So much for the vacation.

I have just heard an argument so foolish that I had to write about it.

In the comments to an article on Townhall, the argument was raised that we could not reject Obama due to his association with Reverend Wright because it would represent a religious test for public office. This is wrong on many, many levels.

First, the concept of a "religious test" applies only to governmental action. The state may not prevent anyone from running for office due to their religious affiliation, nor may it require an individual to belong to a specific church or faith to run for office. There is no legal requirement that individual voter ignore faith. A voter is free to only vote for Lutherans, or never vote for Jews. It is a silly way to vote, but everyone is free to do so. There is no law against it.

But let us assume the writer was saying that it would be "unamerican" to apply a religious test. In fact, the commenter did say that we should judge people by their "actions" not their religion.

To which I reply that the selection of a church is an action. Perhaps some people are born into a given congregation and stay there forever, but even that is an action, choosing to remain. And definitely changing churches qualifies as an action by which we can judge someone.

Obama not only chose to join Wright's congregation, he stayed there 20 years, he donated huge sums of money, he wrote a book using Wright's sermon as a title, and he called Wright his mentor. This is not just a "religious test". We are judging Obama by his choice to establish close ties to a virulent racist. This has nothing to do with his religious affiliation, but his own personal choices. That they are religious choices does not matter.

Assume one were to join the Westboro Baptist Church, or the Church of the Creator, that would be a political act, as well as a religious one. Both churches have a very definite character  that would tell us a lot about those who join. To refuse to consider such acts when deciding for whom to vote would be absurd.

And even if we were to abide by this ludicrous suggestion, ignoring the fact that Obama had a racist mentor, and joined a separatist church, if we dismiss all this because it is "religious", there is still much to argue against Obama. He first said he knew nothing of Wright's sermons, then said he did, but it was just a peculiarity of a crazy uncle, finally settling on a defense that America's racism explained Wright's words. In short, he lied once this came out, and continued to do so until he hit on a winning lie. As I don't think there is any church which calls lying a sacrament, I believe we can take this into account.

So, I don't want to hear that we can't consider Wright's words due to some "separation of church and state". I am not a state, so no such rule applies to me. Even if it did, Obama's acts, whether making Wright his mentor, or lying about it afterward, were certainly not religious acts, and both are more than damning enough to deny him my vote.

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

As I seem unable to stay away from the blog, I suppose I should now go reply to the comments. Perhaps I will try again tomorrow to give myself a small break from blogging.

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

ADDENDUM

Here is a bit of my comment on the article that inspired this essay. As it seems relevant I figure I decided to attach it.

I think if Wright [were] Obama's mentor, recipient of large donations, and pastor at a church Obama attended for 20 years, then I have to think Obama is definitely cut from the same cloth, even if he hides it better.

Either that, or Obama pretends to be a black separatist for votes. Which just makes him a sleazy politician.

Neither one gets my vote.

There is much more on similar topics in the comments to Larry Elder's article (linked above), and quite a few good comments from others as well.

(And yes, for those who bother to check the original post, I did forget to use the subjunctive, the same grammatical error for which I chided Ms. Ferraro.)

UPDATED 03/20/2008

By the way, I am not the only one noticing that Obama seems more and more like a "regular" politician (see my mentions here, here, here, here, here and here). Best of the Web has this comment, talking about Obama's refusal to wear a flag and his sudden choice to use eight flags as a backdrop during his race speech:

There are many ways of expressing patriotism, and if wearing a flag pin is not Obama's idiom, who cares? It was arrogant of him to imply that his own patriotism was more "true" than that of pin-wearers, but one could put this down to defensiveness at being asked a "gotcha" question.

But in light of his October comment, what are we to make of his extravagant use of the Stars and Stripes on Tuesday? If a flag pin on a lapel is "a substitute for true patriotism," is that not also true of eight flags on a stage as a backdrop to a political speech? Obama proclaimed himself too good for cheap symbolism, but resorted to it the first time he faced a real crisis. Is he really any different from the run-of-the-mill politician?

Of course, it isn't that surprising others would say the same thing. Except in the eyes of his remaining devout followers, Obama's resemblance to more traditional politicians, and to the least reputable kinds of regular politician,  is becoming more and more obvious.

UPDATED 03/21/2008

I realized that some may read my modified position and use it to argue that Obama was right. As I postulate that many sit in the pews but do not agree with what is said, some may try to say that this view is not very different from Obama's excuse (well, one of them). But there is a big difference. Obama not only attended the church, he called the man his mentor, sent huge sums of money, and put the man on campaign committees. That is a lot more active than simply sitting in the pews of your local church. So, still not buying his excuse.