Kerry: Nations Prosper When 'Citizens Have Faith in Their Governments'

    Speaking Tuesday at the 45th Annual Washington Conference of the Council of the Americas, Secretary of State John Kerry said that "countries are far more likely to advance economically and socially when citizens have faith in their governments and are able to rely on them for justice and equal treatment under the law." Kerry said that a "new kind of relationship" with Latin American countries, emphasizing democracy and human rights, will contribute to "our common agenda for the hemisphere." Here are Kerry's remarks in fuller context:

At the UN Human Rights Council last fall, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Uruguay joined the United States in sponsoring a resolution in support of LGBT rights. Our landmark Open Government Partnership, which the United States launched with Brazil five years ago, is now chaired by Mexico. And over the past three years, we have worked with partners, including Costa Rica, Mexico, Chile, and Jamaica, to help strengthen the independent bodies of the Inter-American Human Rights System. Many of the globe’s leading voices for human rights and the rule of law, obviously, share Spanish as their native tongue. 

Why does this matter? Well, it matters because countries are far more likely to advance economically and socially when citizens have faith in their governments and are able to rely on them for justice and equal treatment under the law. It matters because young people who have opportunities at home will stay and contribute to their societies instead of leaving in search of better luck elsewhere. It matters because freedom of thought and expression are the keys to innovation, which is how whole new industries begin. It matters because, in that most curious of ways, people who are given the liberty to be different are also the ones most likely to unite and band together in the face of shared threats.

    If faith in government is a necessary factor for a country's economic and social advancement, a recent Pew Research Center study, via the Washington Post, is not a good sign. The Post notes that the study found that only "23 percent [of Americans] trust the federal government to do the right thing 'at least most of the time.'"

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

John Kerry Recognizes Islamic Holidays, Largely Silent on Christian and Jewish Occasions

    Secretary of State John Kerry has often spoken to the Arab world during his tenure, particularly during the past year as negotiations with Iran have intensified and conflict with the Islamic State has escalated. But what Kerry has not said during the past twelve months is also significant. The secretary's official remarks and statements noting special dates on Islamic and Arab calendars stand in sharp contrast to his relative silence on Christian and Jewish occasions.
    Last June, less than a month from the initial July 20 deadline for the nuclear talks with Iran, Kerry issued a statement marking the beginning of Ramadan. Kerry said that it was a "time for peaceful reflection and prayer, a time for acts of compassion and charity -- universal values and aspiration ingrained in every human heart." In October, again with a rescheduled talks deadline approaching, Kerry addressed a reception celebrating Eid al-Adha, which marks the end of the Hajj pilgrimage. He spoke extensively of the meaning of that day and how "[t]here’s nothing Islamic about what ISIL/Daesh stands for", pointing out in contrast that Eid is "a moment when Ibrahim is celebrated for not slaying – for being willing to slay his son in order to provide for people and to prove something." Finally, with yet another talks deadline bearing down in March, Kerry took the time to directly address the Iranian people in recognition of Nowruz, the Persian New Year.
    In contrast, Kerry made no remarks regarding either of the recent Easter or Passover celebrations. In addition, Yom Kippur, the holiest day on the Jewish calendar, passed unremarked last October, and unlike the Iranian New Year, Kerry issued no statement recognizing the Jewish New Year Rosh Hashanah in September. (Kerry mentioned in passing at the Eid al-Adha reception that "the Jewish religion just went through its holiest moment of the year with Yom Kippur, which is also a moment of huge introspection and re-evaluation," but that's as far as he went.)
    Kerry did attend a "Holiday Reception" in December at the State Department, but his recognition of those holidays consisted of simply saying, "Happy Hanukkah, second day of Hanukkah. Merry Christmas." His remarks did not include any words on the meanings of the celebrations, unlike his remarks on Ramadan and Eid. The most recent Jewish or Christian religious occasion marked at length by Kerry was Passover in April 2014, although he did make remarks for Holocaust Remembrance Day in January 2015.
    In addition to the overlooked religious holidays, Kerry even passed over the celebration of Israel's independence day last May. This apparent snub is particularly curious since the secretary issued statements commemorating the independence or "national" days of nearly 170 countries in the past twelve months, including marking China's 65th year as the communist Peoples Republic of China.
    When asked to comment on the apparent disparities, a senior state department official issued the following statement:

The State Department and White House work together to address national days and religious holidays to share the sentiments and best wishes of the American people. 

