“This decline is visible in conservatism at large, too. It is one thing (a blessing, I can tell you) to grow up reading and watching Bill Buckley; another to grow up reading and watching Bill O’Reilly.”

And my point about us sharing an agenda had nothing to do with whether or not we agree with one another.

As an undergrad I did study Plato, Boethius, Augustine, and Burke. Sure, they were interesting and gave me context for the questions being asked in class. Do I find their arguments more relevant than, say, Noam Chompsky, Richard Dawkins, or John Ralston Saul? Does it matter? Name dropping to prove a point only works in academia.

I frequently contribute to add an alternative voice to the Politic and foster debate. I am a fiscal conservative, for sure, but my contributions should be in no way an endorcement of the views posted here. In fact, most of the time I disagree pretty much everything posted here. Wouldn’t it be nice if I were also allowed to post interesting articles? Or am I too much of a social “liberal” to be given that chance.

There certainly wouldn’t be silly little postings about naming condoms, presidential pee pee jokes, or tyrades about polygamists from my computer. Plus, I would write under the name my mother gave me the day I was born so that there is some acountability for what I posted.

So what do you think? Now that the gauntlet has been dropped, will Greg take me up on my offer?

The challenge is to engage with more intelligent voices from across the ideological divide, which I invited you to do by suggesting Farrow and Clemenger. I don’t know why you refuse to do that, and instead find caricatures of the religious right to support your own prejudices. Despite your list of political issues, your agenda can’t be that different from mine since you’re a frequent contributor to the message board.

Sorry Tom, I would rather read something interesting and try to solve real problems, like child poverty, access to postsecondary education for low-income Canadians, creating a more progressive tax system, and improving environmental policies than worry about the ramblings of the religious right. Our agendas are too different, and our definition of the “common good” are too far apart.

While it always hurts movements to be associated with “radical” elements, one shouldn’t be blind to the ways that the friends of liberalism, especially among the media, *want* conservatives, and moderate religious conservatives, to be associated with the fringe. For instance, when the media seeks a religious conservative, it seeks someone like Tom McVety instead of someone thoughtful and publicly engaged like Douglas Farrow of McGill or Bruce Clemenger of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada? Have you ever considered their arguments? Do you know what they say about the topics you list as well as their criticisms of liberal secularists?

Once you’ve read them, you can get back to me.

The question is why is this so?