Moral Imperatives

Taking the middle ground can be trying at times. It is the no-man's-land of political and moral debates across which everyone with an opinion will launch their attacks. And squarely in the middle I sit. I wonder sometimes if choosing a side, be it Democrat or Republican, Right or Left wing, would at least offer me some variety of protection. At the very least, I could add the strength of numbers, but it would require me to adopt party-line politics which I could not stomach.

One of the many issues with occupying popularly unclaimed territory is that it appears lazy and lacking conviction. Those who are not choosing a side are often referred to as "neutral", when I am in fact anything but neutral. Neutrality requires disinterest. My interest runs so deep that I cannot hide behind a banner of any political party because the issues on which we DO agree are sufficiently countermanded by other, unfathomable, policies that I cannot in good conscience accept the status quo that accompanies the affiliation. No, the middle ground takes a great deal more effort than just picking a side.

During a recent discussion about the decision by Girl Scouts of America to allow a transgendered child who identifies herself as a girl to join a Colorado troop, I was called a "narrow-minded Republican". I earned this title, not because I disagreed with GSUSA (whose decision I vocally supported), but because I supported the right of three Louisianan troops to disband in protest. My detractors, and be sure there are many, had quite a few things to say on the topic, but one caught my interest.

"Bigotry and prejudice, especially when they manifest in ways leading to inequality and economic oppression, are not merely differing opinions... we have a moral imperative to stand against them." - J. W.

Moral imperatives are a variety of 'categorical imperative' first proposed by Immanuel Kant. By his definition, an imperative is a necessary action, and a Moral Imperative is one which does not consider consequences in its grounding. In other words, Moral action must be done for its sake alone, and not to support a desired outcome. To stand against bigotry and prejudice BECAUSE they lead to inequality and economic oppression is not moral and denies free rational action.

The moral imperative, in my humble view, is to preserve the free will of all parties, no matter their view point. As detestable as it may be for persons to demand the exclusion of anyone for any basis (as the three Troops in Louisiana did), it is more so to oppress the free will of any party by nature of their dissent. And this is the conundrum of middle-ground. For me to demand respect, I must first give it. And even though I don't share the imperative of the Religious Right, I must protect and defend their right have it, because without it, my own free will must be sacrificed.

This does not mean that I support discrimination. No, it is a vile and poisonous thing to me. But Sir Isaac Newton's First Law of Motion may be brought in to play when it is inevitably encountered. There will be times when persons of deliberate ignorance will do hateful things, and in those moments we must be deliberately open. When those people who would turn away a little girl by virtue of her genetic manifestation push, we must not push back. No, we must absorb.

Imagine for a moment that you are trying to push yourself away from a brick wall, but every time you extend your arms, the wall simply gives. Your action is absorbed and rendered completely impotent. So, in my view, must it be with bigotry and prejudice. An ineffective crusade will be soon abandoned, and the only way to defeat one of hate is to give it no purchase.

We often refer to this country as the "land of the free". For it to be so, all viewpoints must be allowed to exist, for if one is stamped out because it fails the imperatives of perfect duty, our own imperatives fail as well.

So here I sit, in the middle ground, not because it is comfortable or easy. I occupy this space by informed choice, because the slings and arrows may be sufferable, whereas the alternatives are not.