ABCNews' Jake Tapper asked White House Press Secretary Jay Carney today about the administration's controversial decision interpretation of health care reform legislation to require employers' health coverage to include contraception. Specifically at issue is the decision by HHS not to exempt some religious institutions including churches and hospitals from the coverage requirement. Here's the exchange:

Q And then Speaker Boehner today said that he thought that the rule that HHS recently announced requiring all health insurance to provide contraceptive services, he thought that that rule, which, as you know, aroused the ire of the Catholic Church, among other organizations, is unconstitutional. And I’m wondering why -- without getting into the whole constitutionality, because neither you nor I are attorneys -- why does the Obama administration think it has the right to tell any organization that they have to provide a service, even if that service goes against their religious beliefs?

The answer, and back-and-forth with Tapper is in the extended post. Read the whole thing.

The Florida State Senate passed a bill 31-8 that authorizes school districts to allow students the right to offer prayer at school events so long as school officials and other adults are not involved.

Its approval came over the objections of senators who said the measure will lead to prayers at school events that students can’t get out of, including possibly in classes, and that some young students will have to listen to prayers or risk being ostracized because they come from a different religious tradition than most of their classmates.

At least one lawmaker, however, foresees potential difficulty in this Lord-of-the-Flies approach to student religious freedom:

One supporter of the proposal, Sen. Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, while speaking in favor of the bill, warned his colleagues that in order to support the measure they had to accept the notion that those messages may not always be a Christian prayer, or even a Jewish one. With adults not allowed to tell students what they can or can’t say – some messages could be unsettling.

“At a graduation ceremony a student might stand up and say I give my thanks to Allah, and let me explain why,” said Gaetz. “A student might stand up and say I’m a Wiccan and let me explain why. We have to be prepared for the full expression of religion and I am.”

The bill moves to the House, where it is expected to pass. Students are already allowed to pray on their own in school. What does this bill accomplish, apart from potentially encouraging some students to use this right in a coercive or bullying manner over other students? Will school officials be allowed to step in, in such an instance, if this bill is law? Can school officials allow explicit time for religious expression to a captive audience, at graduation or other required school assemblies?

It sounds like this approach raises more questions than it answers, and causes more problems than it solves.

Is it February already? That can only mean one thing: it's time for the National Prayer Breakfast. As in past years, President Obama spoke. You can watch the video here. The transcript is here. Some highlights:

On the role of faith in governing, I especially liked his emphasis on motivation. Faith might not dictate our policy answers to problems, but it may compel us to want to solve them in the first place:

[I]n my moments of prayer, I’m reminded that faith and values play an enormous role in motivating us to solve some of our most urgent problems, in keeping us going when we suffer setbacks, and opening our minds and our hearts to the needs of others.  

We can’t leave our values at the door.  If we leave our values at the door, we abandon much of the moral glue that has held our nation together for centuries, and allowed us to become somewhat more perfect a union.  Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Jane Addams, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dorothy Day, Abraham Heschel -- the majority of great reformers in American history did their work not just because it was sound policy, or they had done good analysis, or understood how to exercise good politics, but because their faith and their values dictated it, and called for bold action -- sometimes in the face of indifference, sometimes in the face of resistance.

On the role of faith in politics he says, rightly, that Christianity comes in all political persuasions.

In the words of C.S. Lewis, “Christianity has not, and does not profess to have a detailed political program.  It is meant for all men at all times, and the particular program which suited one place or time would not suit another.”

Our goal should not be to declare our policies as biblical.  It is God who is infallible, not us.  Michelle reminds me of this often.  (Laughter.)  So instead, it is our hope that people of goodwill can pursue their values and common ground and the common good as best they know how, with respect for each other.  And I have to say that sometimes we talk about respect, but we don’t act with respect towards each other during the course of these debates.

The U.S. National Forest Service probably made the right decision last year in declining to renew the lease of an organization maintaining a large statue of Christ on the Big Mountain Ski Resort, federal land in Montana. That move was apparently inspired by a Freedom From Religion Foundation complaint, leading to all the outrage from the other side of such issues that you can probably imagine. After a period of public comment, the Forest Service has now changed its position, deciding to renew the lease after all, leaving the statute - and the likely litigation it brings - in place.

In a statement, [Supervisor Chip] Weber explained that “the statue is important to the community for its historical heritage based on its association with the early development of the ski area on Big Mountain.”

The statement also cited the statue’s eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as a factor in the decision.

U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., praised the Forest Service for having “the courage to do the right thing” and he said the strong public response likely played a part.

In reconsidering the permit request, the Forest Service solicited public input and got 95,000 comments, most of them generated from Rehberg’s congressional website and an online letter posted by the American Center for Law and Justice, a national organization that counters groups such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Annie Laurie Gaylor, a spokeswoman for the foundation, said Wednesday that a lawsuit already was prepared and would be filed by today in U.S. District Court in Missoula.

