And some women, drawing the meaning as though God wanted such a thing from man, this time drew away from God. All of these things arise again from the injustice, the lack of love, the selfishness of both sides—not from inequality. Indeed, it is not inequality but rather being equal that leads to great problems. Moreover, a normal woman does not feel shame at being a woman and weep bitterly, asking why she was not a man. Neither does a woman feel shame at having given birth to a child, nor does a man feel a deficiency, asking why he cannot give birth to a child, cannot nurse. Wait a moment! With all this I am always speaking of normal people. Because even though in our time there is this dissatisfaction with gender in men and women, this is not a healthy mentality and spiritual attitude. Now there is a general dissatisfaction with almost everything. However many things one possesses, the problems too grow just as much larger. Why should a woman be unhappy because she possesses a different creation than man? Or, on the contrary, should man have to be unhappy because responsibility falls to man, asking “why was I not a woman”? Are people unhappy asking “why are we not like the angels”? Perhaps every human would love to fly like a bird, but which human wants to leave their humanity and become a bird? And even if they wanted to, they would still want it on the condition of returning to their humanity. If from all these things an appearance of inequality emerges, then it means there is no rule that within the inequality we possess anyone has to be unhappy. Whereas a woman’s giving birth to a child and nursing it and such are things that caress that woman’s feelings. In Europe, especially in Germany, I have seen many a pregnant woman walking with her belly out to here, throwing herself back and walking proudly. In extreme types this pride is even more evident, as if to say, “look what I am carrying.” Through the laws the Germans passed out of fear of their line dying out, those women have been forced into this mold. I have been in Germany for forty years; for some reason they have always lived with this fear! In a tiny country 80 million people were not enough for them. On the other side, they did everything to get rid of the unemployed, the elderly, the retired, and the foreigners. The philosophy of the Kurds—that by multiplying we found a country and are delivered—is again another thing. For this reason the poor Kurdish women each make at least 8-10 children. While this pregnant condition of women is a strange situation compared to men, for the woman it is even a source of pride. I believe that when a Chinese woman is pregnant she shows quite different, contrary behaviors. Because in China there is a population problem. Again, the women of our time, striving to destroy these beautiful feelings God placed within them by nature, with the ambition of making a career, cannot even taste the pleasure of these feelings. These women keen on equality see those children as an obstacle to their own freedom. This time freedom suddenly becomes precious to them. Manipulating themselves, within the thought that “I will become a completely different woman,” they only become unhappy and suffer pain. Their pride, like sharp vinegar, going beyond a harm merely to its container, steals the happiness of the people around them too for the sake of meaningless things. I cannot pass without also stating this. In the face of any heavy work, responsibility, burden, or in a difficulty of livelihood, it is also astonishing that those women who defend equality expect understanding by saying: “I am only a woman!” When they are in a tight spot, the saying “I am only a woman” is one of the defenses women use most.

I have tried to give the most famous examples pertaining to inequality. Let us attribute all the wrongs, evils, and nonsensical things done not to inequality but to injustice, mercilessness, jealousy, lack of love, egotism, and evil. Then, in my opinion, our understanding on this matter will be more realistic.

Despite all of this, Eric Hoffer also voices the following truths about those who say, “we want freedom”:

Those who shout most loudly “we want freedom” are the ones least likely to be happy in a free society. Disappointed, talentless people load the blame for their failures onto the present lack of freedom. In reality, what they want is the ending of the freedom that is open to everyone. They want to abolish free competition and the merciless tests that a person continually encounters in a free society.

I believe that Eric Hoffer, in America, wrote these writings of his at that time thinking most of all of the communist regime. In fact, in general, the principles that lie beneath these thoughts are not at all of a kind to be dismissed. But the content of the book is, in my opinion, not edifying. Even though the whole book consists merely of theories, it is thought-provoking. Taking up the weak sides of humanity, theses have been put forward in the form of articles. The information given goes no further than being merely passive information for ordinary people. But people who have secured dominion over others behave, with this information, all the more professionally in a bad direction over those people. Because that information can only be applied in the hands of those who possess dominion. What can an ordinary person do with that information? On the other side, this small book of Hoffer’s writings is full of theses that help in trying to know human psychology, and therefore in helping one decide the steps one will take toward people, in weighing events, and most importantly in knowing what we want.

