We hope, dear reader, that you are sitting down. And we do not only pray for this because it suggests that you have pretty good posture. Nope: What weÂ’re about to tell you may shock the living daylights out of you.

Here goes: We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” spied an obtuse letter to the editor in the October 18 number of The New York Times. We know, we know: Alert the press. This must be the only stupid missive the Gray Lady has ever printed.

And here it is:

To the Editor:

Re “Gingerly, Romney Seeks Ties to the Christian Right” (Political Memo, front page, Oct. 16):

The fact that Mitt Romney, or any presidential candidate, should find it necessary to appease the Christian right is a sad commentary on our times. It is clear that a broad segment of the American people, and the feckless politicians who pander to them, have rejected the constitutional prohibition against religious tests for public office and believe that only “people of faith” are qualified to be leaders.

In such an environment, even the most outstanding atheist or agnostic could never aspire to public service.

Dennis Middlebrooks
Brooklyn, Oct. 16, 2007

We know what youÂ’re thinking, dear reader: We donÂ’t have a clue what Mr. Middlebrooks does for a living, but he probably doesnÂ’t pay his bills via constitutional law. After all, his whole How-Dare-an-Overwhelmingly-Christian-Nation-Desires-a-Religious-President routine isnÂ’t exactly the sort of legal zinger that would inspire pride in the Founding Fathers.

We mean, come on: American Christians aiming to plump for someone who shares their views on moral matters isn’t exactly a grave threat to the Republic, now is it? Nor, we dare say, does it gainsay “the most outstanding atheist or agnostic” from any sort of “public service,” as Mr. Middlebrooks histrionically asserts.

Has Mr. Middlebrooks ever heard of San Fransisco? How about Berkeley? Or, for that matter, Brooklyn? We have a hunch that candidates close to the Religious Right wouldnÂ’t fare so well in those areas.

One might as well complain about politicians incessantly pandering to adults. After all, kids canÂ’t vote, and thus our suck-up candidates ignore the kiddies, thereby subverting our constitution, blah, blah, blah.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 2 kb.