The White House makes statements for major holidays in the U.S. – as it did for the recent Easter and Passover holidays. 

Often, Secretary Kerry will also offer remarks or attend events to mark such occasions, as he did this year when celebrating Christmas and Chanukah with the Washington diplomatic corps, the families of overseas Department employees serving at difficult posts, and the State Department press corps, and like he did last year when he attended a Seder at the home of Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer.

    While it is true that the White House issued statements regarding Easter and Passover, the White House also issued statements for Ramadan, Eid al-Adha and Nowruz, duplicating the efforts of the State Department. Similarly, while Kerry also released remarks on the occasion of the Lunar New Year and the Hindu celebration of Diwali, the White House covered those events also. The White House also noted Israel's independence day that was overlooked by the State Department.
    Whether by oversight or design, the apparent lack of attentiveness to religious occasions celebrated by many in this country and many in Israel, one of the Unites States' closest allies, seems indefensible. While the State Department must show an understanding of and appreciation for cultures and religions outside this country's traditional circles, adherents to traditional ones increasingly appear to be taken for granted at best, snubbed at worst.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

John Kerry On Religion: 'Something That Was Written Down a Thousand Plus, Two Thousand Years Ago'

    During a talk to the U.S. embassy staff in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia at the first stop on his trip to Africa, Secretary of State John Kerry remarked about what he called the "different cross-currents of modernity" and the challenges they present on the African continent. The comments seem to contain a veiled reference to religion and the part that religion might be playing in some of the current conflicts in Africa:

This is a time here in Africa where there are a number of different cross-currents of modernity that are coming together to make things even more challenging. Some people believe that people ought to be able to only do what they say they ought to do, or to believe what they say they ought to believe, or live by their interpretation of something that was written down a thousand plus, two thousand years ago. That’s not the way I think most people want to live.

    The words "something that was written down a thousand plus, two thousand years ago" appear to refer to the Bible, or the Koran, or perhaps both.  More than one conflict in Africa today has either implicit or explicit religious connections:

• In Nigeria, the Boko Haram, which the State Department has called a "violent extremist organization with links to al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb" has been "responsible for thousands of deaths since its conception in 2009, including large-scale attacks against Muslim and Christian religious communities."
• In the Central African Republic, the State Department recently expressed that the United States is "deeply concerned by attacks on both Muslims and Christians[.]"
• Further, the so-called Lord's Resistance Army with its leader the self-proclaimed prophet Joseph Kony has wreaked havoc in numerous African nations.  The State Department has offered a $5 million reward for information leading to Kony's arrest or conviction.

    Besides military conflicts, other issues with religious connotations have come to the forefront in recent years, from Uganda's recent anti-homosexuality law to some Islamic groups' attempts to institute Sharia law in some countries.
    The press office of the State Department declined to parse Kerry's remarks, instead referring questions to the traveling party accompanying the secretary on his Africa trip.  An attempt to contact State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki, who is with Kerry in Africa, to clarify the remarks has so far been unsuccessful.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Nancy Pelosi Invokes a Priest's Sermon to Say GOP is "Preying on People"

    Wednesday Nancy Pelosi spoke at the Center for American Progress to help mark the launch the organization's new initiative called “Fair Shot: A Plan for Women and Families to Get Ahead.”  In her remarks, Pelosi referenced the Republicans' plan to scale back the food stamp program, the cost of which has more than doubled in the past four years.  She recalled a sermon she recently heard in Houston where she attended mass:

“I’ve been trying to listen as we – this has been a morning that you can’t even believe.  On the floor of the House the Republicans are trying to cut $40 billion, that’s 50 percent of the nutrition program – largely children, seniors, returning veterans, [and] women.  It’s a most incredible thing.  I said yesterday at a press conference on this subject, I said: unless we – it was in Houston, I go to mass wherever I go, and at the pulpit, the priest said, in Houston, Texas – not one of your liberal bastions – he said: ‘I think it’s important for people, not just to come to mass on Sunday and pray, but when they leave here not to prey on people.’  And it isn’t exactly what they are doing: preying on people.  

