GOP has spent decades rebranding knowledge as elitism and ignorance as bliss

[136or142]

The highlighted portion was NOT an ongoing assumption.  Perhaps Mr. Tomasky isn't as well-read as he asserts, at least not about Justice William O. Douglas:  "We are a Religious People Whose Institutions Presuppose a Supreme Being."  (Zorach v. Clausen)  THAT was a presumption of our Republic until the secular liberals (at least some of them) of the 1970s and beyond worked tirelessly to reverse.  They, too, have been successful.

The result of all of this is a progressively Godless America where there seems to be no check whatsoever on unbridled sexuality or unbridled greed.  The 1% that grow richer by the say are no longer have their greed bound by the presupposition of a Supreme Being in our institutions any more than the radical feminists and LGBT activists.  Nowadays, we can be dead broke so the Walton Family can break records, but we can marry someone of the same gender if we can scrape up enough money for Kim Davis to issue us a marriage license that doesn't have her name on it.  You tell me if removing the presupposition of a Supreme Being has been this liberating thing.

I think your analysis is clearly wrong in that many of the most greedy and their non wealthy enablers ARE religious.  I simply don't believe you're not familiar with the Puritan Prosperity Gospel (and other similar Protestant views.)  You and I might disagree on the significance of that religious belief on politics, but it certainly exists.  I think the impact of this religious view on America is Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuge.

[136or142]

The highlighted portion was NOT an ongoing assumption.  Perhaps Mr. Tomasky isn't as well-read as he asserts, at least not about Justice William O. Douglas:  "We are a Religious People Whose Institutions Presuppose a Supreme Being."  (Zorach v. Clausen)  THAT was a presumption of our Republic until the secular liberals (at least some of them) of the 1970s and beyond worked tirelessly to reverse.  They, too, have been successful.

The result of all of this is a progressively Godless America where there seems to be no check whatsoever on unbridled sexuality or unbridled greed.  The 1% that grow richer by the say are no longer have their greed bound by the presupposition of a Supreme Being in our institutions any more than the radical feminists and LGBT activists.  Nowadays, we can be dead broke so the Walton Family can break records, but we can marry someone of the same gender if we can scrape up enough money for Kim Davis to issue us a marriage license that doesn't have her name on it.  You tell me if removing the presupposition of a Supreme Being has been this liberating thing.

I think your analysis is clearly wrong in that many of the most greedy and their non wealthy enablers ARE religious.  I simply don't believe you're not familiar with the Puritan Prosperity Gospel (and other similar Protestant views.)  You and I might disagree on the significance of that religious belief on politics, but it certainly exists.  I think the impact of this religious view on America is Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuge.

This has nothing to do with the Puritans.  As a member of a church that holds the Puritans in high esteem, I grew up constantly hearing that prosperity preachers were heretics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This, in fact it may be the majority.  I'm tired of how media coverage of Evangelicals is almost always negative.  The preachers at the churches I've attended weren't getting rich.

1.The 'Prosperity Gospel' started with the Puritans.  It has been adapted by Evangelicals in an even more extreme form.

2.If you have, for instance, 10 churches with 100 members each, and 1 mega church with 10,000 members, which is bigger?

https://aleteia.org/2017/02/03/blessed-are-the-winners-the-uniquely-american-prosperity-gospel-tradition/

3.I'm tired of 'Christians' whining how they're always persecuted.

[136or142]

First off, Puritanism was a broad movement with its distinctive characteristics being Calvinism and Congregationalism.

Second, the Prosperity Gospel derives mainly from the Arminian strand of Protestant thought.

Third, pretty much every major Christian group, Catholics included, have held that a Godly people will be blessed, but the perversion of that into Godly persons will be materially blessed is a fairly recent one.

So connecting it specifically with the Puritans is ludicrous.

I simply disagree. I think there is no question that the concept of 'the rich deserve to be rich because they have been blessed by God' started in the United States with the Puritans.  Maybe the entire Puritanical movement didn't agree with that view, but I don't think there is any question regarding the basic facts over this.

