In a broad statement on our "first, most cherished liberty," the US Conference of Catholic Bishops fashions the actions of state and federal government, legislation and court decision, into unified evidence that religious freedom is broadly under attack in the U.S. The piece focuses not just on the contraception coverage mandate, but also references the Alabama law criminalizing aid to undocumented immigrants, the 2nd Circuit's decision upholding a NY City law barring the use of school buildings for religious worship, the Supreme Court's decision allowing UC Hastings to implement a policy prohibiting student groups - including religious organizations - from discrimination in membership. There are other recent events on the list as well.

I respect the views of the USCCB - agree with some of their specific concerns and disagree with others.  What I mostly disagree with, however, is their conclusion that these events are conspiratorial points in a broader secularist campaign. Archbishop Wenski refers to them as "founded in a reductive secularism that has more in common with the French Revolution than with America's founding."

Maintaining the separation of church and state is difficult, and is as much a religious blessing as it is a secularist idea. The efforts described by the USCCB are not primarily in the reach of the Obama Administration either, or even the result of left-wing politics. The Alabama law was pushed by anti-immigration conservatives. The Bronx Household ruling was made by zero Obama-appointed appellate judges. And the contraception coverage mandate that most draws their ire is seemingly in the process of being rewritten, as the President himself has said:

[I]f a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -– not the hospital, not the charity -– will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.  The result will be that religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services, and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly.  Let me repeat:  These employers will not have to pay for, or provide, contraceptive services. 

I understand arguments over whether this compromise is sufficient (perhaps), whether the administrative process that brought us to this point was well-executed (surely not), whether further adjustments should be made to the policy (probably). But it is a mistake in my view to lump together these disparate elements representing opposing political viewpoints into a single anti-religious conspiracy. It turns the honest concern for religious freedom into a political football more suitable for talk radio, especially unbecoming in an election year. 

Both sides get things right and get things wrong with regard to religion and religious liberty.