Thursday, March 10, 2005

Freedom Part II

First, sorry for the delay. I’m back and I choose to start a new post (instead of commenting on the old one, where Cesare began the discussion) to highlight this argument. I hope you will like this.
Luckily, this word doesn’t have the same meaning worldwide. Luckily the world doesn’t need a responsible leadership worldwide, like the US or the Pope. Luckily the mankind doesn’t need someone that tell which are the essential human freedoms we need.
Luckily, because otherwise we couldn’t listen to the teachings of the Supreme Writer and Thinker, Ms Oriana Fallaci, without asking ourselves a lot of questions about the great difference that stands between Frank’s word (freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship [which?] God, freedom from want, freedom from fear) and the opinions of a woman that think that the only possible freedom is from the Muslim world and that the only possible freedom is defined as the western one.
I don’t think so, I think that the first freedom, the most relevant one, is the freedom to choose what are the freedoms we need and from what we want to be free.
Why does nobody talk about the fact that maybe the Middle East simply wants the freedom from the presence of the United States in the region?
Why does nobody talk about the fact that maybe women want the freedom of choosing whether have a baby or not?
Why does nobody talk about the fact that people should really have the freedom of worship every God (or Gods, or nothing) they want, without always having to demonstrate a faith they don’t feel towards a divinity they even know? Even if this God is Allah and even if this worship means a different view on this world?
Why does nobody talk about the fact that people should have the freedom to choose the sex of their partner?
Why does nobody, neither Frank Delano, talk about these and a lot of other freedoms?
I think that neither the Western nor the Eastern world have the answer to these questions, but maybe it’s time to end considering only our view of the Truth, our view of the Freedom.Maybe freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere, and I agree with that. But who decide what is the meaning of the human rights?


At 12:30 PM, Blogger Cesare said...

You ask may questions, but you give few answers.
You say few things I may agree with, and I lot I found out of the argument.
You talk about the freedom from leaders ("luckily the world doesn't need a responsible leadership worldwide"), but you talk as a leader.
My view, Roosvelt's view, your view... are.. just views !
But in a political organized world (as far as you don't turn into an anarchist), some people's toughts wheight more. If some of us think to be a think tank, he could spend himself in favour of society, being a scientist, an opinionist, a politics, etc.

Finally just a note. I think the meaning of "human rights" is well defined. If you don't know it, just look back to our history.

At 5:29 PM, Blogger Matteo said...

I asked many questions: that's true. I gave few answers: that's perfectly true.
However I think that people should ask more questions instead of accepting common answers only because a responsible political leader said so. I don't like politics, when politics is simply believing in the thoghts that wheight more, without knowing why.


Post a Comment

<< Home