Dumb Religion, Dumb Politics?

(A note:  after having written the following post -- I found that it was really a stream of consciousness -- thoughts and questions -- some conclusions -- and more questions.  There really is no absolute coherence.  So be warned -- and my apologies.  Perhaps I will distill them in another post.)

I start today's post with a question:

Why does intelligence and sophistication seem to get a bad rap these days?  And in particular -- my areas of interest -- why do they seem to be frowned upon in politics (per Palin) and especially in religion?

I'll talk politics first.  There seems to be some sort of attraction by some American's to Palin's brand of "Joe Sixpack" sentimentality.  For me, she conjures up images of Rednecks in pickups with bumper stickers displaying their political and religious proclivities.  (This image comes to me from a Family Guy episode where Peter decides to become a Redneck.  He paints an image on the truck with the words, "We support our troops and fetuses.")  Now, this is an extreme image, I know.  But I wonder why it is that Americans are attracted to the "average joe" to lead their nation in complex and often dangerous matters.  

I realize the hockey mom thing has its appeal, but to lead the nation?  To look Putin in the eye as he "rears his head"?  To solve complex economic problems like the storm now hitting the nation?  Do I really want someone like me to lead the nation -- not to mention leading the free world in some matters?

Palin's ineptitude is clear, as far as I'm concerned.  I think she has shown that herself.  But that's not my purpose here -- my purpose is to ask, what is her appeal?  Why is the charge of "elite" leveled as if having an "elite" leader is a negative?  Do we not want someone who is elite, at least in some senses leading us?  

I wonder where the "elite" charges come from as far as Obama is concerned?  Is it because he went to Harvard?  Or his many other intellectual accomplishments?  Is it because he is liberal -- which tends to be associated with intellectual elitism?  

Now, this is not meant to be an endorsement of Obama over McCain -- although I enthusiastically support Obama -- in part because of what I consider to be his superior judgment and intellectual abilities, and in part because of the abysmal Republican social and foreign policies.  What I mean to ask here is:  Why the attraction to "average" over "elite"?  

I suspect it is this -- and not really an attraction to average over elite after all -- but a re-ignition of the culture wars -- primarily by Palin.  The "elite" represent a liberal -- dare I say liberated -- culture.  "Joe Sixpack" represents something else -- the everyday average person who is not liberal -- the conservative -- who is under threat from the liberal elite.  I guess, after all, it is a power struggle -- who will have influence over the culture -- influence over the policies of the nation -- and ultimately our place in the global community. 

So, is it ultimately the pursuit of an ideal of equality -- the common man controls his or her own destiny?  Or, is it ultimately the pursuit of control -- of power -- of who will have the dominating influence?

I will put forward that I think Palin's sentiment is ultimately one of control -- since I think that her bent of conservatism moves to limit the freedom of individuals -- and I think this is guided by her religious beliefs . . . which leads me to the next question . . . 

Why is intellectual pursuit often frowned upon by religious persons?  I will not rant at length here, but simply make some observations and raise a few questions.

I can only speak from my own experience here -- which is extensive where religion is concerned.  Most will know I attended seminary, and many will know that my faith changed as a result of my pursuits there.  Some of these were welcomed by some -- some were seriously questioned.  What I would like to point out is that often I find that the use of the mind is frowned upon in many religious circles.  

I can recall from my own experience that seminary was considered a bad option by many of my church leaders in college -- now leaders of the somewhat famous -- or infamous -- Antioch Community Church in Waco, Texas.  Instruction from "scholars" was not important -- even considered evil by some -- and I will say that at one time I shared this sentiment.

This is by no means limited to that community.  It exists in many places -- in many churches.  What I would like to suggest is that the same sentiment mentioned above is also at work in religion -- that of control -- of the established culture, doctrine, church being challenged -- being under threat by another way of thought.