    The former Speaker of the House went on to reference "all the lack of values that [the GOP] budget presents," and that "basically what [Democrats are] about ... is restoring confidence to the American people."


Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Our Politically Incorrect President

    Early Friday evening, President Obama made an appearance in the press room of the White House to give a brief statement on the fiscal cliff negotiations.  He urged all involved to take some time off for the holidays, but then be prepared to get a quick deal done to prevent the coming tax increases from hitting most Americans.  But in doing so, he committed what has become a growing holiday season faux pas in America:

So, as we leave town for a few days to be with our families for the holidays, I hope it gives everybody some perspective.  Everybody can cool off; everybody can drink some eggnog, have some Christmas cookies, sing some Christmas carols, enjoy the company of loved ones...

And with that, I want to wish every American a merry Christmas.

    I can't help but wondering if some of the President's supporters are privately gnashing their teeth over his religious insensitivity and intolerance.

    By the way, in case I don't post anything again before Christmas: Happy Holidays!

Deus ex Platforma [Updated]

    The Democratic National Committee created a stir on Tuesday by releasing their 2012 party platform sans any explicit mention of "God."  Jake Tapper of ABC News reports:

The Democratic Party’s 2008 platform mentioned “God” once, in this passage (emphasis added):

We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential. 

Explaining the removal, a Democratic official explained: “The 2008 platform reference is ‘God-given’ and is about growing the middle class and making America fair, not actually about faith. The platform includes an entire plank on the importance of faith based organizations and the tremendous work that they do. Further, the language we use to talk about faith and religion is exactly the same vocabulary as 2008. I would also note that the platform mentions: ‘faith’ 11 times; ‘religion’ or ‘religious’ 9 times; ‘church’ 2 times (one is a quote); and, ‘clergy’ 1 time.”

Over the past four election cycles, Democrats mention of "God" in their platform has certainly changed:

• 2000 - 3
• 2004 - 7
• 2008 - 1
• 2012 - 0

    While the complete removal of "God" is certainly attention-getting, the unnamed Democratic official has a point.  Substantively, there's not much change from 2008, the first time Barack Obama was their candidate. The change from the 2004 platform, however, is stark.  Here are the seven uses of "God" in the 2004 platform:

• one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
• a common purpose to build one nation under God. 
• all the possibilities your hard work and God-given talent can bring.
• God gave America extraordinary natural gifts[.]
• That is how we will ensure that God's gifts of nature bless all of God's children for generations to come.
• each of us should be as equal in the eyes of the law as we are in the eyes of God.

    In 2004, the Democrats' platform had repeated, clear acknowledgements of God in the founding of America, its blessings, and its continuing success.  But in 2008 and 2012, there appears to have been a conscious decision to move away from speaking of the involvement of God in the affairs of America and towards the more generic "importance of faith based organizations and the tremendous work that they do," as the Democratic official put it.

    Republicans use of "God" and "faith" in their platform has changed dramatically as well, but in the opposite direction with a dramatic increase in 2012:

• 2000 - 1
• 2004 - 3
• 2008 - 2
• 2012 - 10

    So why the fluctuations?  For the Republicans, perhaps the influence of George W. Bush who famously cited Jesus as his favorite philosopher in the 2000 campaign is the reason for high numbers in 2000 and 2004, and the prevalence of economic issues in 2008 due to the financial crisis, plus the relative reticence of John McCain to discuss his religious faith, explains the dip.  But despite the economic concerns grabbing the headlines in the 2012 campaign, the conservative resurgence that began in 2010 has apparently had a significant social impact on the 2012 platform.  Seven of the ten uses are (coincidentally?) the "God-given" words that the Democrats dropped.  Here are all 10:

