The past six weeks of political sparring over the White House’s contraception mandate have brought the issue of religious liberty-and debates about its scope and relationship to other rights-to the fore of national consciousness. Over the past month, American Catholic bishops, alongside prominent politicians (including presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich), have declared that the White House regulation which requires religiously affiliated organizations like hospitals, schools, and social service agencies to provide birth control to their employees at no cost, violates these organizations’ religious liberty.

House Bill 825 proposes to ban the use of any legal code established outside the United States in U.S. courtrooms. While it is largely understood that the primary target of the legislation was sharia, or Islamic law, the expansive bill has drawn unexpected criticism from other groups that are concerned that, as written, it could easily be interpreted to ban the use of halacha, Jewish law, and other Catholic canon laws. Muslim advocates had already condemned the bill, as they’ve done with the dozens of state-level bills that have explicitly or implicitly targeted Islamic law. But Jewish groups were also speaking out, saying that the law could limit their ability to settle family matters like wills and divorces according to their religious guidelines. Catholic officials also voiced concerns that bills like these could prevent the Roman Catholic Church (based in Italy) from owning parish buildings and schools. Business leaders also added their voices to the clamor against the bill, citing concerns that it could hurt international business relations. Deciding to reevaluate their approach, the bill’s proponents sent the bill back to committee.

Opposition led by the American Catholic bishops sparked a wider protest after the Obama administration announced its new requirement that employers provide no-cost birth control to employees through their insurance plans. The White House excused churches and other places of worship from the rule, but refused to grant a similar exemption to religiously affiliated organizations like colleges, hospitals, and social agencies. The ensuing firestorm over whether this was an issue of religious liberty or women’s health resulted in a quicker-than-anticipated compromise. By weeks end, the Obama administration modified the ruling to require insurers rather than objecting religious institutions to pick up the tab, while still upholding the principle of making no-cost birth control available to all women regardless of their employer.

As the dust settled after the Iowa caucuses, it became clear that a plurality of evangelical Christians had thrown in their hat with an unexpected, but strangely apt candidate. Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator who lost his seat in 2006, performed substantially better than any of his rivals among born-again or evangelical Christians, with 32 percent of the coveted demographic’s vote.

While the U.S. Constitution guarantees that there is no religious test for elected office, there is a long tradition of American political candidates evoking religious language, such as biblical allusions or the nearly obligatory phrase, “God bless America,” in public addresses. These invocations are generally crafted using the language of “civil religion”-a public form of broad-brush religiosity that has been shaped by the particularities of American history, borrowing heavily but remaining distinct from Christianity and Judaism.

This past week, the complex issue of evolution had the GOP presidential field struggling to find their footing. Texas Governor Rick Perry, the newest suitor at the big dance, had to dust off his two-stepping skills after leading off a bit heavy on the down beat. In response to an interview question, he first talked about evolution as “a theory that’s out there” that “has some gaps to it” and emphasized that they taught both evolution and creationism back home in Texas.