This is actually exactly what the Supreme Court in 1992 did. They wrote (I can't find the exact place where right now, but here is the quote), "That the heart of liberty [is to] define one's own concept of existence, of the meaning of the universe." This is significant because based on this definition of freedom, we are the makers of our own purposes and existences. To be human than is to be free to develop our own truth/mean and purpose. This is freedom defined as freedom FROM any restrictions.

A naturalistic understanding of reality actually forces us to adhere to this position. The late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould once said:

 " We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestial creatures; because comets struck the earth and wiped out dinosaurs, thereby giving mammals a chance not otherwise available…. We may yearn for a "higher" answer--but none exists. This explanation, though superficially troubling, if not terrifying, is ultimately liberating and exhilarating. We cannot read the meaning of life passively in the facts of nature. We must construct these answers for ourselves…"

If this is true, that there are no truths objectively, but just what we construct then we are not bound to an overarching narrative for humanity. Christianity, interestingly, compared to above normal modern understanding of life---speaks rather differently. It states that we were created, and therefore we do not get to self-define, but rather we are defined based on how we were made. In addition, Christianity states there are right and wrong ways of living, and being. So the end question then is: Who is right? Is truth relative?

I suggest that Truth is actually more important than we think, freedom is more complex than we think, and and Jesus is more liberating than we think

Its more important than we think. How can we say this? It does not seem obvious, however in all our daily lives its hard not to make numerous truth claims. That is, we constantly are making claims to truth that are unverifiable, and applicable to not just ourselves, but also others. For instance, the truth claim that, "all humans are created equal" is in itself a claim to knowledge. How do we know this? On what grounds can we claim human rights? Most people in America will assent to this universal truth for everyone. Why do we do this? Because truth is that important to us. 

This is why when people say the truth claim, "All truth is relative"---we have to point out that this itself is a truth claim. In other words, any assessment, any statement of fact is a competing worldview truth claim that wishes to be accepted by all. Its that important to us. The truth matters.

A good illustration of this comes from a NY Times article where a reporter shows the importance of truth. 

Errol Morris: For those who truly believe that truth is subjective or relative, ask yourself the following question: “Is ultimate guilt or innocence of a crime a matter of opinion?” A jury might decide you’re guilty of a crime that you haven’t committed. You’re innocent. (It’s possible. The legal system is rife with miscarriages of justice.) Nevertheless, we believe there is a fact of the matter. You either did it or you didn’t. Period. If you were strapped into an electric chair, there would be nothing relative about it. Suppose you were innocent. Would you be satisfied with the claim there is no definitive answer to the question of whether you’re guilty or innocent? Or would you be screaming, “I didn’t do it. Look at the evidence. I didn’t do it.” Nor would you take much comfort in the claim, “It all depends on your point of view, doesn’t it?” Or perhaps you’re not the condemned man but just a visitor seated in the gallery preparing to witness the execution. You might say to the condemned, “You think you’re innocent. I think you’re guilty. But it doesn’t really matter because truth is subjective, and each one of our individual opinions about whether you’re guilty or not is true.” Or how about, “There is no such thing as truth. You’re just unlucky.” People often confuse the difficulties of ascertaining the truth with the relativity of truth. They are quite different. (We may have difficulty fixing the exact date of the Battle of Hastings, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen at a specific time). Most post-modernist professors argue that truth is relative except when it comes time for tenure.Errol Morris: For those who truly believe that truth is subjective or relative, ask yourself the following question: “Is ultimate guilt or innocence of a crime a matter of opinion?” A jury might decide you’re guilty of a crime that you haven’t committed. You’re innocent. (It’s possible. The legal system is rife with miscarriages of justice.) Nevertheless, we believe there is a fact of the matter. You either did it or you didn’t. Period. If you were strapped into an electric chair, there would be nothing relative about it. Suppose you were innocent. Would you be satisfied with the claim there is no definitive answer to the question of whether you’re guilty or innocent? Or would you be screaming, “I didn’t do it. Look at the evidence. I didn’t do it.” Nor would you take much comfort in the claim, “It all depends on your point of view, doesn’t it?” Or perhaps you’re not the condemned man but just a visitor seated in the gallery preparing to witness the execution. You might say to the condemned, “You think you’re innocent. I think you’re guilty. But it doesn’t really matter because truth is subjective, and each one of our individual opinions about whether you’re guilty or not is true.” Or how about, “There is no such thing as truth. You’re just unlucky.” People often confuse the difficulties of ascertaining the truth with the relativity of truth. They are quite different. (We may have difficulty fixing the exact date of the Battle of Hastings, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen at a specific time). Most post-modernist professors argue that truth is relative except when it comes time for tenure.

 

Secondly, Freedom is more complex then we think. There is no such thing as just freedom "from all constraints." When we get older we can't just eat whatever we want. We have to restrict our freedom to stay healthy. We have to restrict our freedom to get richer, by spending less money. College students have to restrict their freedom so they can study and do homework. Frankly, the idea that real true freedom is having no restrictions upon you is fairly naive. There are always restrictions, always constraints. The question is not how to get from under them, the question is which constraints are most freeing? Which ones will humanize us the most?

Out of all the restrictions that bind, the love relationship may be the most liberating freedom-loss of them all. We lose ourselves to the other, but we gain fulfillment, security, and a sense of worth. At the same time in a love relationship, you turn to the other and willingly say, "I will adjust for you, I will change for you." At first sight it seems that the Christian faith is dehumanizing because God asks people to change for him. While this may be true of other religions, Christianity in the most radical way has God adjusting for us through the person of Christ who becomes human, vulnerable, and suffering and dying in our place. The cross is the place where he submits to our condition and dies in our place. God in Christ changes for us to rescue us. Jesus then is more liberating than we think because God through Him, redeems a people who are in need of his love. 

Therefore, since no one really operates like truth is relative, freedom is not just freedom from all restrictions, but we are bound always to something, then Christ is more liberating through God himself changing to bring us back into relationship with him.