I tried for quite some time to ignore the comments that Senator Obama made recently about religion and how it is being ‘hijacked’ to ‘drive us apart’. The mainstream media and blog after blog after blog (and even Yao) posted about it but I thought it was a marginally interesting debate but never paid it much thought. For some reason though, when I read Ann Althouse’s take on it this morning (after a wildly productive all-nighter), something struck a cord with me.

Althouse suggests that

it’s entirely distracting to use the word “hijack,” especially if the problem you’re talking about has nothing to do with what we saw on September 11th but is simply the way some Christians take the conservative side on various issues and, failing to content themselves with mere belief, participate in politics.

I completely agree with what the moderate-to-conservative Althouse says in the last blurb of her piece. Obama’s comments that criticize the teachings of certain religious sects shows that Obama is doing the same dividing that he was deriding so strongly. I take fault at Althouse’s criticism of the use of the word ‘hijack.’ When I read the article, my first reaction was that it was a solid analysis and my second was that he was blatantly hypocritical. Even though we live in decidedly post-9/11 world, the word ‘hijack’ isn’t out-of-bounds and it takes a highly-sensitive and borderline biased eye to deem that he was ‘exploiting tragedy.’ He used the word legitimately and the only person evoking the image of 9/11 here is Althouse. Ann should stick to commenting on women who don’t stand the way she wants them to and the presence of phallic symbols in campaign ads. If any of you aren’t aware, Althouse created a small internet controversy when she interpreted the substitution of carrots for onion rings in Hilary Clinton’s Sopranos parody to be a sly reference to Hilary emasculating Bill. She later hints to the fact that it was simply a cheap trick to attract readers. Awesome. Althouse’s ploy to attract readers to her blog (and by extention increase her AdSense revenue) has ‘worked’ on another ‘unsuspecting’ blogger. I didn’t write about it when the Jessica Valenti incident occurred or even when the Clinton video happened, but Althouse has very efficiently (it only took 3 months!) turned another ‘fan’ to her so-called ‘anti-Althousian’ camp. This other controversy that I keep referencing occurred when she posted about the way Jessica Valenti (of Feministing.com and Colbert Report fame) posed in a picture with former-President Clinton. According to Althouse, Valenti stood upright and apparently exposed her breasts in an exploitive manner. Perhaps a burqa would have been more appropriate?

Wait. Make sure you aren’t drinking anything before you read the next sentence.

She calls herself a moderate.

I’d hate for you to blow milk out of your nose and ruin your lovely keyboard. I’m looking out for you.

Back to Obama’s comments, here are my feelings: Yao is right. His post meanders wonderfully between an anti-religion rant, an anti-Grant Swank rant, and a something-Obama rant. I do think Obama was 100% correct in his comments, but by making them, he is doing the exact ‘evil’ he is trying to combat. Valiant effort Senator Obama, but leave this one to the professionals.

Well, its been a blast. Back to studying and listening to Journey.

3 Responses to “I Hope ObamaGirl Goes To Church”

  1. 1 Gary Aknos

    Violation of church and state?

    Check out full coverage of this at

    And send an email to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (americansunited@au.org) demanding that the UCC lose it’s 501(3(c) tax exempt status because:

    From the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State perspective, a political speaker at a religious event has one of two distinct roles: Either they are 1) speaking as a candidate for office or 2) speaking as a non-candidate. If Obama was speaking as a non-candidate (since he was supposedly invited over a year ago before he declared) then his reference to campaign pledges if elected to office clearly violates AU’s standard for separation. If he was speaking as a candidate, AU’s standards call for equal access by the other candidates for the same office… which didn’t appear to happen. In either case, his speeches before the Iowa Conference and the General Synod were a violation of separation by AU’s own standards.

    From the UCC perspective, there should be no confusion as they publicly advocate for the same rules on separation as AU. Furthermore, UCC leaders and conference ministers understood Obama’s status as a declared candidate for some time and, by virtue of their reporting on the Iowa speech a week earlier, also understood that Obama’s address would be a campaign speech. The UCC clearly and knowingly violated AU’s standard for separation.

  2. 2 James

    This post is also funny because Thomas M. Friedman, Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Toledo, misspelled Barack Obama in the second blog you referenced. It might be funny if he did it as a joke, but, judging by the austerity of his mugshot, he didn’t.

  1. 1 The In Vogue Word Of The Day: Stare Decisis at DailyWrit

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


Random Posts