The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This is a fascinating book. Right away, I feel like this book had as much influence on the way I see the world and the people in it as Guns, Germs, and Steel. My first impulse is to say that this should be required readings for all Americans (at least).

This is a psychology book about Moral Psychology. Not only is the subject fascinating, but the book is very well written and very easy to understand. Haidt summarizes each chapter at the end and it doesn’t feel patronizing and it helped me retain a lot of points he was trying to make.

Here’s a very short summary of what this book talks about: He begins by discussing human morality and how it’s driven very much “from the gut” with the brain (reason) following closely behind and making post-hoc explanations of a person’s moral “instincts.” He explains why reason doesn’t really drive a person’s moral outlook. He also explains that we are 90% chimp (self-serving) and 10% bee (cooperative, hive-minded, group-serving) and that (evolutionary) group selection is real and works along with natural selection on an individual basis to make us who we are.

He also explains there there is more to morality than worrying about whether your actions harm someone else or not. There, actually, are 6 aspects to the moral foundation: care/harm, liberty/oppression, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. Interestingly, he’s found that (in the USA) politically left-leaning people mainly operate on the care/harm and liberty/oppression scales, while right-leaning people operate on all 6, showing one of the main differences between liberals and conservatives.

He’s politically liberal, but really does want to understand both sides and feels that it’s important for everyone to make this effort if we are to bring this country back to a place where we can all work together to solve our collective problems. Everyone has valuable things to bring to the table (even Libertarians and Republicans!) and we need to be aware of this. It’s like yin and yang.

There is so much more, but I recommend this book to EVERYONE. If we were all to understand each other better we could have a civil discourse. (see http://www.civilpolitics.org/).

View all my reviews

I need an explanation. Maybe I am just not getting it. Maybe I am insensitive. Maybe I just don’t understand. But I need an explanation. I need someone to explain to me what is at the root of the issue with the building of Park51, the muslim community center and mosque.

A man named Mike Lupica, who writes a column for the New York Daily News says, “Ground Zero mosque debate is about common sense, sensitivity to 9/11 vics, not religious freedom.” In this column, written August 16, he spends a lot of words chiding President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg for trying to tell the American people what is right and wrong and very little explaining his thesis. He quotes Bonnie McEneaney, a woman who lost a loved one on September 11th. She says, “The question isn’t about [first amendment rights]. The question is about sensitivity. To me, this is solely about sensitivity, the feelings of the friends and relatives who lost loved ones on 9/11.” Then, in his own words at the end of the piece, he says, “Everything Bloomberg and Barack Obama say about this sounds right. But if the only constituency that matters here – the ones left behind by the victims of Sept. 11 – think they’re wrong, they are.”

He has two points that I can read here: 1) The issue is about sensitivity to the victims’ families. 2) If the victims’ families do not want Park51 built, then it should not be built. In other words, they get to decide.

Newt Gingrich, via Twitter, refers us to a column by Charles Krauthammer at The Washington Post. Mr. Krauthammer, again, cites reasons of “common decency.” He uses the common tactic of comparing the situation to Pearl Harbor or the site of a Nazi concentration camp. But the argument boils down to the same thing. When comparing to Pearl Harbor he says, “…while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.” But he doesn’t say why. Why would that be offensive? I think it would be a useful mental exercise to put into words the answer to that question. Why would it be offensive to have a Japanese cultural center near Pearl Harbor? I want to hear the answer to that question.

What are the “profound reasons of common decency” that prevent the building of an islamic cultural center near the site of the attacks on September 11th, 2001? I would like to read those reasons articulated.

What I am hearing right now is a response something like, “if you don’t know now, I can’t explain it to you.” But I think the argument deserves a real explanation.

What is under the surface of the opposition is not just opposition to the building of Park51, but opposition to Islam; opposition to the muslim faith. What else can be read from the arguments? One has to guess what is meant because the arguments are not fully formed. The arguments are incomplete. There has to be a reason that building the community center is offensive. What is that reason?

I am more than willing to have an open discussion with anyone who is interested. I want to know the answers to my questions. This is more about understanding the opposition to the project for me than entering into a debate about whether or not Park51 should be built. Because, I think that the First Amendment rights extended to all Americans are indisputable.

UPDATE:

House Republican John Boehner says: “This is not an issue of law, whether religious freedom or local zoning.  This is a basic issue of respect for a tragic moment in our history.” This skirts the issue again. He’s depending on people to just agree with him or not ask him any questions. Here’s the question: How does that respect look? (I assume by not building the community center.) Then the question is: Why does respect for that tragic moment in our history have to involve not building a mosque?

The Republican Whip, Eric Cantor said, “I think it is the height of insensitivity, and unreasonableness to allow for the construction of a mosque on the site of the World Trade Center bombings. I mean, come on.” Why is it insensitive or unreasonable? Please answer. I want to hear the reason.

I got this “Benefit Update Rider” from my health insurance company last week. They are willing to recognize same-sex marriage as long as the jurisdiction recognizes it. They can adapt, why can’t everyone adapt?

Cheers to Vermont and Iowa (with a belated shame-on-you to California)! Like Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, says in this NYTimes article, “Contrary to the claims made by the opponents of equality, it’s not just judges, it’s not just the coasts, and it’s not just going away.” It is not going away. We can’t ignore this issue or hope that it will go away any longer. Nor can we infringe upon civil rights by banning same-sex marriage.

This issue is just another link in the long chain of civil rights changes that our country has gone through, is going through, and will go through. This one just happens to be the one we’re dealing with now. We’ve abolished slavery, given all citizens a right to vote (both for all colors and sexes), and now we are working through this one. Same sex marriage will be allowed in all states in our country eventually; that, I believe, is inevitable. Those who are trying to stop it will eventually lose this battle. Those who wished to continue slavery lost their battle. Those who wished to prevent blacks form voting lost their battle. Those that wished to prevent women from voting lost their battle. Those that wish to prevent same-sex marriage will lose their battle.

What is the argument against? It is that allowing same-sex marriage will harm the institution of marriage. That, somehow, that institution is threatened. The National Organization for Marriage says on it’s website:

“Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

This is simply a non-answer. “That is just not right”? What is? Please explain.

NOM has launched an ad campaign that you can read about (and see an ad) here. Naturally it’s playing the “fear” card and trying to induce behavior by making people scared. There were statements to the affect of “they want to take away my freedom” but with no explanation how or what that even means. Again, this is a non-argument.

The argument (at least purported by NOM) is that we don’t want gay marriage because our faith tells us that marriage is between a man and a women. But it stops there. Why is that important? What harm will same-sex marriages cause to anyone else? Isn’t this just a metaphysics issue?

Let’s start to build a list of people who will eventually lose their battle:

• Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage
• “Euripides” who runs the blog “Self Evident Truths“