OK, everybody, put on your thinking caps.

Imagine -- hypothetically of course -- a society where printed thought has been burned because it was viewed as "destructive" to the formation of proper values. In this society, many people do not feel free to express their opinions because time and time again they have been harassed because those thoughts weren't the "right" ones to have. And if you're religious -- well, you'll have to keep it to yourself.

Doesn't sound too nice, does it. Actually, it's downright scary. Why? Because I didn't make this up, I didn't copy this from a history book and I didn't have to read The Christian Science Monitor to get the information. I got all I needed right here in the Happy Valley. No joke.

Sorry, this isn't a neo-fascist movement taking root in central Pennsylvania. These problems come from liberals who somehow got the idea that they are open-minded. Funny, it's usually the conservatives that get pegged that way.

Now, don't get me wrong. Being liberal does not mean you are open-minded, but a whole helluva lot of people think that's what it means. And many liberals don't realize they are some of the most close-minded people around. For example . . .

Rush Limbaugh. The man is intolerant and bigoted and the people who listen to him or watch him are nothing more than little fascist sheep who can't think for themselves. Sound familiar? Well, it does to me. I've heard this from people who have never read Limbaugh's books, or who rarely watch his television show. But many of these people don't think they are intolerant.

News Flash: If you refuse to listen, watch or read Rush Limbaugh because you know he's wrong and you'll disagree with him, you are intolerant and close-minded. It's just that simple. I disagree 90 percent of the time with Rush, but there are times when I think he's dead-on. But it goes beyond that. Limbaugh challenges most of the beliefs I hold, and if I'm not willing to hold those ideas up to scrutiny, then what good are they?

The Lionhearted. From what I hear, there's a group of fascist journalists at Penn State. You know, they print that piece of caca called the Lionhearted. But that's just what I hear. What I see is a paper full of conservative ideas. That's all. They aren't fascists. They aren't Nazis. (And the next person I hear say that will get a five minute lecture on what a real Nazi is. Talk about ignorance.)

Oh, and on a side note, in American society, things such as calling the Lionhearted fascist go unnoticed, but if the right attacks the left, they are labled insensitive bigots. It seems to me that the "PC" police are only patrolling one side of the street. Anyway, back to the chase.

When you remove all the stereotypes, it is really quite simple. What the Lionhearted consists of is conservative Penn Staters. Granted, they often only bash liberals and their ideas rather than stressing their own -- I see that as a sign of either fear or ignorance -- but that's their prerogative.

I've been on staff at The Daily Collegian for almost three years, and I know that the Lionhearted staffers disagree with much of this paper's editorials. And I disagree with much of what the Lionhearted prints -- but I've never seen Joe Ames putting a match to a pile of Collegians. They might be close-minded, but not nearly as much as the individuals who torched a pile of Lionhearteds last spring. That, my friends, is the definition of intolerance and close-mindedness.

Religion. I was in my women's studies class last week when we were asked to give attributes of what we consider to be the ideal woman. One by one, students in the class gave a panorama of adjectives. Caring. Strong-willed. Independent. And the list went on. Finally, a man spoke up in the back of the room.

God-fearing. Submissive.

You could here the gasps almost immediately. Hands went up and a couple of comments were aimed in his general direction. Clearly, the majority of my classmates felt he was wrong.

But he backed himself up. He said he followed the Bible and he wanted a woman who felt the same way. But that wasn't good enough for most of people in the class. Like I said earlier, religion or not, this guy was pronounced guilty without a trial.

I don't understand why someone with conservative ideals based on their religious beliefs is quickly dismissed as not thinking for themselves. Why can't religion be a viable basis for someone's beliefs? Like it or not, most of our laws are based on Judeo-Christian values.

In a society where lesbian, gays and bisexuals are accepted (or at least should be), religious conservatives should be accepted as well. Calling them "Bible-thumpers" (I'm guilty myself) should be akin to calling a gay man a faggot.

I wasn't trying to bash liberals here. I'd like to think of it as kind of a wake-up call. Too many times I've seen people label my parents and most of the people I grew up with as close-minded. But to many of the liberals who think they are open-minded and defenders of free thought: Take a look at what you really believe. You might not believe your eyes.