So, after this ramble -- I am wondering -- why does conservatism, be it political or religious, tend toward a less than favorable approach to intellectual pursuit -- or perhaps a better word is intellectual exploration.  I am not suggesting that conservatism prefers dumb people -- the title of my post was meant to attract readers.  Is conservatism the enemy of such exploration -- and is it open to correction?  Fundamentalism of this type should be, I think -- be it conservative or liberal fundamentalism.  And I really want to ask this question -- why do the more intellectually "elite" places tend to put out more "liberal" thinking persons -- be they religious or political?  I mean, Harvard, the University of Chicago, and dare I say Emory don't seem to be cranking out the Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons, and Joel Osteens of the world.  Is there a reason that those who attend the best schools are more liberal????? (Generally, at least.)  I suppose it is up for grabs as to which schools are the best -- but they are the most difficult to attend.  I am wondering . . . . . . . . . 

The Beginning of the Blog

Hello folks,

Well, thanks to a relatively sleepless night, I've set up this little spot as a repository for some thoughts and expressions.  I've been thinking about it for some time, and after a little encouragement, I've decided to begin.  I'm not sure what sort of shape I think this little project will take -- I suspect I will talk a lot about religion, and my own journey of faith and thought . . . I suspect a healthy dose of politics will be involved, especially with the election upon us in 4 weeks . . . I suspect that my posts will range from inconsequential musings to attempts at philosophical sophistication.  So, I think that what will emerge will be a sort of auto-biographical smattering -- like my life as a Jackson Pollock painting -- although perhaps not so interesting or substantial.

So, I should say a bit about why . . . .  Well, for those who have come across my Facebook profile, you will probably immediately recognize the impulse, per my incessant status updates filled with propaganda.  For some time, I suppose, I have wanted to, in some form, write down my own intellectual and spiritual journey -- and I hope to accomplish this is some form through writing about whatever comes across the path here.  Sometimes I just want to say things -- sometimes to explain myself, sometimes to convince others, and even sometimes to pick a fight (I bet that an inquiry into that "fight" bit will find its way here).  I also hope to create a few interesting conversations between myself and whoever might read this -- I miss my days as an aspiring theologian.  

Now, a word about the Title of the Blog . . . some of you may recognize this as having been adapted from Martin Gardner's "The Flight of Peter Fromm."  I read this book in seminary at Emory University in a New Testament class.  It shook me.  I'm not sure exactly why reading it was such a powerful experience for me -- maybe it was because I saw myself in Peter -- maybe it was because it tackled some of the same questions that I was having and had in the time leading up to it -- maybe because of its (at least what seemed so at the time) razor sharp theological discourse embedded in a fictional narrative.  

I should tell you more about the book -- and because I am lazy and cannot remember the details, I will let Wikipedia explain a little about Gardner and the book: 

"Gardner has had an abiding fascination in religious belief. He has written repeatedly about what public figures such as [[Robert Maynard Hutchins]], [[Mortimer Adler]], and [[William F. Buckley, Jr.]] believed and whether their beliefs were [[logically consistent]]. In some cases, he has attacked prominent religious figures such as [[Mary Baker Eddy]] on the grounds that their claims are unsupportable. His semi-autobiographical novel ''The Flight of Peter Fromm'' depicts a traditionally Protestant Christian man struggling with his faith, examining 20th century scholarship and intellectual movements and ultimately rejecting Christianity while remaining a theist. He describes his own belief as philosophical [[theism]] inspired by the theology of the philosopher [[Miguel de Unamuno]]. While critical of organized religions, Gardner believes in God, claiming that this belief cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed by reason. At the same time, he is skeptical of claims that God has communicated with human beings through spoken or telepathic [[revelation]] or through [[miracle]]s in the natural world." from Wikipedia, entry "The Flight of Peter Fromm.

Thus, The Flight of Vance West.

Now, I can already anticipate some reaction from what I just posted about the book -- and I should say that I am not using the book AS my autobiography -- I am just drawing some parallels. Whether or not I agree with Garnder's beliefs is not illustrated by my use of the title. Probably, for anyone who might be interested in them, my beliefs will show up in the posts, I am sure. And some of them will maybe get worked out as I think and write -- and am hopefully engaged by a couple of you about different ideas.

So, for those who are so inclined, please leave comments if a particular post strikes anything in you -- thanks for reading.