Well separation of church and state almost has nothing to do with a
presidential candidate. What was at issue was a couple of factors: the ideology of the candidate. That is, if he was a member of the church
for 20+ years, gave thousands of dollars to the church, and had
hundreds of thousands in tax money go to the church and its members,
than it should suffice to say that he would at least embody some of the
ideology of the church. While no church or belief system has full, 100%
support amongst all people, there is a stark difference between a
church and one that chooses to have some "black" people and culture,
Afrocentric and hate-filled. To say that it isn't is asinine. If there
was a white presidential candidate equivalent under the same
circumstances, there would be not a single shot in the world for that
candidate. This is not just some minuscule case of
guilt-by-association, because his role in the church is far beyond that
of most members in most churches anywhere.
Hagee is basically a
nut-job too. But an endorsement would be different than an endorsement
by somebody that is your direct spiritual leader, as was Obama's case
(even though Wright et. al were not actually endorsing him. It what was
going on behind the scenes that was a big deal). I think it would be a bad idea to support a guy like him. His radical stances toward some subjects have a tiny touch of validity, as do a tiny bit of those within UTCOC, but it doesn't make them acceptable. McCain said it right, but also had the benefit that Hagee is not a pastor whom was a constant and direct influence for two decades. So while both people like Hagee and Wright are pretty wild in their ideas (at least to me), the two cannot be compared to McCain and Obama, respectively. If you were to make a comparison, you would have to look at Dan Yeary, who differs greatly between the two aforementioned pastors.
issue was Obama's handling of the situation, very politician like, if
you will. At first he defended it, as though there was no harm or that
wasn't possible to renounce his pastor, then it was like a pay day when
Wright shot his mouth off again on TV, at which time he could finally
have a point to diverge from him. Since that didn't go over well with
many, he had to further his stance to where it is at now - severed, but
really only in word.
Does it seem unfair to go after somebodies private life? Well, if you're a presidential candidate, nearly every aspect of your life, political and private, are exposed, from how you vote, your income, to your goddamn food. I would say ideaology is a very important aspect for any serious candidate. It's not so much that the views within the leaders of the Trinity United Church are pretty radical (which they are) but so much that Obama ran/is running his campaign on this intangible "change," but those who are supposed to guide his spiritual and strongly influence his and his families life are going for a change/hate that is nearly polar opposite. Pretty big deal, if you ask me.
I'm a moderate, not religious at all, and even though I don't really give 2 shits about what has transpired pretty much thus far, the past record ain't so clean, so he (Obama) won't be getting my vote unless some serious shit hits a serious fan.