• Reaffirm that our rights come from God
• May God continue to shed his grace on the United States of America.
• a free people using their God-given talents
• solemn compact which confirms our God-given individual rights
• primary role of government is to protect the God-given, inalienable, inherent rights of its citizens
• defend the lawabiding citizen's God-given right of self-defense
• opportunity to say the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety, including "Under God," in public schools
• taking advantage of all our American God-given resources
• good stewards of the God-given natural beauty and resources of our country
• based on his or her God-given talent and motivation

    The last eight years have produced a remarkable shift in the language of the two parties.  While no party has a God-monopoly, the process that produces a party platform is far-reaching and broad-based (see Appendix C of the 2008 Democratic platform that lists hundreds upon hundreds of platform meetings state by state,) and therefore gives clues about the grassroots party makeup and leanings.
    It has been said that a camel is a horse built by committee, and perhaps a party platform reflects the same ad hoc process.  But as far as both parties' platforms have moved on this issue in the last four to eight years, it's safe to say the changes were not random or extreme minority views.  Certainly believers should not put their faith in political parties to achieve religious ends.  But members of neither party should overlook the worldviews that the platform changes convey.  And worldview shapes policy.  If rights, freedoms, resources, and blessings are no longer "God-given", then who or what gives them?  Perhaps it's time to take a closer look at the words that do appear in the platforms.

Update: Here's a telling interview Bret Baier of Fox News conducted with Democrat Dick Durbin regarding word choices in the Democratic platform.

Update 2: As of 5:30 PM on Wednesday, via the Huffington Post:

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Democrats have changed their convention platform to add a mention of God and declare that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
The move came after criticism from Republicans.
Many in the audience booed after the convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, ruled that the amendments had been approved despite the fact that a large group of delegates objected...
The party reinstated language from the 2008 platform that said "we need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential."

Barack Obama: Sin 2.0

   Earlier this week in his Best of the Web Today column at WSJ.com, James Taranto wrote about a 2004 interview of then-Senate candidate Barack Obama by Chicago Sun Times religion reporter/columnist Cathleen Falsani.  The full transcript of the interview was published in 2008 by BeliefNet.com.  A reader had brought the interview to Taranto's attention, and one part in particular caught his eye:

Falsani: Do you believe in sin?
Obama: Yes.
Falsani: What is sin?
Obama: Being out of alignment with my values. 

This is a tad ambiguous. Is Obama declaring himself the ultimate moral arbiter, so that you are a sinner if you are out of alignment with his values?
That would be an uncharitable construction. It seems more likely that he is declaring himself his own moral arbiter, so that he is a sinner if he is out of alignment with his own values. To our mind it is not a recognizably Christian conception of sin.

    Taranto is indisputably correct as far as he goes.   An agnostic himself, Taranto's interest is, I gather, more intellectual than doctrinal.  But as a Christian for many years, I’ve had many opportunities to hear people explain their Christian beliefs, some with more success than others.  Especially without time to prepare, many who call themselves Christian struggle to articulate clear definitions of sin, the gospel, and other Biblical concepts.  However, Barack Obama’s answer of “Being out of alignment with my values” to the question “what is sin?” is particularly disturbing because it is actually the antithesis of a Biblical view of sin.
    Romans 3:23, a verse most children hear early in their Sunday School days, says “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”  Sin is “being out of alignment” with God's values, not ours.  The president’s definition is more reminiscent of Polonius in Shakespeare's Hamlet telling Laertes, “To thine own self be true.”  Indeed, in the very next portion of the interview, Obama uses quite similar language.

Falsani: What happens if you have sin in your life?
Obama: I think it’s the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I’m true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I’m not true to it, it’s its own punishment.

Being true to oneself is not necessarily bad advice (at least if one is a generally good person), but it’s no more found in the Bible than “God helps those who help themselves,” and it certainly misses the mark when trying to nail down “sin.”  Without a true understanding of sin, there is little hope of recognizing the need for a Savior.  As Paul put it later in his letter to Titus (3:5), "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy [God] saved us."  Our hope is in God being true to Himself, not us to ourselves.  "Let God be true though every one were a liar," says Romans 3:5.  That is a much more secure foundation that heaven is our reward than anything we could ever do on our own.

Forward... or Back... to the Dark Ages!