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/27/12289062/why-would-evangelicals-support-trump-in-america-the-money-cult-rules


The "Weber thesis," as it’s known in scholarly shorthand, presented a key insight into the spiritual logic of capitalist accumulation in early America: By overthrowing — and demonizing — the vast religious bureaucracy by which Old World Catholicism had organized the worldly system of reward and punishment to uphold upright moral conduct, the Puritans who founded the colonies put the spiritual power to remake the world directly in the hands of ardent Calvinist believers.

The entire religious work of reward and punishment as it concerned individual worshipers shifted inward. It moved from the elaborate Catholic rites of penance and official forgiveness to a regime of rigorously monitored, unceasing self-interrogation. This devolution of power made American Puritans uniquely prone to anxious introspection. And that, in turn, helped transform the heretofore profane sphere of worldly enterprise into a key testing ground of personal salvation.

Calvinism translated Martin Luther’s famous slogan for the Reformation, "a priesthood of all believers" into a prescription for round-the-clock productivity. Business became a crucial outlet for all the many Puritanical anxieties arising from the stubborn opacity of one’s standing in the Kingdom of God...

Take, for example, the central paradox lurking at the heart of Weber’s argument: the genius of American Puritans in inventing a new moral code of "worldly asceticism." Ascetics in the Catholic tradition were self-denying monks, who diligently sought to dramatize their devotion by mortifying their flesh and submitting meekly to churchly authority. (For a pop-culture caricature of this outlook, see the deranged Opus Dei monk in Dan Brown’s anti-Catholic potboiler The Da Vinci Code.) The Calvinists cannily redirected such ascetic impulses into the vision of a divinely ordained worldly calling — which, in turn, spiritualized the accumulation of wealth as a means of winning and holding divine favor.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to disagree that the Puritans were the founders of the 'prosperity gospel' that's fine, its history isn't my concern.  My concern is this false view that 'religion is inherently good' and the United States becoming less religious is the reason for the increase in greed and what-have-you.

[136or142]

What's even more unfortunate is that a portion of the left has embraced the same attitude of anti-intellectualism and dismissal of experts whenever the latter dare to challenge the former and their proposed policies.

Name something that experts have come forth with evidence challenging the left's policies on a given issue but the left refused to budge.

In every group, I'm sure there's some portion (however big or small) that are idiots.  But among the left, morals and intellect run much higher than on the right at the moment.  For instance, the majority of the right doesn't believe in climate change despite overwhelming and ever-increasing scientific evidence supporting it; there is nothing comparable to that complete disregard of evidence on the left.

How about when the Sanders campaign branded as corporate shills Krugman and the other center-left economists who said that his health care plan was unrealistic?
Or those who said that a 15$ minimum wage was unrealistic and would do more harm than good?

I'm pretty sure that Krugman said the health care plan was unrealistic politically.  From an expert public policy perspective, how can 'single payer' be unrealistic when every other advanced western economy already has such a plan?

Edit to add: indeed that is exactly what Krugman said:
So it’s time for a little pushback. A commitment to universal health coverage — bringing in the people currently falling through Obamacare’s cracks — should definitely be a litmus test. But single-payer, while it has many virtues, isn’t the only way to get there; it would be much harder politically than its advocates acknowledge; and there are more important priorities...

I have nothing against single-payer; it’s what I’d support if we were starting fresh. But we aren’t: Getting there from here would be very hard, and might not accomplish much more than a more modest, incremental approach. Even idealists need to set priorities, and Medicare-for-all shouldn’t be at the top of the list.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/opinion/healthcare-single-payer-children.html

The 'minimum wage' claim isn't accurate either.  There are public policy experts on both sides of that issue, and nearly all of them agree that the minimum wage increasing slowly over time isn't a problem.   In regards to Sanders' specific minimum wage plan, there were, as stated, experts on both sides.  Those who argue that wages are being held down due to the United States economy being increasingly monopsonistic almost certainly largely agreed with Sanders.
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/4/6/17204808/wages-employers-workers-monopsony-growth-stagnation-inequality

[136or142]

look i'm no person to defend the GOP but the topic title reads like the beginning of a very bad Boomer lefty facebook post.

