And then we will get reminded about how much we ought to be grateful for.

Last Tuesday, I was working like I would any other workday, when I started having some difficulty with my breathing. I used my asthma inhaler, but it didn't seem to make much difference, and the asthma attack continued. I called the doctor's office, and the nurse said, in essence, "Go directly to the emergency room. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200."

After two breathing treatments, I had stopped most of my wheezing, but now, it's five days later, and I'm still feeling it. I walk across the parking lot to the car, and the weight in my lungs tells me that the air is very humid. I get to the car, and I just sit for a minute and catch my breath. Breathing is not supposed to be such laborious work.

I hope, though, that as my lungs finish coming back from this latest asthma attack, I don't forget what it meant to have to struggle for something as simple as getting the air in and out. And maybe the next time somebody cuts me off at the intersection, I'll keep it in a little better perspective.

Brad Pardee
Editor

When you look at the response, though, you'd think that Governor Bush had advocated replacing the Attorney General with a Grand Inquisitor. Columnist Charles Krauthammer went so far to talk about a "whiff of Taliban" in the air at the debate, referring to the Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan who have imposed a brand of Islam in their civil law that is harsh even by the standard of other Muslim nations. How the Taliban compares with Bush's simple statement that Christ had changed his life is anybody's guess.

Compare this, however, to remarks made by Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Joseph Lieberman this weekend in Detroit. Speaking at Fellowship Chapel, he said, ``As a people, we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's purposes.'' He went on to say, ``Let us break through some of the inhibitions that have existed to talk together across the flimsy lines of separation of faith, to talk together, to study together, to pray together, and ultimately to sing together His holy name.''

Does anybody think that Senator Lieberman will be compared with the Taliban? Does anybody expect any charges that his place on the ticket is a blow to either diversity or the separate of church and state? I certainly don't expect to hear that, and the article I read didn't have any quotes from Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State or from any representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Why the different responses? I think that there are two reasons, one understandable, one disingenuous.

First, there is a long history of anti-Semitism in the United States. While this country may have been better than others in this regard, there have certainly been times when it was only better by degrees. Consequently, I think there is a certain amount of skittishness to criticizing the first Jew on a major party ticket on matters of faith, for fear of appearing bigoted. While that is certainly understandable, it is nonetheless misguided. The journalists and politicians who are attempting to explain and persuade us in this election season are supposed to be skilled communicators as part and parcel of their profession. They should be capable of separating prejudice from objective criticism. If they simply remain silent in a way that they certainly won't for other candidates, the forum becomes skewed.

There is another reason, though, and there's no nobility to it. The fact of the matter is that Senator Lieberman's faith has not kept him from being pro-choice. It has not caused him to oppose affirmative action. It has not caused him to oppose the "gay rights" agenda. In short, his faith has not led him to oppose liberal positions on the issues. Consequently, he is free to talk about his faith and the "usual suspects" will most likely let him do so with little or no criticism, much less "Taliban" fear mongering.

Their silence, though, shows that their concerns about separation of church and state are actually quite hollow, and that they are quite willing to allow people who share their political philosophy to engage in religious speech in a way that they would never allow for those who take more conservative positions. It is similar, in many ways, to the feminists who insisted that we should "just believe" Anita Hill's charges against Clarence Thomas, but were conspicuously absent in coming to the defense of Paula Jones when Bill Clinton was the accused.

Most people in this country, politicians included, have some measure of religious belief that forms their values, and these values influence their positions on the issues and the way they vote. It is right and appropriate that they be allowed to express these views. However, that freedom needs to be available to people who take either side of the many issues that are part of our public debate. If it is not freedom available to all, it really can't be called freedom.