The words of a writer whose name I cannot remember where I read came to my mind. As a child I greatly enjoyed these words, with which the writer said: “For the things you cannot do, they say to you ‘you are free.’” For example, to a man who is in need, whose breath stinks from hunger due to destitution, to say, “brother, look, before you are row upon row of restaurants and eateries, each finer than the last; you are free to enter whichever you wish and eat whatever you want,” comes to that man more bitterly than a slap. (James 2:16) Or to say, “you are free to take whatever your heart desires,” arises from a similar logic. With such words, humanity has been made to hate freedom.

Those who are not partisans of communism have watched the film Doctor Zhivago with great pleasure. But when one speaks with a communist, he too has his rightful reasons. Yes, that communist partisan will also accept that a doctor’s knowledge, abilities, and the education he received make him different from the others. “But if I too had had his opportunities, it would not have been at all impossible for me too to be a doctor, an engineer, and someone more talented,” he says. They are also very much in the right in saying that in Tsarist Russia they could not go to school because they could not find shoes. Among them, one must understand those who, rightfully defending themselves, say that since they could find nothing—forget shoes, nothing at all—they could not become anything either. True, communism too could not bring them abundance—well, never mind. So to speak, they became equal!

If, according to statistics, 100 eggs are eaten in ten days in a neighborhood of a hundred people, it is said that one egg falls to each person every ten days. But just as statistics often present the truth in a very distorted way, in this case the situation is no different. Whereas when one speaks with the people in the neighborhood, those people perhaps see an egg once a year, or perhaps do not see one at all. But it is no lie that a hundred eggs are consumed in that neighborhood. Perhaps there is only one family there that has this opportunity. They, making pastries and cakes, may possess a life in abundance and prosperity. According to these statistical figures, in your opinion how many of this neighborhood of 100 people are in favor of equality, and how many of freedom? The answer is actually simple: if we suppose that family consuming a hundred eggs and living in abundance consists of 5 to 10 people, while they want freedom, the remaining 90-95 people in the neighborhood will be in favor of equality. And are they not in the right too? In appearance, yes, they are in the right. If the price of freedom is destitution, being crushed, and ruin, everyone is ready to sell such freedom. Alongside this, in a place where there is equality, one egg is given to everyone. Whereas some people do not even like eggs. Whether they like it or not, since we are equal, that one too will get the portion that falls to them. This logic of equality also sometimes makes that man throw the egg in the garbage. If he is fair-minded, he gives it to someone who likes it. When we give the examples looking from this angle—and these are real, lived events—then both equality and freedom appear meaningless and bitter to people.

Our world has already so distorted these concepts that anyone has great difficulty understanding what is right. Again, thanks to our world’s injustice, dishonesty, and evil, and because the reins of governance too are in the hands of the powerful wicked, freedom has from time to time lost its value in people’s eyes. Again I am obliged to write: just as religions and religious institutions did not, cannot, represent God, so too none of all the states on our earth has been, or could be, the representative of liberty, of freedom. Even though this word has been said a great deal, and much blood too has been shed for this cause, when one looks at the facts, humanity has perhaps never been able to secure the freedom God desired and intended.

Some may ask, “can there not be a form of governance in which both of these exist?” Both equality and freedom. When the French made their revolution, they defended this thought in their watchwords by saying, “equality, brotherhood, freedom.” It cannot be said at all that they were successful. However much people are in favor of equality, for the sake of their own selfish interests they give what effort they can to spoil that equality too. That an unjust freedom reigns over the whole earth is already a known thing. If on the earth—and it is written too that this will be in the last days—a distress like a famine appears, then just watch these people! (Joel 1:8-20) Neither equality nor freedom nor justice remains. “Does it even exist now?” you will say. No, but with these events meant in the prophecy it is emphasized that even harder periods will come for all humanity. Until each is judged according to their works.