It only does to those with false equivalency bias, which you must be suffering from.

This is actually pretty good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHVX4yza8dk

CNN's Pathetic False Equivalency Bias Explained  Published on Dec 10, 2012

[136or142]

The highlighted portion was NOT an ongoing assumption.  Perhaps Mr. Tomasky isn't as well-read as he asserts, at least not about Justice William O. Douglas:  "We are a Religious People Whose Institutions Presuppose a Supreme Being."  (Zorach v. Clausen)  THAT was a presumption of our Republic until the secular liberals (at least some of them) of the 1970s and beyond worked tirelessly to reverse.  They, too, have been successful.

The result of all of this is a progressively Godless America where there seems to be no check whatsoever on unbridled sexuality or unbridled greed.  The 1% that grow richer by the say are no longer have their greed bound by the presupposition of a Supreme Being in our institutions any more than the radical feminists and LGBT activists.  Nowadays, we can be dead broke so the Walton Family can break records, but we can marry someone of the same gender if we can scrape up enough money for Kim Davis to issue us a marriage license that doesn't have her name on it.  You tell me if removing the presupposition of a Supreme Being has been this liberating thing.

I think your analysis is clearly wrong in that many of the most greedy and their non wealthy enablers ARE religious.  I simply don't believe you're not familiar with the Puritan Prosperity Gospel (and other similar Protestant views.)  You and I might disagree on the significance of that religious belief on politics, but it certainly exists.  I think the impact of this religious view on America is Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuge.

This has nothing to do with the Puritans.  As a member of a church that holds the Puritans in high esteem, I grew up constantly hearing that prosperity preachers were heretics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This, in fact it may be the majority.  I'm tired of how media coverage of Evangelicals is almost always negative.  The preachers at the churches I've attended weren't getting rich.

1.The 'Prosperity Gospel' started with the Puritans.  It has been adapted by Evangelicals in an even more extreme form.

2.If you have, for instance, 10 churches with 100 members each, and 1 mega church with 10,000 members, which is bigger?

https://aleteia.org/2017/02/03/blessed-are-the-winners-the-uniquely-american-prosperity-gospel-tradition/

3.I'm tired of 'Christians' whining how they're always persecuted.

That link doesn't prove anything about the Puritans, a group that originated in England, btw.  It has been adapted by some Evangelicals, and I'm not even sure that it's exclusive to them.  I don't like megachurches in general, but I'm sure that they aren't all bad.  Millions of Americans go to small Evangelical churches, but let's just ignore them I guess.

I said nothing about persecution, I'm just pointing out that there's a quarter of the population that is almost always portrayed negatively in the media.  Sweeping statements about us are considered acceptable that would be condemned if said about any other group.  

1.https://www.vox.com/2016/7/27/12289062/why-would-evangelicals-support-trump-in-america-the-money-cult-rules

2."I'm just pointing out that there's a quarter of the population that is almost always portrayed negatively in the media.  Sweeping statements about us are considered acceptable that would be condemned if said about any other group."

You didn't use the word 'persecution' but if that isn't persecution complex, I don't know what is.

Here's the thing, 'evangelicals' aren't like blacks or women (I presume that's what you mean by 'other groups.' ) A person makes a choice to be a 'Christian' conservative, they aren't born that way.  As such, it is perfectly reasonable to face push-back and criticisms.  'Christian' conservatives want it both ways: they want to be able to engage in politics, but to be treated as some protected group when it comes to facing criticism in return.

Also, as has been said by others before me on this, what 'religious' conservatives really mean when they claim they are being discriminated against is 'we can no longer discriminate against other people on the basis of our 'religious' beliefs.

I am aware that there are decent evangelicals as well, many of whom who have been active against Trump and Republican policies. (and have faced criticism from Republicans and 'Christian' conservatives for it.)

