It seems to me that we have the wrong notion of truth. "What is truth?", as Pontius Pilate asked. I would like to say that in our age when transparency is one of the leading objects of our collective enterprise, perhaps including that of many atheists, that the truth does not necessarily set anyone free.
These phrases, freedom, truth, justice and other buzzwords... what substance do they have? What is their quality, if any?
There are as far as I know three caracteristics of the lie; it is concealing, diversive and deceptive. But the way we have been led to believe the lie is evil and the root of sadism and viciousness.
But there are also many not so flattering caracteristics of the truth; it is revealing yes, at least sometimes.. but is is also shameless, has no feelings, no sense of honour, no respect, it is obscene. It is also devastating, castrating, totalitarian, merciless and murderous. On its own it is trivial and shallow. But in the hand of the cunning it is a weapon and should be seen, and handled, as such. There is therefore nothing moral, or guaranteeing liberty or justice or brotherhood in the concept of truth.
There is therefore a difference between honesty (as the honest decent man) and truth, or the man who argues for the truth.
The other concepts; justice and freedom, what is their substance? Freedom is totally void of substance. The only meaning it has is in a response to cruel bondage and as a longing from it. But nothing is "free", everything and everyone is dependant upon something or someone.
Justice in our age seems to be the same thing as law. But if that were the case then justice can change and is therefore nothing but an arrangement between ruler and the ruled and that would undermine the "sense" of justice that is so often invoked whenever people feel oppressed by the same ruler. So what is left of justice except for the notion that we "should" all be friends and treat eachother with dignity, respect and honour?
Then we end up with the last bastion of the defence for the conceptual world of make believe and keeping people in obliged subjugation; the "should". Where is the should? Where is this obligation that "ought" to be so obvious? No, the "should" is nothing more or less than an arrangement of the same kind as the others, only this one has potentially far more hurtful consequences. Because from the "should" comes all blame, all vengeance, all hate and all tyranny.
The should is in the same category as the truth, since the truth always needs to rely on its own line of argument. And by the same chain of reasoning Christianity preached its "truth" that we have all lied and therefore are 'sinners' and therefore "should" go to hell.
Who can be guarenteed freedom on account of truth when only Jesus could save us from ourselves? So if the truth would set us free, what in that case would be the lie that oppressed us? Curious thing to say that a lie would oppress someone. Lies dont oppress - but cruelty, viciousness, dishonour, disrespect and tyranny does and those things does not need to come from a lie, but a truth.
The truth therefore has no moral ground on its on. It is an untrustworthy ally (because who knows the full truth? And also it cannot be trusted with discretion, modesty or dignity), it is a terrible master, but it can sometimes be a nessecary weapon. Only wisdom and honesty can determine when it should, or should not, be used.