The Reverend's sudden political fame stems from a number of sermons (and particularly one connected with the September 11, 2001, attacks) delivered in his Chicago church. Excerpts from these sermons have been widely aired in the media, particularly on talk radio. Reverend Wright does not appear to have aimed at anything more than an advisory political role - something we will return to later. The main target of criticism was his friend and congregant, Senator Barack Obama.

Let me say first that the quoted speeches in no way represent my feelings towards the United States, and it is not the purpose here to defend or excuse them. But if the Reverend Wright's meaning and intention had been to encourage subversive or seditious acts, he should long ago have been prosecuted for it, particularly in the charged atmosphere which followed the World Trade Center attacks. If he was not (and this under the administration which pursues the "war on terror") then it must be concluded that his speech was political, and therefore, however insulting and hurtful it might have been, protected by the First Amendment.

It would not have been the first such occurrence. During the Vietnam conflict, stronger words were spoken, and much more was done by the war's opponents, even while American soldiers were fighting a ruthless and determined enemy. Yet the only ones singled out for arrest and prosecution were the few who clearly engaged in destructive and/or illegal acts.

The show hosts of talk radio, and their counterparts in television and the press, enjoy the same protection and the same freedom. But one may wonder whether Senator Obama's loyalty to his church and pastor is really the main issue here.

The many groups  and persons collectively referred to as "the media", have shown little interest in the candidates' positions on issues of far greater importance than their church affiliation. Why aren't these questions being asked: What the candidates intend to do, beyond "staying" or "leaving", about Iraq and the other wars; how they intend to assure America's energy supply; what their plan is (beyond hand-outs and bail-outs) to revive and redirect the economy; how to cut medical costs, beyond squeezing doctors and hospitals; and so on.

All three, Obama, Clinton and McCain, should be asked these and other hard questions, so that we know, before the vote, what they are committed to, and how they intend to discharge their commitments. The one question concerning his pastor Senator Obama should be requested to answer is whether he intends to retain Mr. Wright as a political adviser. I believe he already answered that in his recent speech, but it wouldn't hurt if he said it again.

As a nation, we face far greater issues than sermons. And if the separation of church and state be the law of the land then sermons should not be the stuff of politics.