But aside from suggesting that evangelicalism isn't *quite* as intellectually benighted across the board as some would argue, my main point was to observe that it can be just as dangerous and un-tolerated to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy at Berkley or Wellesley, as it is at Gordon or Wheaton. David said it well in comment #26. Neither side has a monopoly on closed-mindedness. The question is rather which ideas their minds are closed toward. We're really talking about a human trait – not just a conservative or evangelical trait.

there was very little tolerance in these places for asking (let alone attempting to answer) the difficult questions many thinking persons have about mainstream theology. maybe all that's changed since my time and that would be great. but from what i hear from time to time, that doesn't seem to be the case.

in any regard, until places like Kansas stop trying to replace Biology books with the first two chapters of Genesis, i can't imagine present day protestantism promoting genuine intellectualism. yes, some of us on the fringe are trying, but we hardly are anything remotely like representative of the main cultural thrust of the movement. the protestantism that built the academic backbone of this country was -the- driving cultural force of its day. the protestantism of today is one of two or three driving forces and none of them are particularly intellectual.

I'm struck by how everyone seems to be saying the same sentiment with different labels.

Sure Mike, anti-intellectualism and/or closed-mindedness occur in some form within any institution, even those that pride themselves on their open-mindedness and intellectualism. That is true whether you are talking about Wheaton or Wellesley. Challenging the prevailing orthodoxy in either place could be hazardous. Going to Wheaton for undergrad and a secular college for grad school I encountered closed-mindedness in both places, from different directions; even though both places were also full of interesting people, stimulating discussions and vigorous exchanges of ideas.

And no, saying "the other side does it too" doesn't make it right. Of course not. But standing and loudly decrying one side's doing of "it" as if the problem lay with "that side" rather than with a tendency found in human nature as a whole with both sides equally guilty, runs the risk of losing credibility with anyone not already on your side. How can I see to remove the speck in my brother's eye . . .

Minnow also makes a good distinction between being educated (knowing a lot of things) vs. being taught to think critically. There are lots of educated people, both conservative and liberal, who lack the ability to think critically and deeply – or if they have that ability at least don't seem to practice it much.

I have certainly heard the sort of statements that Julie has experienced, but there is a correlary just as common from the liberal camp, and that is the idea that to vote Republican means you have no brain.

Democrats have been characterizing those who vote Republican as uneducated as long as I can remember, which is about the last 20 years of elections. This has become one of their favorite methods of subtly denouncing Republicans. But I suspect this assertion is a fallacy – as far as I can tell, it is working class (low educaiton level) and extreme upper class (generally highly educated) that tend to vote Republican. The Democrat demographics are generally urban low income (hence low education) and upper-middle class (generally well educated).

It would be nice if we were able to "be convinced in our own mind" without having to make judgements on the motives of others for voting the way they do.