The Left’s Righteous Mind

The Left’s Righteous Mind April 24, 2012

Interesting study that belies the conviction of so many Lefties about their open-mindedness–conducted by an honest Lefty.

It certainly comports with my experience here in ultra-violet Blue Seattle. I suspect there are Mississippi Klansmen more open to new ideas and the blandishments of reality than some of the Lefties I’ve worked with at the University of Washington. I remember one woman handing me a book catalog full of stuff like the Federalist Papers and the writings of the Founding Fathers and her sole concern was not the actual content of the books, but simply whether or not the publisher was “conservative”. She had an absolutely primitive and visceral fear of contracting ritual impurity if The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin was purchased from a publisher with the wrong tribal allegiances.

What concerns me is these days is how often I am seeing representatives of the Thing that Used to be Conservativism emulating that poisonous Identity Politics. Sufficient sanity remains in the conservative worldview to act as an anti-viral agent against it. But it bothers me that not a few conservatives are indulging in it. Still, as a general rule, it remains the Left that, for all its embrace of secularism and scorn of all sincere religious belief as “fundamentalist intolerance”, is the home to the most rigidly intolerant personalities, as well as those heirs of Puritanism most impelled by their serene sense of rectitude to fix–by force–those of us who do not subscribe to the True Faith (in abortion, homosexuality, contraception, etc.).

Speaking of which, in the land of apostate puritans that used to be England, they are trying to force churches to marry gays, while here in the US, the Righteous Left pledges to force the Church to perform abortions. When you are part of the Elect of the Zeitgeist, you receive irresistible grace to make war on the totally depraved, and because you are predestined to win, you can use any means necessary to achieve your ends. The real heart and soul of Calvin beats, not in Evangelical churches, but in the post- (and anti-) Christian Left.

"I'm so, so sorry that happened to you.I dodged so many bullets I can't believe ..."

Repeating myself for the umpteenth time ..."
"I looked at your lovely icon of Jesus --there, to STFU.Jesus-STFUKind of sums things up. ..."

Repeating myself for the umpteenth time ..."
"I like it! Alternately, when presented with left and right ideas and asked which I ..."

Fr. Frank Pavone, Apostle of the ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Nate

    J. Haidt’s book is the sort of thing that makes a liberal’s head explode. It not only destroys their myths about themselves, but it uses science to do it.

  • I’ve read Haidt’s “The Happiness Hypothesis” before and am looking forward to this one. As much as he allies with the left he possesses that quality so rare in leftists, a clear-headed ability to lead with facts rather than assumptions or emotions.

  • Lauran

    What sort of a “progressive, “open” mind advocates the killing of babes, the sick, the infirm, and the elderly?

    Get real, reality-deficients–you’re as debauched as you are delusional. And you all know who you are.

    • I think you are misunderstanding what the left wants. The left doesn’t want to kill babies, it just wants for women to decide for themselves what to do with them, the left doesn’t want to kill the elderly, they just want to give the option to families and the patient to decide whether it’s okay to take their life.

      • Mark Shea

        Do you even listen to yourself?

        • What the left wants is very different from actually advocating it. Just because the left is pro-choice, doesn’t mean they want women to be aborting frequently. It’s just like the right, they want to legalize death penalty but that doesn’t mean they are advocating killing.

          • Mark Shea

            Of *course* they are advocating killing. What does frequency have to do with it? And millions each year is frequent. Do you even listen to yourself?

            • They want to allow abortion so that women can decide whether or not have a baby that might suffer more if he or she was born, and because it saves the woman the trouble to have a baby they don’t want or that endangers the life of the mother. It’s very different than just “go abort, we don’t care”, they just want to give women the right to their bodies. I’m pretty sure a lib would tell you that aborting for superficial reasons is wrong.

              • Mark Shea

                You’re still not listening to yourself. You can’t face the fact that abortion is killing a baby. And here in America it’s done for any reason or no reason. It’s done as a form of birth control. It’s done because the baby is inconvenient. And it is now being argued that baby can be killed post-partum. You are defending murder. There are no good reasons for murder.

                • It’s not killing specially if it is done in the first weeks, where it is still too small. Abortion is bad, but not exactly murder. Look, I don’t support abortion just for birth control, but if the woman cannot take care of the baby because of many factors, or the baby endangers the life of the mother during pregnancy, or it is the result of rape, then the woman has the right to abort and that would be much better than giving the baby an awful life. Also, you have to consider that we are facing overpopulation at this moment. I didn’t know people think that the baby can now be killed post partum though. I read an article once but I thought the author was just trolling.

                  • Ah, and allowing abortion would stop all those illegal abortion clinics and channels.