These memorials continue to be a problem area of church-state law, not so much because courts have trouble deciding whether permanent sectarian religious displays are appropriate on public land (they aren't), but because posturing politicians typically can't resist getting involved. They pass resolutions affirming Christian monuments, transfer small chunks of land to private control, or designate controversial areas as national monuments, all in a misguided effort to preserve what are essentially government-sponsored affirmations of Christianity, as if Christians need, would want, or should accept the government's help in spreading the Gospel. We don't need it and we shouldn't accept it.

This time around, here's hoping politics, and in turn the government, stays out of the business of proclaiming Christ.

Courts have been clear that introducing creationism into the public school curriculum is unconstitutional, but that has yet to slow down a bill in the Indiana legislature that would authorize a course on theories on the origin of life. The State Senate voted 28-22 in favor of the legislation yesterday, and as Religion Clause points out, even Intelligent Design advocates aren't happy with the approach.

"Instead of injecting religion into biology classes, legislators should be working to promote the inclusion of more science,” said Joshua Youngkin, a law and policy analyst at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “There are plenty of scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory today, and science students should be able to hear about them, not about religion.” 

This is at least a creative approach, using a comparative religion framework as an avenue to discuss the origin of life from a religious perspective. But is it not just one more effort to introduce material courts have said are better left to homes and houses of worship?

The New York state legislature is taking action in the face of court rulings affirming New York City rules prohibiting churches from meeting in school buildings. 

The state Senate Education Committee recently approved an amendment to education laws that would allow school sites to be used for religious meetings outside school hours.

The vote is merely a first step on a long road to Gov. Cuomo’s desk, but local leaders are still hailing it as a harbinger of triumph.

“This is happening just in the nick of time,” said City Councilman Fernando Cabrera who has protested the city’s plans to evict houses of worship that rent school space on Feb. 12.

Earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court let stand an Appeals Court ruling upholding City rules. Many observers - me included! - thought the Court would take up that case and rule that such prohibitions are unconstitutional.

Lawsuits have been filed challenging the Obama Administration's decision to include certain types of religious organization in the general requirement that health insurance plans must cover contraception. The policy, announced last week, does exempt houses of worship and religious organizations that employ primarily those of the same faith. But the White House has come under intense criticism for failing to include religious hospitals and schools in the class of exempted organizations (See Michael Gerson arguing that Obama is "playing his Catholic allies for fools").

Writing in the LATimes, Supreme Court reporter David Savage makes the case that the Court's recent decision in Hosanna-Tabor, affirming a religious school's exemption from certain employment discrimination laws with regard to ministerial positions, suggests the contraception policy may not be found constitutional.

[L]awyers challenging the rule say the dispute is not about women using contraception, but about forcing the Catholic Church to pay for it. Hannah Smith, a former law clerk to Justices Samuel A. AlitoJr. and Clarence Thomas, filed the two college suits on behalf of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

She described this month’s decision in the Lutheran school case “as a stinging rebuke to the Obama administration’s extremely narrow view of religious liberty. I was shocked they went ahead with this quest to force religious groups to pay for abortion drugs in violation of their religious convictions.”

Her suits say the mandate violates both the 1st Amendment and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits the government from putting a “substantial burden” on religious liberty.

Suits have been filed on behalf of Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina, and Colorado Christian University. Stay tuned.

In an editorial today, the LATimes today argued against recently-passed House legislation that would allow religious displays in war memorials.

The legislation may seem innocuous on first reading. Its key passage says that "religious symbols may be included as part of … a military memorial that is established or acquired by the United States government." That language summons images of gravestones in military cemeteries on which a cross (or Star of David or other religious symbol) has been engraved. But such displays are already legal and common. The bill is in fact aimed at something else: structures that a reasonable observer would see as an endorsement of Christianity.

Overturning a lower court's decision, the 6th Circuit ruled against Eastern Michigan University and in favor of a counseling student, expelled over her request to refer a patient to another counselor rather than discuss the patient's same-sex relationship. A unanimous panel of the court ruled that the American Counseling Association rules do not prohibit referrals as the school argued, and sent the case back to the trial court for more hearings.

Religion News Service reports on the reactions of the parties :

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has helped defend [Julea] Ward, hailed the ruling as a victory for religious freedom.

“No individual should be forced out of their profession solely because of her religious beliefs,” said Eric Rassbach, the Becket Fund’s national litigation director.

The Ypsilanti, Mich.-based university issued a statement noting that the court has not ruled in favor of Ward, but rather called for more legal consideration.

“This case has never been about religion or religious discrimination,” the university said. “It is not about homosexuality or sexual orientation. This case is about what is in the best interest of a person who is in need of counseling.”

You can read the decision (pdf) here.