[136or142]

The highlighted portion was NOT an ongoing assumption.  Perhaps Mr. Tomasky isn't as well-read as he asserts, at least not about Justice William O. Douglas:  "We are a Religious People Whose Institutions Presuppose a Supreme Being."  (Zorach v. Clausen)  THAT was a presumption of our Republic until the secular liberals (at least some of them) of the 1970s and beyond worked tirelessly to reverse.  They, too, have been successful.

The result of all of this is a progressively Godless America where there seems to be no check whatsoever on unbridled sexuality or unbridled greed.  The 1% that grow richer by the say are no longer have their greed bound by the presupposition of a Supreme Being in our institutions any more than the radical feminists and LGBT activists.  Nowadays, we can be dead broke so the Walton Family can break records, but we can marry someone of the same gender if we can scrape up enough money for Kim Davis to issue us a marriage license that doesn't have her name on it.  You tell me if removing the presupposition of a Supreme Being has been this liberating thing.

I think your analysis is clearly wrong in that many of the most greedy and their non wealthy enablers ARE religious.  I simply don't believe you're not familiar with the Puritan Prosperity Gospel (and other similar Protestant views.)  You and I might disagree on the significance of that religious belief on politics, but it certainly exists.  I think the impact of this religious view on America is Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuge.

This has nothing to do with the Puritans.  As a member of a church that holds the Puritans in high esteem, I grew up constantly hearing that prosperity preachers were heretics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This, in fact it may be the majority.  I'm tired of how media coverage of Evangelicals is almost always negative.  The preachers at the churches I've attended weren't getting rich.

1.The 'Prosperity Gospel' started with the Puritans.  It has been adapted by Evangelicals in an even more extreme form.

2.If you have, for instance, 10 churches with 100 members each, and 1 mega church with 10,000 members, which is bigger?

https://aleteia.org/2017/02/03/blessed-are-the-winners-the-uniquely-american-prosperity-gospel-tradition/

3.I'm tired of 'Christians' whining how they're always persecuted.

That link doesn't prove anything about the Puritans, a group that originated in England, btw.  It has been adapted by some Evangelicals, and I'm not even sure that it's exclusive to them.  I don't like megachurches in general, but I'm sure that they aren't all bad.  Millions of Americans go to small Evangelical churches, but let's just ignore them I guess.

I said nothing about persecution, I'm just pointing out that there's a quarter of the population that is almost always portrayed negatively in the media.  Sweeping statements about us are considered acceptable that would be condemned if said about any other group.  

1.https://www.vox.com/2016/7/27/12289062/why-would-evangelicals-support-trump-in-america-the-money-cult-rules

2."I'm just pointing out that there's a quarter of the population that is almost always portrayed negatively in the media.  Sweeping statements about us are considered acceptable that would be condemned if said about any other group."

You didn't use the word 'persecution' but if that isn't persecution complex, I don't know what is.

Here's the thing, 'evangelicals' aren't like blacks or women (I presume that's what you mean by 'other groups.' ) A person makes a choice to be a 'Christian' conservative, they aren't born that way.  As such, it is perfectly reasonable to face push-back and criticisms.  'Christian' conservatives want it both ways: they want to be able to engage in politics, but to be treated as some protected group when it comes to facing criticism in return.

Also, as has been said by others before me on this, what 'religious' conservatives really mean when they claim they are being discriminated against is 'we can no longer discriminate against other people on the basis of our 'religious' beliefs.

I am aware that there are decent evangelicals as well, many of whom who have been active against Trump and Republican policies. (and have faced criticism from Republicans and 'Christian' conservatives for it.)

1: That article made hypothetical connections at best.

2: I wasn't actually talking about race and sex.  I was talking about religion.  Actually, now that I think about it, it's similar to how people attack Islam.  People see horrific acts being committed in the name of Islam and then making sweeping generalizations about all Muslims.  People see a preacher caught in an affair and say "Look, those Evangelicals never cared about sexual morality."

