Kathleen Parker February 7, 2014

President Obama gave a lovely speech at the recent National Prayer Breakfast — and one is reluctant to criticize.

But pry my jaw from the floorboards.

Without a hint of irony, the president lamented eroding protections of religious liberty around the world.

Just not, apparently, in America.

Nary a mention of the legal challenges to religious liberty now in playbetween this administration and the Catholic Church and other religiousgroups, as well as private businesses that contest the contraceptivemandate in Obamacare.

Missing was any mention of Hobby Lobby or the Little Sisters of the Poor — whose cases have recently reached the U.S. Supreme Court and thatreveal the Obama administration’s willingness to challenge, rather thanprotect, religious liberty in this country.

It is true that ourreligious-liberty issues are tamer than those mentioned by Obama. Wedon’t slaughter people for their religious beliefs. We don’t useblasphemy laws to repress people. But we are in the midst of a muddleabout where religion and state draw their “red lines,” and it isn’tgoing so well for the religious-liberty lobby.

As it turns out,many in the audience were reaching for their own jaws when Obama got tothe liberty section of his speech, according to several people whoattended the breakfast. Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, summed up the general reaction of many with whom he spoke: “Stunned.”

“Several people said afterward how encouraged they would have been by PresidentObama’s remarks if only his acts reflected what he said,” Cromartie told me.

One table was applauding only out of politeness, according to Jerry Pattengale, who was sitting with Steve Green — president of the Hobby Lobby stores that have challenged Obamacare’scontraceptive mandate. Pattengale described the experience as“surrealistic.”

The government’s position is that because HobbyLobby is a for-profit business, its owners’ religious beliefs can’t beimposed on their employees. Hobby Lobby insists it shouldn’t have tosacrifice its Christian beliefs regarding human life.

Pattengale, assistant provost at Indiana Wesleyan University and research consultant to the Greenfamily, also noted the disconnect between the president’s message andpolicies at home that “are creating a queue at the Supreme Court.”

Perhaps Obama’s advisers counted on the goodwill of the audience. Or theyreckoned that, juxtaposed against atrocities committed elsewhere, ourdebates about birth control might be viewed as not much ado.

Itis understandable that many Americans might not see these legalchallenges as especially pressing, especially if they’d just likeinsurance coverage for contraception — a position with which Ipersonally have no disagreement. But these cases are more than a debateabout birth control. They have far-reaching implications and, as Obamapointed out, there is a strong correlation between religious freedom and a nation’s stability: “History shows that nations that uphold therights of their people — including the freedom of religion — areultimately more just and more peaceful and more successful.”

Since this is so, one wonders why the Obama administration is so dedicated to forcing people to act against their own conscience. By requiringthrough the contraceptive mandate that some religious-affiliated groupsprovide health plans covering what they consider abortifacientcontraceptives, isn’t the Obama administration effectively imposing itsown religious rules? Thou shalt not protect unborn life.

The answer to this question is above my paygrade, as Obama memorably answered when asked by Pastor Rick Warren when life begins. The more germanequestion to cases such as Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters is whetherthe government can accomplish its goal of making free contraceptionavailable without burdening religious objectors. Can’t women in Colorado get contraception without forcing the Little Sisters, a group of nunswho care for the elderly, to violate their core beliefs? Theircharitable work could not long survive under penalties the governmentwould impose on them for noncompliance.

For now, the Little Sisters have been granted a reprieve, thanks to Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Arguments in the Hobby Lobby case are scheduled for March, with a decision expected in June. Meanwhile, another case settled in 2012 reveals much about this administration’s willingness to challenge religious freedom. In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the question boiled down to whether the government can decide whom a church hires as minister. Since when?

Not yet. In a rare move, all nine justices ruled against the government,stating that the federal government does not, alas, get to direct whopreaches the Gospel. But it wanted to.

Read more from Kathleen Parker’s archive, follow her on Twitter or find her on Facebook.