Those laws occurring in the sections of the Holy Scriptures—Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers-Deuteronomy—which many people read with weariness, when we actually read them with thought and grasping their meaning, we also see that these laws of God are applicable to everyone, just, in favor of freedom, and bring peace to humanity. And whether or not God approves a work to be done is also very important. Sometimes states that pass a good law, a law that appears beneficial to the human, have both been harmed by these laws of theirs and seen many people use those rights for evil. This has brought that state more harm than benefit. And these states have no relationship with God or anything of the sort. I believe that God does not bless these works of theirs. Even if the laws they pass are good, for this reason they are compelled to reap bad results rather than the good result they hoped for. (2 Chronicles 20:35-37 and 1 Kings 22:48) And in the end they throw all the blame onto those laws. Moreover, why should God bless those laws of theirs, even if they are good? On the one hand they will lead a life far from God, wanting to give God no place at all in their lives, and on the other hand, using everything they receive from God—the sun, the earth, food, a healthy body, and the pleasures God gave in that body—and by their works too saying, “oh, YOU stay far from us,” they will strive to be successful according to their own heads. And God will bless these! Is this any kind of logic? On the contrary, God wants us to see plainly the coming to light of the things that can befall us with our drawing away from Him. (Regarding this matter, may everyone please read the whole of Deuteronomy chapter 28 for themselves, and please reflect.) And again the prophet says plainly:

…as long as you are with the Lord, He is with you; and if you seek Him, He lets Himself be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He forsakes you. 2 Chronicles 15:2

Freedom serves to bring people’s true personalities to the surface. While beneath that personality there lie very beautiful things, there also lie very terrible things. Under oppression no one has been able to kill and destroy their evil qualities. God has given freedom even to Satan. He set Satan free so that he could realize his thought and aim. We do not have a despotic, dictatorial God. Otherwise no one could tell their thoughts so openly before Him. (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6 and Deuteronomy 9:18-19; 10:10; Exodus 32:11-14) We not only tell our thoughts openly; at the same time, even when we are wrong and evil, we have a God who gives us opportunity and room. We have a God who understands us, who shows understanding, even in wrong matters we supposed to be right and good. (Genesis 18:22-33) For this reason, toward the end of the book of Revelation it is written thus. (the last book of the Gospel)

Let the one who does evil still do evil. Let the vile one continue his vile life. Let the one who is righteous still do righteousness. Let the one who is holy remain holy. Behold, I am coming quickly! The rewards I will give are with me. To everyone I will give the recompense of what they have done. (Revelation 22:12)

It is God who gives this freedom. Who knows better than He? Who is it that will give Him counsel and teach Him, “this is more right”?! No one can do this. Even so, God gives this right to everyone. Who can give such a freedom? When one looks at the earth from space, it is a fact that the creature called the human appears far smaller than a bacterium. Even though it is so, if God gave this freedom to them, then before all else let us know the worth of God and of the freedom He gave us, and strive to be worthy of Him. He wants that everything come to light and nothing remain hidden. God, with this justice too, will bring everyone and every work to judgment. (Ecclesiastes 12:14)

I wanted to write this subject according to the understanding our world perceives from the concepts of equality and freedom, and to point out the distortions. Otherwise I am also aware that we live in a world that has never been able to secure either equality or freedom in the true sense. My aim with this writing is not to bring a solution. As I said, whether it be those who shout equality or those who shout freedom, I want to emphasize their real aims. Just as those who want equality try to hide their personalities, they also strive to suppress their lack of ability by this way. And when one looks at those who govern people with the promise that “we will give equality,” we see that none of them treats them equally. As for those in favor of liberty, of freedom, they use their abilities, their talents, to crush other people, and become conceited and cruel. God is opposed to every rule and law that restricts the human’s development and abilities. In fact, whatever administration, governance, king, president, prime minister, or religion you bring to a place where there is no love, the result will always be like our present world. (Proverbs 15:17)

The one who loves his brother remains in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling. But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness, and is walking in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes. 1 John 2:10-11