For some, religion and politics are intertwined.  Religion informs my politics on some issues, and it is impossible to completely separate anyone's faith with their political views.  William Jennings Bryan's Christianity informed his politics.  So did William Wilberforce's.  Fuzzy Bear and I would both be considered Evangelical Christians and would be put in the same box with every other Evangelical Christian.  Yet FB and I have very different opinions on a lot of issues.

The reasons that most Evangelicals, besides those with a very compelling reason to distrust the post-1964 GOP, vote Republican now is that the Democratic Party has stances on social issues that conflict with scripture.  After several decades of this, the economic views of the average white Evangelical are similar to the average Republican.  Of course, this was helped along by people like Jerry Falwell.  Today, most Democrats regard the Christian position on homosexuality as bigotry.  Evangelicals now have another reason to want to stop that party, even if it means putting a bad person in office.  

But in the churches I've been to, there isn't much political talk.  It comes up once in a while, but I've never heard a pastor tell people to vote a certain way.  I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but we shouldn't all be put in the same box as Jerry Falwell.  Also remember that Evangelical Christianity is a worldwide movement, so in other countries you can find the same theological beliefs without the political aspect.  We also existed before Jerry Falwell was even born, and will continue to exist long after the GOP folds on social issues or disbands entirely.

1.The example you gave above is not about politics and it is true for all people.  Everybody is, to a greater or lesser degree, judged by the actions of others who they have no control over. As you're not singled out for this it doesn't justify whining about being mistreated by the media as if you're somehow being treated disporportionatly unfairly.

2."Today, most Democrats regard the Christian position on homosexuality as bigotry."  
Well, earlier you were telling me about 'sweeping generalizations' and now you're telling me there is one 'Christian' position on homosexuality.  Maybe you meant the evangelical Christian position.  Discriminating against homosexuals certainly isn't practiced by all Christians.

3."Evangelicals now have another reason to want to stop that party, even if it means putting a bad person in office."  

And people have every right to criticize evangelicals for that and to regard them as hypocrites or immoral for it.

Just out of curiosity, since you mentioned 'scripture' have you read the Bible from cover to cover?  I think it's safe to say that most evangelicals haven't.

For what it's worth, I've read most of the Old Testament.  I think the evangelical obsession with LGBTQ is bizarre given that the Bible actually rarely mentions it.  I can only assume this is because most evangelicals haven't actually read the Bible but are only familiar with the passages that they read in Church.  I know the only mention of homosexuality (there is no mention of lesbianism in the Bible whatsoever) in the New Testament is from Paul, who was, after all, just a man.

I suspect you'd regard this as part of the media's 'attack' on evangelicals, but there is nothing factually inaccurate in it. Even more so, it is based on a knowledge and understanding of the Bible.  Legitimate criticism like this are the farthest thing from 'attacks.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXJzybEeJM
the west wing homosexuality episode

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But when it happens to other people, it's not considered acceptable in polite society.  With most other groups, you can also point to positive portrayals.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From the first century into the twentieth, there was a single view.  It's obvious that the changing views on this issue among a minority within the faith are driven by a desire to be accepted by society.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, but we didn't all vote for him, I didn't.  But if one party almost entirely believes that Evangelicals are the equivalent of Klansmen, then I won't blame them for doing whatever they can to stop them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, but I've read the majority at some time or another.  I'm currently reading through the Bible and am in 1 Samuel.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most of us aren't obsessed.  It's just that no other sin has a movement nearly as dedicated to demonizing those who disagree with them.  Also, Romans 1 mentions lesbians as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is one of the things I'm talking about, he misrepresents Christianity.  He goes into the old ceremonial law, which was only binding on a country that no longer exists.  The part about homosexuality was reaffirmed by Paul in the NT, basically he uses the word from the Greek translation of Leviticus when he condemns homosexual conduct.  This has been answered many times but people still think this is a great argument.

1.Maybe you should put forward positive people then.

2.Or more likely it's because these Christians realize that bigotry isn't compatible with Christianity.

