I have often inquired of myself, what great principle or idea it was that kept this confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the colonies from the motherland, but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men.

In due time… Not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world… With those stirring words, Abe has something profound in common with Ali.

My most dedicated Tehran informant, Ali, recently inspired a message that I sent to my Facebook page:

“More injured are coming to hospital. After seeing so much fresh blood, those who’ve been bed-ridden and out of action for a few days need their morale boosted. So Ali is asking all of us: What do you love about your freedom? I’ll convey your replies to his sis; he’ll share with other patients via code of communication developing among the wounded.”

Facebookers replied with a cascade of reflections. Some highlights:

* “There are only two lasting bequests we can hope to give to our children. One is roots; the other, wings. I awake each day knowing this is possible, with sunlight, peace, and dreams of tomorrow. I do not fear my neighbors, my homeland, or my community, but cry for those who do. For one is never truly free if the only certainty is fear. And the fact that I can write this makes me the freest of all. For what is life if it can’t be expressed and felt? May all your voices be heard.”

* “When you are free, you can tell the bastards to get lost. You can walk away and they can’t stop you. You can ignore the MFers.”

* “A freedom without limits is no freedom at all.”

* “I love walking down the street and knowing that even if someone I encounter has different beliefs than me, or even if they dislike me after having learned my beliefs, I still have the right to believe, and my country will protect that right.”

* “Freedom means defending the rights of those who hate me without feeling ridiculous.”

* “I love my freedom because I treasure the uniqueness of each individual. Oppression squashes that uniqueness; freedom allows it to (although doesn’t guarantee it to) flower.”

* “Freedom is to be fully human with the absolute worth of the human person. This is lacking both in secular materialistic cultures and in totalitarian ideologies that blot out humans as individuals.”

Spurred on by the wisdom of Facebookers, my Twitter followers weighed in with their own answers for Ali. A sample:

* “why do I love my freedom? kinda nice to get up in the morning and not have to worry about being shot for my tweets.”

* “I’ve just spent the day with my 7 week old son. Freedom means I know his future will be HIS choices and desires.”

* “I luv freedom because having breakfast at 3 am while discussing politics should be the right of every human being.”

* “Freedom is crucial to happiness. It’s as simple as that.”

I can report that these responses made Ali happy. Which, in turn, would have made Abe happy. To abolitionists everywhere, thank you for your struggle on behalf of human dignity.

And to Americans: This Independence Day weekend, if you watch one film worthy of Abe’s message, make it “The Stoning of Soraya M.” Details of the movie — and where it’s playing — are here.

Equally saddening is that self-professed human rights activists in the West often play the purity game, suggesting that you can’t comment if don’t represent. Their point: Anyone living in the West can’t legitimately expose oppressive practices in cultures elsewhere.

Would they say the same to Muslims in the traditional Islamic world who expose human rights abuses at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib? Of course not.

Nor should they. Human rights, being human, are above the politics of identity. Or should be. As Martin Luther King pointed out in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, “Never again can we afford to live with narrow, parochial ‘outside agitator’ idea.”

But it seems that Elise Aurbach, Iran specialist for Amnesty International USA, can more than live with the narrow and parochial. She practices it in her baffling post about The Stoning of Soraya M, a gorgeously produced indie flick that’s coming out in America today (and being distributed in the Middle East soon). The film depicts a young Iranian mother who’s framed by her husband and stoned to death by her village.

Tellingly, Amnesty itself released a report last year that described stonings as “grotesque and unacceptable”. In its press release about the report, Amnesty called on “the Iranian authorities to abolish death by stoning and impose an immediate moratorium on this horrific practice, specifically designed to increase the suffering of victims.”

In her remarkably contradictory review of The Stoning of Soraya M — a review in which she acknowledges the report — Auberbach emphasizes that “Iranians don’t need people from outside Iran telling them what is good for them…”

Really? Then why did her own organization dare to tell Iranian authorities what to do?

And why did Amnesty feature The Stoning of Soraya M at its film festival only two days ago?

Above all, why did Amnesty invite Cyrus Nowrasteh, the Iranian-American director of Soraya, to introduce this film at their festival? Is it because he’s Iranian? If so, then what makes him an “outsider” to Auerbach?

Of course, he’s American too. In which case, isn’t Auerbach’s employer — the London-based Amnesty — complicit in promoting interference by outsiders?

Within its own ranks, Amnesty International needs an intellectually honest debate about how to realize its motto, “Defending Human Rights Worldwide.” Personally, I can attest that more than a few Amnesty activists worry about the scourge of moral and cultural relativism in their midst. That’s the single biggest concern confided to me when I presented at Amnesty’s 2006 biennial conference in Mexico City. Delegates disclosed that the organization has no clear message about honor-based crimes, including stoning, because nobody wants to be deemed a bigot. As if defending human rights worldwide has ever been a matter of politeness.

It’s 2009 and apparently, Amnesty has not resolved its dilemma. Auerbach condemns a movie that spotlights an Iranian heroine who tries to stop the stoning; a Muslim who realizes her faith by speaking truth to power about the need for human dignity.

And yet, according to Auerbach, hapless audience dupes will respond with “disgust and revulsion at Iranians themselves, who are portrayed as primitive and bloodthirsty savages.” Thus, “we” — idiot Westerners who can’t be trusted to reach independent conclusions — “still have to wait” for a “thoughtful” film that about executions in Iran.

I hope we don’t have to wait for thoughtful members of Amnesty International to speak truth to power in their organization. I know that dissidents exist. Whether they’ll exercise their basic human right to freedom of conscience — that I don’t know. Moral courage is always more difficult than self-censorship.