I hope not. To suggest that a political figure holds that kind of responsibility can easily be taken to imply that the political individual ought to control the religious figure, thereby denying the latter his/her spiritual authority and judgment, to say nothing of his/her freedom of speech.

That idea trivializes religion itself, denying it the basic function (as our Founders--and the Hebrew prophets--understood it) of standing outside and apart from political power structures. Religion that accommodates itself to the prevailing culture risks its ability to demand justice from society. But religion that becomes captive to the state signs its own death warrant.

None of this is to suggest Rev. Wright is "right" in those statements so widely quoted by the news media. Call them "controversial," call them "highly charged," call them "intemperate," call them "divisive," call them simply "wrong." All that's fine.

But last I checked, Senator Obama is an adult and thus fully entitled to speak for himself, to be the ultimate authority on what he believes. If we're going to doubt that, to make an exception in his case, then let's indulge in that old cliche and level the playing field enough to ask the other two candidates, Senators Clinton and McCain, if they agree with everything their clergy persons have ever said? And why stop there? Maybe we ought to ask people running for elective office if they completely agree with all the individuals they are variously close to--their spouses, siblings, friends, physicians, attorneys, bankers... Gee, we've got the makings of a real inquisition here. What fun.