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 . . . . . . . . .