In an effort to persuade the American public that he actually is not morally impoverished, Barack Obama has publicly parted ways with Trinity United Church of Christ. He had already rebuked the extreme racist comments of his dearly loved and respected pastor of twenty years, but he had not officially left the church itself until now. Now, the same Obama who previously claimed to be absent from the pews during Jeremiah Wright's more rancorous sermons is being heralded as faithfully present during his former membership by fellow attendees of the church.
Was he present during any of the infamous sermons (which allegedly were legion) or wasn't he? Did he approve of the controversy or didn't he? It seems the public is not going to get a straight answer out of Obama, thus one is left with no choice but to infer what seems to be obvious. Can one truly be a congregant who consistently attends a certain church and also be simultaneously unaware of the senior pastor's frequent sermons peppered with outbursts of well-known inflammatory opinions? This is highly unlikely (see a previous argument).
So, what can the public safely assume from the timing of this ecclesial exit? Contrary to what much of the media along with Obama himself would have you believe (that is, "poor Obama is having to finally part with his innocent and misunderstood church based on popular dissent"), it seems that the candidate is likely quitting Trinity not because it is the right thing to do (if he were governed by a strong moral compass, this split would have taken place years ago and out of the spotlight), but because the "hope pope" himself will do anything in his power to please his potential voters. If this is indeed the case, it is further confirmation that Obama stands firm for very little besides his desire to move into the White House.
A good, logical analysis of this situation can be found here.