I'm not sure what happened in the 12th Century, there were Christian sects before then that were accepting of LGBTQ, maybe evangelicals regard them as heretics.  Interesting that you look to that time, but neglected to mention that from time to time the Church Penalty for homosexuality was death. You think that might have something to do with why many people, not just LGBTQ 'demonize' evangelicals?

3.Your claim about what is and isn't to still be followed in the Old Testament is nowhere near as clear as you make it out to be:  

"Christians often wonder, Are Old Testament laws still in force?

The New Testament gives two basic answers to this question: Yes, and no. Some verses indicate continuity, and others indicate change. Some verses maintain the validity of the law; others describe it as having been superseded by Christ.

If we look at one group of verses, we might conclude that we have to keep all Old Testament laws. If we look at another group of verses, we might conclude that they are all done away. Both answers have scriptural support and validity, so we need to look at both sides of the question."

https://www.gci.org/law/otlaws

And this completely disputes that the Old Testament laws were replaced by the 'New Covenant'

http://huffmanchurch.com/has-the-new-testament-replaced-the-old-testament/

Interesting that the Messiah Jesus, who many have been taught did away with the Old Covenant has this to say: Matthew 5:17-19 “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven”.

I haven't read the New Testament, but I am familiar with all these arguments.  It seems to me that you're basing all your arguments on either your Minister or from evangelical publications.  The debate on whether the Old Testament teachings still apply is no where near as clear as you claim it is.

3B.As I wrote above, ultimately Paul was just a man.  That you believe his views express God's views are by no means clearly indicated in The New Testament.  This makes a claim that Paul is speaking for God, but it's clearly just one interpretation.  http://magazine.biola.edu/article/08-summer/gods-word-or-pauls-personal-opinion/

So, if your arguments are based on evangelical publications that's fine, but those publications are certainly written by mere humans and it's certainly fair to question their motives.  Do evangelicals actually have valid scriptural evidence to decide to follow only the parts that Paul said still apply, or was this decision made because evangelicals wanted to continue claiming that homosexual acts are 'a sin' and made choices to achieve this conclusion?  I don't know and neither do you.  (You wouldn't be given an honest answer from this from any evangelical hierarchy.)

So, in fact, it's taken as a great argument, because it is, in fact, a great argument.

4.Why shouldn't there be a movement 'demonizing' those who attack LGBTQ?  Evangelicals merely want to prevent them from marrying, from adopting children, from being covered under the Civil Rights Act....

The reality is that when it comes to the LGBTQ community, evangelicals are no different than Klansmen.  If you regard that as 'unfair' how do you think the LGBTQ community regards what evangelicals want for them?  This is (one reason) why so many people completely fairly 'demonize' evangelicals.

Take a look from another perspective and quit your damned whining.

5.Also, on the one hand you say 'evangelicals aren't obsessed with homosexuality' on the other hand you say that (most) evangelicals will vote for any Republican, no matter how bad, because the Democrats have positions 'counter to scripture.'  I think you are hiding behind a disagreement with the word 'obsessed.'  The only other issue from scripture is abortion.  So, evangelicals are 'obsessed' with voting on two issues and will vote for anybody, even the AntiChrist as long as it's not a Democrat.

[136or142]

the New Deal sucked, FDR was a commie

Well that was random.

[136or142]

What about the anti-american attitudes that make up the basis of leftist ideology?

The biggest anti-American is Trump. The next biggest are anybody who supports him.

[136or142]

What about the anti-american attitudes that make up the basis of leftist ideology?

The biggest anti-American is Trump. The next biggest are anybody who supports him.

I'll bite. What is anti-american about trump? He's brash and loud, that's about it

Umm, just the little bit about him committing treason with Putin and Russia.

[136or142]

1: We don't choose who the media chooses to represent us.

2: What sects?

3: The prohibition on homosexuality was reaffirmed in the NT, anyway.  So the parts of the OT law that are not reaffirmed are not still binding.

