Ok, in fairness to Wright, I will admit that I am familiar with the context. You're right that it's less bad than the snippets suggest. For all my extremely harsh criticism of him, I actually don't think Wright is a bad guy. If I ever fell on hard times, in his neighborhood, I think he would give me a hand. Obama is another story - he doesn't apparently help even his own relatives. :)

But here is a further point. Most people, on hearing about 9/11, I would imagine were just genuinely stunned. The left seemed a little bit more into weeping and sobbing than the right. People on the right wanted retaliation, pronto. But everyone felt terrible about it in much the same way.

Well, almost everyone. I was stunned to see Falwell & Robertson blaming 9/11 on - who was it again? - lesbians, abortionists, other undesirables. Then here we have Wright. Instead of empathizing with the victims, whose families were still watching them being pulled out of the rubble, he goes into a riff about the chickens coming home to roost. Amazing. I don't see how you could see that - or, if Barack wasn't there, come to the knowledge that he felt that way - and not have some sort of a negative reaction to it. Barack is positively mum on what he felt about Wright prior to spring 2008; in such circumstances, it is not unfair to assume the worst.

What does it all mean, in terms of public policy? Not much, if you've already made up your mind. But if you haven't, this commercial does tell you something about Obama, the man. And if you're voting on personalities, as a segue to understanding something about policy (i.e., acting as a late deciding voter), then this commercial is appropriate for you.

Not sure about "religious tests" under the Constitution, but I do think religion is relevant to much in politics.

To digress momentarily, recall that in the confirmation hearings of John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court, he said he would not comment on his politics because that was irrelevant to judging. As if! Nothing in the world could be more relevant to how a Supreme Court justice will rule on hot button political questions than his politics. And not -- importantly, so I can be clear -- because I think politics trump judicial considerations -- but because politics helps shape one's judicial philosophy.

So anyway, I find it highly relevant, in terms of foreign policy, that George Bush II was a born against Christian Zionist, while his father was a status quo Episcopalian. On Israeli affairs, it showed. I find it relevant, for Obama, that his pastor honors Farrakhan and preaches great sympathy for the Palestinians. No wonder Obama is so popular with American Arabs, as well as with Jews. One group will be dissatisfied! :) I can guess which one it will be.

For Sarah Palin, I was most impressed when she said recently she does not belong to a church at all. There is a passage in the Bible where Jesus meets a Samaritan woman, discusses worship in rival temples, and tells her God seeks those who worship in no set place, but in "spirit and in truth." When it comes to faith, Palin is as real as it gets. Part of authentic Christianity, by the way, involves non-coercion as to religion and universal love for others. Good values, it seems to me, in a president.

So no, I don't mind religious inquiries, including those directed at Palin, and including those which some think put her in an unfavorable light. You reap what you sow. In general, I am not unhappy with any of the four candidates' religion (politics in the church is another matter), but I am most satisfied -- surprise! -- with Sarah.