                    • Mark Shea

                      Ah. Well. As long as the murder is *legal* that’s all that matters.

                  • Mark Shea

                    So you favor murder if it’s done for the right reasons. Do you favor killing people who have awful lives right now? Why do only babies get this favor done for them. Can I kill you if I think your life is an unhappy one, or if I think there is a good statistical likelihood it will turn out unhappily for you?

                    • Rmichael

                      Careful Mr. Shea, someone whose grasp on reality is as fickle as alejandro’s may take your statement at face value and agree with it.

                    • Illegal abortion clinics do alot of harm to women and legalizing abortion would stop them. Abortion iss different than killing a full grown person because the fetus is not a person yet. I only support abortion in the first three months only though, but I do understand why women would want to abort. I don’t like that they abort, but it is better to have abortion as legal because of the aformentioned reasons, even if it’s only in the first trimester.

                    • Mark Shea

                      Define person.

                    • Someone with concience and who is already out of a woman’s womb.

                    • Mark Shea

                      So you support infanticide. After all, a baby has no conscience. Or do you mean “consciousness”? Babies lack that too, for the most part. (That’s why some philosophers are arguing that we can kill them.) So does an unconscious person. Do you favor murdering sleeping or comatose people? And what is magical about being out of the womb? You said earlier you only support first trimester abortion. Do you now think a baby should have scissor driven through her brain at birth, just so long as she is not fully born (our President in America does).

                    • Mark Shea

                      And, by the way, if you did mean consciousness, do you really think you are qualified to make life or death decisions about other people when you cannot even make elementary distinctions about crucially important terms you use as the basis for murdering them. In a few hours, you will be unconscious. Can I therefore murder you with impunity?

                    • You may be right about conscience, but the fact remains that many women don’t think that way and would try to abort even if it’s not legal, so they probably would try in illegal clinics where they have poor equipment and high risk of disease and bad procedures. That’s why we need to legalize abortion.

                    • Mark Shea

                      Should all acts of murder be legalized since “people will try them anyway”? And you still haven’t defined what a person is, because you have not yet even distinguished between “conscience” and “consciousness”. Which do you mean? Whichever you choose, do you therefore favor infanticide and child murder up to the age of reason? If not, why not. Listen to yourself. All you are doing is parrotting slogans from the media.

                    • You seem to neglect that illegal clinics also bring damage to women in general, it makes a damage to society. Making abortion illegal would make women who want to abort to resort to this kind of clinics where they risk death or injuries. You seem to also neglect that this just as much about the mother as about the child. You can’t deny women their right to choose. If she is raped and gets pregnant, does she have to stand 9 months for a child she doesn’t want, that she probably would give to adoption and who could have an awful life? You have to remember that pregnancy is a huge load and it’s bothersome and could also give heath complications to the woman.
                      Also, you wouldn’t accept abortion even when the child endangers the life of the woman? I thought pro-lifers did agree in this position.

                    • Mark Shea

                      You seem to be unwilling to engage the question “Define ‘person'”. Why is that?

                    • Because I already conceded that point.

                    • Mark Shea

                      You conceded that you have no idea what a person is, but you are ready to kill somebody in your ignorance?

              • Andy, Bad Person

                I’m pretty sure a lib would tell you that aborting for superficial reasons is wrong.

                Why? This is an important conversation, because I agree with you. Most liberals would say that aborting for superficial reasons is wrong. The question remains: why? If there’s nothing wrong with abortion, then we should encourage it like tooth cleaning, even for the most superficial of reasons.

                It’s almost like there’s some sort of natural law tugging at their consciences, letting them know that it’s wrong…

                • Because abortion is wrong in some instances and acceptable in others. In rape cases and when the fetus endangers the life of the mother, for example, it is acceptable.

                  • Mark Shea

                    So now you oppose the overwhelming majority if first trimester abortions? You don’t seem to know what you are talking about.

                • Mark Shea

                  Correct. If there’s nothing wrong with abortion, there’s nothing wrong with abortion and frequency or reasons for it are completely irrelevant. Nobody says that taking a walk for “superficial reasons” is wrong. Nobody cares. It’s a morally neutral act. But abortion is not morally neutral. It’s evil because it’s killing an innocent human being. Apologists have to make up excuses for it and gingerly talk about keeping it “safe, legal, and rare” because everybody know it’s murder that they are trying to excuse.

  • Andy

    A different take on this topic an interesting article comparing conservative and liberal brains. I don’t know if it is true, but I also don’t know if the test you cite is true either.

  • Alejandro,

    I had one of those awful childhoods you fear subjecting people to.

    May I suggest, if you believe this planet to be overpopulated …

    …You first!!!