Paul was a man inspired by God.  All of the Bible, including the stuff written by Paul, is true.  If one denies the truth of what Paul writes, they aren't Christians.

4: Well, if you think I'm a Klansman, thanks for being honest.

5: We talk about homosexuality because it is the only sin that gets pride parades.  Nobody is trying to call opponents of divorce the heirs of the KKK.

1.That is absurd. Collectively you absolutely have the choice.  It's not that the media focuses on random evangelicals, they focus on the ones who are the most popular within the evangelical community.  Who those are is entirely the choice of evangelicals.  I don't dispute that there are sensationalist media who play up insignificant fools from time to time, but they're not the ones who form lasting impressions usually, unless they fit into the broader narrative that has been established by those who evangelicals decide to follow.

Two things from this: Among liberals there is a diversity of people who represent outside of politicians.  From Samantha Bee to Stephen Colbert to Paul Krugman.

B: Having thought about this a bit more, I disagree with your premise. Can you seriously dispute that mainstream journalists haven't tried to make Joel Osteen seem like some great guy?  He seems somewhat shady to me, though not as bad as previous evangelicals, but I think he was certainly sold by the mainstream media as some 'kind, gentle evangelical.

2.From wiki: A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.[35]

I don't know there names.  I've read previously that there were smaller historical Christian sects in parts of Europe that were accepting of LGBTQ.

3.There are many Christians who either don't take the Bible literally or who are aware that a good deal of the text is not 'inspired by God' but was written by various religious/political leaders to fit the prejudices of the day. (I'm sure you regard them as heretics.)  I don't know if that includes what was written about Paul, but certainly anything written about Paul would have been written for the New Testament after he died.

4.I always try to be honest, even and especially when it makes me look bad.  In addition to obeying
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" regarding 'thy neighbour' as myself, I believe that if I criticize myself, my views on other things will be regarded with the honesty in which I state them.  

5.Hahahaha.  Is that why you think evangelicals don't make a big deal out of opposing divorce? (except, to some degree, among themselves) I can just picture the pews being emptied if evangelical churches tried to make divorce illegal.  

https://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/02/are_those_who_oppose_gay_marri.html

[136or142]

Anti-intellectualism is nothing new in America, but it has definitely reached a deeply disturbing extreme, in that often a majority of the members of a political party believe many things which are easily proven to be false. It's undeniably true that one party is more at fault than the other (sorry, "both sides do it" folks.) A majority of Republicans (not Democrats) believe many things which are easily proven to be false. And Republicans who don't buy into "alternate facts" still often turn a blind eye to the magnitude of this problem on the right, and simply point out isolated instances of ignorance on the left, to "prove" that it's not worse among Republicans.

However, I don't think that the Republican Party is the only factor here. I think that our society as a whole has become much more isolated, and the prevalence of the internet and technology makes it easier for people to live in bubbles, and only receive and search for information which supports their world view. Many don't even do research anymore. They reach a conclusion based on gut feelings (or what they want to be true), and specifically search for evidence that backs up their beliefs, and dismiss any evidence which doesn't support their beliefs.

I will say, however, that "elitist" definitely is nothing more than an ad hominem attack used when someone has no counter-argument or evidence of the contrary that holds any water. And while there have always been ignorant people who refuse to accept that some people know more than them, this ideology now has more political power than ever before. Right now, it's like confirmation bias on steroids.

I also agree with the article's claim that it's absurd that smugness is seen as worse than ignorance. Not saying smugness is a good thing or that it should be tolerated. There are many smug academics, and it's incredibly grating and off-putting. But that's pretty much the extent of smugness. It's unpleasant and you come across as an ass. Ignorance, on the other hand, can have disastrous consequences if not addressed, and it's legitimately concerning how stubborn people have gotten in their ignorance. While smug people ought to get off the high horse, people who are ignorant of basic history and science need to swallow their pride, accept that they don't know everything and aren't always right, and actually educate themselves. I'm not suggesting that we mock and degrade ignorant people, but we should not be tolerant of ignorance as a concept, and should, as a society collectively search for the truth, rather than what we want to believe or what makes us feel good/smart.

tl;dr Many Republicans embrace anti-intellectualism (more so than Democrats), there are other factors too, ignorance is worse than smugness.

