I thought an interesting part of the debate was when they agreed on the issue of gay-marriage/civil unions. It may have been my imagination, but I got a vibe of "that can't be right" from Palin.

I thought that too.

Did y'all notice that she was about 2 syllables away from saying "I have a gay friend!" ? I seriously thought she was going there.

I would have peed. my. pants.

she did go there in the Couric interview.

There is also a mindset of a certain type of religion-spouting Christian that emphasizes the "personal relationship with God". They appear to look down on the idea that a community of believers lead by persons who have studied the texts in a formal way is necessary or even beneficial. It is another side of the anti-intellectual coin. They do not need others telling them what their God means or thinks is right, they know.

Without the anti-intellectual part, this is a good definition of Gnosticism. Which was frowned upon (to say the least) by the early Christian church. They were religious "mavericks" who felt that they could become closer to God through self-study of the biblical texts and the writings of Jesus. A hierarchical church structure was often anathema to their understanding of their faith.

Of course, they read stuff. Which I don't think Bush or Palin are even capable of doing. At least, in Bush's case, not above the level of "My Pet Goat".

she did go there in the Couric interview.

That's why I thought she'd pull it out again in the debate, the way she pulled out the "I know how hard it is to raise a family!" card.

They appear to look down on the idea that a community of believers lead by persons who have studied the texts in a formal way is necessary.

Well, that's a big part of what the Protestant Reformation was about, so yeah. I don't know that it's fair to characterize the concept that as anti-intellectual.

Of course, they read stuff. Which I don't think Bush or Palin are even capable of doing. At least, in Bush's case, not above the level of "My Pet Goat".

How can you say that? She reads ALL the newspapers and magazines!

ALL of them.

They were religious "mavericks" who felt that they could become closer to God through self-study of the biblical texts and the writings of Jesus. A hierarchical church structure was often anathema to their understanding of their faith.

Yeah, I think the "study" part is where that comparison falls apart.

Although Baptists continue to not believe in a hierarchical church structure, for what that's worth.

Without the anti-intellectual part, this is a good definition of Gnosticism. Which was frowned upon (to say the least) by the early Christian church. They were religious "mavericks" who felt that they could become closer to God through self-study of the biblical texts and the writings of Jesus. A hierarchical church structure was often anathema to their understanding of their faith.

Of course, they read stuff.

My ex-FAC was like that. They were (I assume they still are) VERY into inductive bible study, researching the Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew roots of the words to see how accurate the English translations are, etc.

And that was a big part of what I liked about them -- they *read* stuff, they researched it, they didn't just passively assent to dogma.

Except....I truly think only a small handful actually read and researched, and then they twisted the results to match what they wanted to believe anyway, and then the rest of the church *did* passively assent, but they could claim that their beliefs were the result of lots of studying. Just not their own studying.

Conclusion: people who read can still be assholes. Assholes in the name of Jesus.

She reads ALL the newspapers and magazines!

ALL of them.

Laughing at Beetle Bailey because you don't understand it doesn't count.

Nor Hagar the Horrible.

"Oh, Andy Capp, you wife-beating drunk..."