On that point, he is absolutely right--and it is a truth about American life that candidates have assiduously avoided in the past.

As a nation, we are still weighed down by the anger that led Wright to castigate Hillary Clinton for never having had the experience of being passed up by a taxi because of the color of her skin and that led Geraldine Ferraro to suggest that Obama's only qualification for the presidency was his color.

That said, Wright remains a problem for Obama--even though he was dismissed as a religious adviser to the campaign long before his anti-white preaching became public knowledge. Wright married Michelle and Barack Obama and baptized their two daughters. Even if Obama never actually heard Wright say the things he said (and they are available on DVD), he must have been aware of his pastor's general attitudes. If you are a political candidate who is a devout member of a church, as Obama says he is, you surely must answer for whatever is preached from the pulpit of that church. There are thousands of African-American churches whose pastors would never utter the words "God damn America." Exactly why Obama chose this church and this pastor is something of a mystery.

I hold Mitt Romney responsible for every reactionary view held by the Mormon leadership on matters involving race and sex. I expect Catholics running for office to tell me whether they agree with their church's hierarchy on such matters as contraception, abortion and stem cell research. If they do, I won't vote for them. When Republicans eagerly embrace endorsement by the Christian right, I have every right to assume that they identify with the reactionary social and religious views expressed by fundamentalists. So I can hardly say, because I like Obama, that he should not be called to account for the views of his longtime pastor.

Here we have a classic example of the pitfalls of requiring that every candidate profess some form of faith. My guess is that Obama joined Wright's active and flourishing congregation because it was deeply rooted in the black Chicago community where he worked as a young man. My guess is also that he probably was aware of Wright's views but took them more as a cautionary example than as words to live by. Now he is in a bind. He can distance himself still further form his pastor by moving to another church--and look like a traitor to his past. Or he can continue to reject Wright's views, and speak out for a more hopeful racial future, without breaking personally with the minister who married him. .

I think that Obama's pastor has placed a potent weapon in the hands of Hillary Clinton, who doesn't have to say a word about the matter and must be feeling, right about now, like a cat presented with a particularly tasty bowl of cream. But it's unfair for the left to describe the criticism of Obama as a case of "guilt by association." A candidate should not be held responsible for the whacko views of a friend or family member, but the relationship between a congregant and the pastor of his church is quite different. The very essence of membership in a particular church is an assumed community of values. Obama can't deny that. He made a huge mistake by ignoring or overlooking the bellicose and racist views of a man who was supposed to be his spiritual leader. I think it is extremely sad, and ironic, that Obama--whose appeal is based heavily on his stance as a uniter rather than a divider--may lose the Democratic nomination because he belongs to a church headed by a racially divisive pastor.

I think that Obama's speech in Philadelphia, which was not spoken in racial code but was a real attempt to talk about how many black and white Americans really feel about one another, opens the door for a real conversation about race that is long overdue--a conversation not based on the coy codes used by many in the Clinton campaign or on fantasies that we are living in a "post-racial"--or post-racist--society.

But my guess is that the issue will not go away. The association with Wright is bound to cost Obama some white votes.

Isn't it high time for a secular humanist or atheist candidate, unencumbered by idiotic clerics who either damn America or bless America? How about rebuilding America--remaking our world anew, to paraphrase Tom Paine--instead of alluding to divine curses or blessings?

Read my article on faith-based programs in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas.