Should religion matter? Apparently the issue remains unresolved. The title of this piece was originally “An Open Letter to Ben Boychuk, Part Two”, as it follows the first letter to him concerning his eagerness to accept liberal premises when debating liberals. Then the issue was “income inequality”, which in his debate with Joel Mathis, the Blue America representative, the nominally Red State American Boychuk agreed that we just shouldn’t have too much of that, and argued for conservative solutions to that “very real” problem. Oxymoronic? You make the call.
Well today, the hot button topic is Mitt Romney’s religion. Right out of the box, Mr. Boychuk finds it necessary to stipulate that Romney’s religion is weird, and proceeds then to argue that it shouldn’t matter. At this juncture, we can only ask of Mr. Boychuk “Have you no decency sir? At long last, have you no decency?” We’re going to let it go at that because we have seen enough of your output and your dalliances with New Age political thinking to know that you will merely sneer at any criticism, or if you are at all bothered, you will claim your tongue was in your cheek. But however much you want to ingratiate yourself with Scripps Howard, or Gannett, or whatever moneyed interests finance your journalism at the Manhattan Institute or in your personal syndication, we care not. We passed that milepost a while back. It is now a given, not just for you but for a whole gaggle of go-alongs-to-get-alongs.
We return to the original complaint – Mr. Boychuk poses the conservative while debating issues that were dead decades ago. Even died-in-the-wool Republicans, even bedrock conservatives came to know and love John F. Kennedy in a belated honeymoon. Whether that was misplaced or not, or a May-September romance, may be an open question, but the whole ‘does the President’s religion matter’ question was settled fifty years ago. The reason that sore spot, if it ever really was one, is being opened by the Media Matters, Organizing for Obama, Main Stream Media cabal today is to troll for whatever hardline, fundamentalist segments of sects there might be out there amenable to opposing Romney for no other reason. And our valiant protagonist of all things Red American, Mr. Boychuk, is only too happy to play his role in a fabricated dramatic dialogue. Yes, let’s just take the question, which was settled fifty years ago, and give it some more play. Why, it’s only fair. After all, Romney’s religion might not affect his governance, but heh heh, it IS a little weird, ye Red Americans, says the Benster. And thus fair game to “keep the conversation going”, as they say.
Here’s the thing, all you Red/Blue, True Blue Aisle Reacher-Acrossers – You want to talk religion? Oh, we could spend a very long time talking religion:
But that would be mean-spirited, wouldn’t it?
And so it goes. Another day and another cobbled- together, ill-considered quasi- conservative position is presented to one of the public mediums, be it print, air or ether. Mr. Boychuk is our favorite whipping boy, but alas there are hundreds in his mileiu who either cannot, or don’t want to, see the Progressive -Statist forest about to envelope them for all those liberal trees in the way good-naturedly proposing to “debate the issues.” And on agreeing to the premise, what the utile pundits fail to see is that the other side doesn’t really care about the ‘issue of the moment’. The exercise is intended to gain compliance way past the dilemma of the day and to condition the behavior of the participant. It is not about the debate, it is about agreeing to the debate. Game, set and match.
Author’s note: If someone wants to forward this non-letter letter to Mr. Boychuk, please feel free. I’m all out of stamps, as well as running very low on what little patience I have left for the many clown princes of pseudo-conservative mediadom.