Not surprisingly, Jeremiah Wright divides voters:

In network exit polling, about the same number of voters in each state said they considered the situation with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. "very important" to their vote as those who said it was "not at all important." And most who gave the issue a heavy weight voted for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), while those who said it was not a factor went for Obama, the Illinois senator, by wide margins.

In both states, frequent churchgoers were more apt to say they were influenced by Wright than were less actively religious voters. In North Carolina, among those who said they attend religious services weekly, nearly six in 10 called Wright important to their vote, almost double the figure among those who never attend services. Even among Obama's own supporters in the Tarheel state, 45 percent who attend services weekly called the controversy important to their vote; among those, a third who rated it "very important."

In Indiana, the issue also split voters: About half of those who attend services weekly or occasionally rated the Wright issue important, while only a third of those who never attend services said the same.

This reflects one pre-existing divide in American society and one emerging. The latter is that the most religious voters (as measured by frequency of participation) are becoming increasingly distinct from the rest of society. And by "distinct," I really mean " conservative." Most everybody else is headed in the opposite direction.

This frequent-flyer cadre has every right to their political opinions, of course. But I'm not clear why it is that they should be given control over our political discourse, especially since they continue to age and shrink. There's some kind of weird fetish that holds them up as the "real Americans," while everyone else is apparently French. (This is spoken by someone who works for them, by the way.)

Of course, by "weird fetish," I really mean " wankers like Michael Gerson obsess over them or their absence":

It is also a striking reversal of fortunes. Obama is easily the most religiously fluent and informed Democratic presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter. But, over time, Obama has assumed a much more familiar Democratic electoral profile -- the candidate of the young, the educated and the secular (he has consistently won religiously nonaligned voters), who also gets nearly universal support from African Americans. He increasingly resembles Bill Bradley or Gary Hart -- a candidate of new liberalism -- with this additional element of black enthusiasm.

What, exactly, is wrong with putting together a coalition of the young, the educated, the secular and the black? Why would Gerson assume that white regular church-goers should take precedence over everyone else?

I'm not just being snippy here: I honestly don't see why it is that one subculture should be prioritized over another or have its opinion on a pastor deferred to, especially when their numbers are on the wane. There are other religious people in the US, and simply showing up each week doesn't guarantee an intelligent opinion. Just ask the people who have to put up with my sermons.