Lexington: Obama's "war on religion" BARACK OBAMA is a Christian whom millions of Americans insist on thinking of as a Muslim. Mitt Romney belongs to the Mormon church, which plenty of Americans consider a non-Christian cult. If ever there was an election campaign both main candidates had an interest in keeping religion out of, you might suppose that this was it. In politics, however, some opportunities are just too tempting to pass up. Whatever chance there once was for a religious non-aggression pact evaporated after one of Mr Obama's recent decisions gave powerful new ammunition to those who accuse him of waging a "war on religion." The decision in question is a gift to Republicans not only because it is controversial in itself, but also because it springs from the unloved Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare," as it is nicknamed. The Republicans say they will repeal Obamacare because its main idea - making everyone buy health insurance on pain of a fine - violates personal freedom. Now the Department of Health and Human Services has planted in the weeds of the legislation something its critics call even more objectionable: nothing less than a violation of religious freedom. The Affordable Care Act says that employers must provide health insurance to their workers (or pay a fine), and allows the government to lay down minimum standards of cover when they do so. Last summer the health department decreed that all new health-insurance policies should cover birth-control services for women, including the morning-after pill (which most pro-lifers consider a form of abortion) and sterilisation. Churches are exempt; but church-affiliated hospitals, schools and universities, most of which employ and serve people of many faiths, are not. Once the new rule comes into effect, in 2013, they will have to include such services in their insurance packages, at no extra cost to the employee. This decision has upset many denominations, but the Catholic church is especially furious. "Never before," says Timothy Dolan, president of the Conference of Catholic Bishops, "has the federal government forced individuals and organisations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience." Angry letters from the bishops have been read out from pulpits across the land. Having won their vote by 54% to 45% in 2008, Mr Obama may now be in deep trouble with America's 70m Catholics. Peggy Noonan, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, thinks this decision might even cost him the election. Does the new rule really prevent the free exercise of religion? One governor, Maryland's Martin O'Malley, a Democrat and a Catholic, accuses the Catholic leadership of "hyperventilating." Nothing in the new rule interferes with the freedom to worship. Nor will it require anybody to practise contraception against their will (and most Catholics use contraceptives anyway). But the rule will require institutions to pay for contraceptive drugs and services they find objectionable on grounds of conscience. The administration points out that 28 states already impose such requirements, but its critics say the new rules are tougher. Ms Noonan complains that there was no reason "except ideology" for the administration to make its decision. But ideology is just a pejorative word for principles in which you happen not to believe. This is a case of two principles colliding. Catholic institutions are making a principled stand for what they see as the sanctity of life. The administration argues with no less conviction that the well-being of women depends on affordable access to contraception no matter where they work. It did not pluck this idea out of thin air: this was advice from the august Institute of Medicine. At some point, the courts will probably decide. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a non-profit legal foundation, has filed lawsuits on behalf of two Christian colleges. But as to which principle has the higher moral claim, no simple rule provides an answer. Plenty of laws in America trump religious belief. For example, Muslims may take only one wife. A better question than which principle takes precedence is whether Mr Obama could have avoided the collision altogether by taking evasive action. He could and should have. Much as the absolutists on each side relish such clashes between church and state, forcing the issue risks damaging something worthwhile. Michael McConnell, a professor of law at Stanford University, calls this a self-inflicted wound, "a typical culture-war issue" in which one tribe uses governmental power to damage the other. Whatever happened to the art of the possible? He is surely right. America is lucky to possess alongside its public institutions a rich ecosystem of hospitals, universities and schools that are largely secular in function and serve all faiths, but are animated by a religious vocation. Why punish them? It cannot be beyond the wit of man to give their employees access to contraception without making the employers trample deeply held beliefs by paying directly. Hawaii tells religious employers in this predicament to point staff to alternative low-cost providers. That said, it would be naive to expect such a compromise to stifle all Republican complaints. Well before this battle, Texas's governor, Rick Perry, was wailing about gays serving openly in the armed forces and children not being allowed to celebrate Christmas in school. These he blamed on "Obama's war on religion." Newt Gingrich has been denouncing the president's "secular-socialist machine" for more than a year. Yet Mr Gingrich's own views on church and state are astonishing. He says he wants a government that "respects our religion." Yes, you read that right: not religion (the former House speaker is "tired" of respecting "every religion on the planet") but "our" religion. It is baffling that a serious candidate for president can have misunderstood the letter and spirit of the first amendment quite so thoroughly.