During the debate in the Senate this week on the Blunt amendment, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) stretched the bounds of reason with the following hyperbolic riff:

“The Republicans want to take us forward to the Dark Ages again … when women were property that you could easily control, even trade if you wanted to,” Lautenberg said. “It’s appalling we are having this debate in the 21st century.”

And today, James Taranto in his column at the Wall Street Journal noted another voice chiming in with similar rhetorical overkill.  The Orwellian-named Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) ran an ad in the New York Times that was noted by Catholic League president Bill Donohue:

Never has there been a more vicious anti-Catholic advertisement in a prominent American newspaper than the one in today’s New York Times by Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) ... Here is how the ad begins: “It’s time to quit the Roman Catholic Church. Will it be reproductive freedom, or back to the Dark Ages?”

 Leaving aside the embarrassing lack of harmony in their diatribes (is it "forward to" or "back to" the Dark Ages?), is this kind of over-the-top polemic actually intended to change minds?  Is this what President Obama had in mind when he said at his Tuesday press conference:

We want to send a message to all our young people that being part of a democracy involves argument and disagreements and debate... [a]nd we want you to be engaged, and there's a way to do it in a way that doesn't involve you being demeaned and insulted.

Reading the entire FFRF ad does nothing to restore one's faith in the legendary "civility" for which the president continues to call.  It appeared this week that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. missed the civility memo as I noted earlier this week.  But if you can endure to the end of FFRF's ad, you will be rewarded with some delightful irony.  For those wishing to donate to the cause, a membership application with a listing of dues is provided at the bottom.

There are various levels available starting with $25 for a student.  A lifetime membership will set you back $1,000.  But if you really want to make a stand against religion, plunk down $5,000 and the "After Life" membership is yours.  Is it just me, or does that smack of the Catholic innovation during the Dark Ages of selling indulgences?  Apparently what the FFRF lacks in civility they make up for in nerve.

A Contrast in Religious Tolerance

    From October 10, 2011:  Not a Single Christian Church Left in Afghanistan, Says State Department from CNS News:

There is not a single, public Christian church left in Afghanistan, according to the U.S. State Department.

This reflects the state of religious freedom in that country ten years after the United States first invaded it and overthrew its Islamist Taliban regime.

In the intervening decade, U.S. taxpayers have spent $440 billion to support Afghanistan's new government and more than 1,700 U.S. military personnel have died serving in that country.

The last public Christian church in Afghanistan was razed in March 2010, according to the State Department's latest International Religious Freedom Report. The report, which was released last month and covers the period of July 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010, also states that “there were no Christian schools in the country.”

    On the other hand, from USA Today on February 29, 2012:  Number of U.S. mosques up 74% since 2000:

The number of Islamic places of worship in the United States soared 74% in the past decade.

While protests against new mosques in New York, Tennessee and California made headlines, the overall number of mosques quietly rose from 1,209 in 2000 to 2,106 in 2010.

And most of their leaders say American society is not hostile to Islam, according to a comprehensive census of U.S. mosques and survey of imams, mosque presidents and board members released Wednesday.

Most Likely to Impose

    Rick Santorum, despite clarifying his position of simply speaking out on social issues as opposed to enshrining them as public policy, is under assault for wanting to legislate morality and shred Constitutional rights.  On the other hand, President Obama is in the process of pushing back the boundaries of religious freedom.  After all, he did not admit being wrong with the initial HHS mandate rules on contraceptives and abortifacients.  The so-called compromise was basically: "OK, these religious folks are overreacting, but to show how reasonable I am, I will give some ground."  A fair question to ask the president would be "Did your original HHS mandate go just as far as the First Amendment permits?  Or could religious institutions be required to go even further?"
    We further know from the Hosanna-Tabor Supreme Court case decided in January that President Obama's Justice Department was seeking to extend the reach of labor laws deeper into religious institutions and was soundly rebuked by a unanimous decision from the court.  This placed his administration to the left of even the most liberal members of the Supreme Court when it comes to religious freedom.  So what we really have is Santorum, who is publicly stating that he would not use the power of the presidency to impose on the country all of his beliefs on social issues, versus President Obama, who has already done just that.  Where is the more clear and present danger?

