We embody this conflict in our language. The difference between a “freedom fighter”
and a “terrorist” all depends on where you stand. The party is either “rockin” or “disturbing
the peace”, again all based on perception.
It gets pretty mellow and fuzzy when you’re dealing with
people one-on-one. Where is the line between
compassionately wrestling self-destructive freedom from someone and anxiously standing
around and watching them be freely self-destructive?
Is freedom really as sacrosanct as our ideology needs it to be?
In Southern Africa, there is a philosophy of community called
Ubuntu. I would call it a theology. Roughly translated, it means “I am because We
are.” That would seem to fly in the
face of disengaged anxiety that seems to be the response to watching
self-destructive freedom. Uncritically prizing
individual freedom over collective freedom the general welfare at higher risk.
I am left feeling that we all we can do is engaged
compassion. The truth is, one person can’t make
another person do or think or say anything that’s meaningful or sustainable, no matter
their age or physical status. All you
can do is support them, even when they use their freedom to attack themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment