GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH! D:<<<
This entirely depends on what you define as "Liberty" and if you go with the modern "the right to do whatever I want" or the classical definition of Liberty, which was "the right to do what is moral."
Most of American society has never defined 'liberty' the second way (or more like "freedom to do what I want to my own person and property, so long as it does not infringe on others"), only Tradcons have defined it that way (and I'd never seen it defined that way before you asserted it, so definitely not the common definition) and you notice it is not the tradcon definition that modern society uses.
OK, look, don't blame me for your complete failure to have learned the philosophical history of the US. To say the second definition was not common nor understood historically is, well, completely false. In fact, the second definition was so common in the 19th century and earlier that it was explicitly noted as the working definition of Liberty used in the US at it's founding in "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Tocqueville:
Democracy In America said:
Late stage decadent empire where the dumbed down, obese masses do not give a damn about abstracts or long term thinking and where the few thdt still think are so marginalized and demoralized that they are increasingly stopping to give a fuck, checking out of society or eagerly awaiting their preferred form of apocalypse which will will usher their preferred radical ideology into power, with the whole thing being run by an increasingly out of touch, senile, corrupt and power grabbing elite made up of hereditary idiots living in an ivory tower.
And here we come to the good old Hobbes vs. Locke debate.
I know the civics history of the US and the connection to the Magna Carta and the Iroquis Federation, and the stuff taught in US public schools civics classes, plus what is relevant to my politics inquires/views in the modern day.
Again, never read Torqueville or Mather, and most of the modern US society hasn't either.
I'd never heard it described the way you did, and never seen it treated that way in modern politics or civics classes.
No, I just point out that a lot of the assumptions you make about historical education in US schools is something based around 'Traditional conservative' world views of the modern day.
And again, that definition is not the definition of liberty that the majority of the populace works off of, regardless of how famous Tocqueville is/you think should be.
Most of the nation are not poli-sci graduates, nor much interested in pre-US definitions of things as they relate to the modern day.
I think you are the one living in a bubble of the old world educational standards and expectations, along with definitional terms.
Or maybe you are in a bubble of the old world schooling and old world expectations of the US education system and what people 'need' to learn in schooling.
Honestly don't think the shift of Liberty from "do what is moral" to "do whatever I want" was remotely accidental. Classical liberty both empowers the individual and requires the build up of a moral framework which in turn requires a close-knit group of family, friends and religious life. People for whom can impart values to you and whom you respect and value caring about their opinion of you.
Let's attack this argument at the source.
What actually is Christian Morality? Obviously it incorporates God's Laws into it so let's look at those. Specifically, let's look at the biggest and most prominent example of them in the 10 commandments:
1-4 are completely irrelevant here, after all even the Christian founding fathers saw that it was a bad idea to try and enforce those on people for many, many reasons.
For the rest of them, let's look at the moral and logical basis for them. After all, God would not give an order that has no reason to be followed. So we'll go in order.
5: Honoring your elders ensures a somewhat stable society, if you look to those that came for you for advice you most likely will build up generational knowledge and wisdom that will help prevent you from making bad decisions. Pretty reasonable, but not something you can really legislate, but instead must teach and encourage through public policies. No real intersection with freedom there.
6: Don't kill others unlawfully, ok... why? What makes murder wrong? It destabilizes communities and infringes on the other person's right to life. This is... actually pretty close to the NAP principles libertarians follow. Not exactly, but close to it.
7: No adultery, so don't lust after or pursue a married man or woman. For why this is a good rule to follow, we can look to the previous two: it destabilizes the group and society along with harming the victim (though in a different way than murder does).
8: Do not take what isn't owed to you. Put that way, it makes it rather clear what the base morality is here: it harms the person you take from.
9: Bearing false witness, aka: accusing them of crimes they didn't commit. Directly harms them and their freedom.
10: Do not feel, or rather do not act upon, the emotion of Envy. Same deal as the last ones: it harms the victim and takes away from their freedom.
All of these follow a very simple principle, one oft quoted by both constitutional scholars and libertarians alike:
Say what you will about some of his decisions while on the bench, but some of them were quite good. Others not so much, but most were still in the right direction at least.
So if Christian Morality follows this line of thinking then the question, instead of "what is moral?", is "where does the harm begin and what is the proper remedy to prevent that harm?" This is also the question more libertarian and utilitarian principles lead towards. Indeed, the only principles that do not lead there are Authoritarian ones, where the question becomes "at what point does my control become too much to bear for the populace?"
To be enslaved to your vices is no freedom at all.
