I see Iokkan in the Well calling the whacko Wright's opinions 'rational'. -- Proximity Warning

I said it was understandable, in larger context, that Wright might make such a statement. Similarly I can see it as understandable that Fox News viewers would still believe - even after seven years - that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the attacks on 9/11.

I disagree that either example is either 'rational' or established fact.

Similarly I do not judge Reverand Wright, who pastors to a comparatively small audience, nearly as controversial or worrisome as John Hagee, who still preaches to a mega-church that measures in the thousands.

In any case, you've yet to demonstrate what 'sympathy' Senator Obama has for that particular view as expressed by Wright. And please, don't pull the tired line "he's attended that church for 20+ years". I attended the same Catholic parish for the same length of time and disagreed with about 90% of what I heard there for the last 10 years.

You've also yet to address the fact - one I pointed out repeatedly last week - that Obama has already addressed this issue and explicitly rejected it.

If you want to score cheap points here, use Elephantman's words. Not mine.

If you did attend as an adult a church you disagreed with for 20 years, more fool you.

Let me guess, you're an atheist.

There's nothing particularly worrisome about either; both are loons but you can't legislate people's beliefs or how many people listen to them.

You haven't been paying attention to Republican politics the last twenty years, have you?

Hagee may be a nut, he may preach to thousands of nuts, but those thousands of nuts can potentially exert electoral pressure; something the Republicans have recognized, courted, pandered, and used to considerable success. Keeping them happy, particularly with regards to social policy, has been a key component to the GOP's operation.

Make no mistake: Hagee and company would be more than happy to legislate what people believe and do.

Wright by contrast call only for social justice and sanity. Plus he doesn't trumpet whatever 'influence' he has like Hagee.

"You've also yet to address the fact - one I pointed out repeatedly last week - that Obama has already addressed this issue and explicitly rejected it."

I addressed it last week - his rejection was tepid enough to leave the impression (correct it seems) that Obama is willing to humor (at the least) this kind of nonsense.

I listened to his speech and read the transcript. So far as I am concerned, he's rejected his reverand's 'extremism' and the issue is closed. McCain, meanwhile, had issued no equally strong denunciation of his own supporter's extremism, which worries me no end.

If you feel differently, so be it. You and I are of different minds on this and should leave it at that.

But again, please don't go misrepresenting what I say. It simply not polite or ethical.

Certainly given the size of their respective congregations and frankly "anti-American rhetoric", a President decreeing them in a "conspiracy" to forment social unrest and undermine the US Government isn't that big a stretch.

In that sense, Professor Yoo has provided a perfectly "legal" framework by which to have both me taken into custody, their assets seized, and the followers all intered for "judgment" before a Military Tribunal.

Note: anything in quotation marks should be taken with a grain of salt (one the size of Manhattan).

The rest of this comment is completely serious, but strictly hypothetical. I personally would weep no tears of those two men and all their followers vanished tomorrow, but do NOT wish for it to happen.