How is it absurd?

Ignorance can be fixed pretty easy by making oneself knowledgeable, even if there is seemingly little incentive in this day and age. But smugness shuts oneself off to building knowledge where there isn't knowledge, it also drives away the ignorant from even trying to understand your side when you laugh at them for a lack of knowledge.

Arguably, ignorance isn't the problem with the current anti-intellectual trend, its the smugness of said ignorance and the false equivalency behind it.

But then, said gut feelings, said "common-sense" ideals seemingly come from the heart, which has a much more natural and connective reach than that of dispassionate, objective (or "Objective") academics...unless said academics can get that same conviction. But they try not to at their own peril, which causes more to be alienated.

Also, that dispassionate, objective approach hasn't always trickled down. In the case of eugenics, it's even done harm. And then of course, there's the well-educated who use said knowledge to then benefit only themselves at the cost of everyone else.

Sorry, but no. It's not absurd.

I don't see any false equivalence.  This is the full quote from Isaac Asimov on this:

It’s hard to quarrel with that ancient justification of the free press: “America’s right to know.” It seems almost cruel to ask, ingenuously, ”America’s right to know what, please? Science? Mathematics? Economics? Foreign languages?”

None of those things, of course. In fact, one might well suppose that the popular feeling is that Americans are a lot better off without any of that tripe.

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

☛ Newsweek: “A Cult of Ignorance” by Isaac Asimov, January 21, 1980, p. 19. PDF.

The timing of this comment is interesting because the situation in 1980 is quite similar to now. 1980 was shortly after the 'best and the brightest' lost the war in Vietnam (not the troops but people like Defense Secretary Robert McNamara had been referred to as 'the best and the brightest') and during the period of stagflation after Keynesian economists claimed that 'a recession and inflation could not occur simultaneously.'  

Now we've had a period of 30-50 years of economic growth with no real wage gains for a large number of people (I forget the rough percentages.)

So, campaigning against 'eggheads' is nothing new. (Adlai Stevenson was derided as an 'egghead.')  He returned this in kind:  Known for his good nature, Stevenson was once approached by a young woman supporter, the first time that he decided to run for the president’s post. She said, “Governor, every thinking person would be voting for you”. He retorted, “Madam, that is not enough. I need a majority.”

http://www.famousquotes123.com/adlai-stevenson-quotes.html

(George Carlin also made a similar quip like that: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”)

Of course there are proud idiots everywhere and there is no question that in the U.S it is genuinely different from earlier periods in the size and the scope of proud idiots.  But, it's not just an American thing by any means.  From the early 1980s, as I've argued here, the last great time of proud idiots, this is from the old T.V Show Yes, Minister episode "The Greasy Pole" that aired on March 16, 1981.

https://youtu.be/yUMAdL7w8N0?t=19m48s

Sir Wally (the Chair of the publicly owned British Chemical Corporation "I tell you as a chemist myself that metadioxin is utterly safe."

The Minister (James Hacker): "Why do you experts always think your right?"

Sir Wally: "And why do you think that the more inexpert you are the more likely you are to be right?"

(metadioxin doesn't actually exist, so there is no point checking to see if it is 'utterly safe.')

[136or142]

But I know that aromatic chemicals (benzene ring) are typically unsafe in more than trace quantities, and that chlorinated aromatic chemicals (like dioxin) are really dangerous. There are deceivers, some with sophisticated education but primitive morality. We need to be sharp enough to check a reference source when we hear what might be pompous deceit.

I'm pretty sure this is why the writers made up the substance 'metadioxin' so that nobody could question it like this.  Earlier in the episode it is described as 'inert.'  Hacker asks 'does anybody know what  'inert' means?'  His private secretary whispers under his breath "it wouldn't ert a fly."