Occupy the Bastille

USA Today’s recent publication of a letter to the editor from Rich Latta of Austin, Texas has not gotten as much attention as seems warranted given his suggestion that “maybe [Occupy protestors] should take up their Second Amendment-sanctioned guns and storm Wall Street and our nation's capitals.”  It is unclear if Latta is a protestor himself, or just a supporter.  But a peek at his profile as a reviewer at Amazon.com gives some insight into his motives.  On the left side of the page under “Interests”:  

My personal obsession concerns exposing the fallicy [sic] and harm of deity-based religions. I believe our world can never hope to find peace until these religions are exposed and refuted by a courageous, truth-seeking public.

 Peace through atheism and violence against the aristocracy.  Didn’t the French already try that?

Theology in Politics

    Rick Santorum has taken some heat for his recent words regarding the theology of President Obama.  While Santorum has clarified that he was primarily focusing on President Obama's beliefs regarding climate change and radical environmentalism when he made his comments, it's worth asking the broader question, "What is President Obama's theology?"  Back in 2008, then-candidate Obama said the following regarding same-sex marriage and civil unions:

Obama said that while he does not believe in gay marriage, he does think the state should allow civil unions that allow a same-sex couples to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other.
"If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans," Obama said.

That "obscure passage in Romans" is in chapter 1 where the Apostle Paul begins to lay out the Biblical case for the fallen state of man that he builds upon to frame one of the most well known and time-tested Gospel presentations of salvation by grace through faith.  And Rick Santorum is the one with the theology problem?

Taking the Fight Back to the Court?

    In January, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that federal discrimination laws do not impair the right of churches under the First Amendment to determine who may serve in ministerial positions.  This knockout punch to the Obama administration's position was met with fairly muted reaction from the left.  Without the support of even one of the court's liberal justices, there is little to be gained by publicly denouncing the outcome of the case.
    However, within two weeks of the court's decision, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius announced that rules governing health insurance mandates would offer no accommodation to religious institutions.  The requirement that birth control, contraceptives, and abortifacients be provided at no cost by all insurance plans understandably created a conflict of Biblical proportions.  The forthcoming "compromise" was no such thing in the eyes of many, and one has only to look at the whole-hearted supporters of the "compromise" (Planned Parenthood, Nancy Pelosi, Al Sharpton) to confirm it was hollow.
    Much of the debate in recent weeks has centered around the application of the mandate being a violation of the freedom of religious institutions by compelling them to facilitate behaviors that violate their principles and pay for them as well.  The "compromise" purported to allay those concerns but largely failed to do so.  But a potentially equally serious conflict lurks in this HHS-provoked controversy as well.  As long as the "compromise" is in effect, religious institutions, at least from the administration's point of view, have technical deniability for "conscience" sake.  But suppose a religious institution fires or disciplines an employee for moral reasons for using an abortifacient drug to end a pregnancy?  After all, it's a drug that is covered by a health insurance plan that they are providing to the employee.  How will the institution justify their actions?  Aren't they being forced into the position of saying to their employees, "Here's a benefit, but don't use it or you're fired"?  If religious institutions are lumped into the same category as secular ones, more lawsuits for wrongful termination of employment are inevitable.
    Contained in Robert's opinion in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the following:

The case before us is an employment discrimination suit brought on behalf of a minister, challenging her church's decision to fire her.  Today we hold only that the ministerial exception bars such a suit.  We express no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits, including actions by employees alleging breach of contract or tortious conduct by their religious employers.  There will be time enough to address the applicability of the exception to other circumstances if and when they arise.

The Obama administration apparently took that last sentence as a challenge.  Their broadside against religious freedom, barring a change in the Oval Office in November, has put the President and his policies on a collision course with the high court.  There will doubtless be skirmishes in the lower courts in the meantime, but it is difficult to imagine that ultimately a showdown revisiting the broader issues at stake in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC can be avoided.
    Although President Obama has been accused even by his supporters of backing down in various confrontations, this has not been the case in the realm euphemistically known as "women's health" even when religious liberties were at stake.  We can expect the President to have his game face on for this battle.  To paraphrase the President, a unanimous Supreme Court brought a knife to the fight.  President Obama will bring a gun.