Here are some questions that evoke some strong and conflicting religious convictions.

Is a fertilized egg equivalent to a living, breathing human being? Is abortion a form of murder or manslaughter? Is war ever moral? Can violence against another human ever be justified? Should people be required to serve in the military? Can the state rightly execute a human being?

Should women be allowed to teach or to lead men? May women cut their hair or wear jewelry?

Should women be in public unveiled? Are some women witches? May men have multiple wives? Should marriages be arranged?

(And by whom?) Should a female be betrothed or married by puberty? Under what conditions is sexual activity moral? What sexual activities are moral? Is contraception immoral?

Should men and women have equal rights?

Should businesses be closed on certain days? Is the use of medical drugs a failure of faith? Are certain medical drugs or blood transfusions immoral? Mayparents withhold certain medical treatments from their children on the basis of the parents’ religious beliefs?

Is dancing a sin? Is it immoral to drink alcohol?

Is it immoral to smoke?

May hallucinogenic substances be used in religious rituals? May wine be used in religious rituals?

Are some foods unclean?

Are there moral techniques for butchering animals?

Is genetic modifi cation or stem cell research immoral?

Are certain religious texts or leaders infallible?

Will people of other faiths go to hell?

Is it moral to charge interest when lending money? What may a creditor take as surety for a loan? When should a debt be forgiven? Does land ownership violate God’s sovereignty? Do the wealthy have any obligationtoward the poor?

If the world is about to end, do we have any responsibility to care for the environment? Is evolution false? Should government be run by religious law? Should prayer be off ered in public venues? (If so, whose prayer?) Should profanity be illegal? (If so, what profanity?) Should some books or art or entertainment be banned?

We frame our national approach to religious issues within two profound constitutional principles: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Religious freedom is not absolute, however.

I can’t break the law or create a liability against you because of my beliefs.

I can’t take a tenth of your bank account just because I believe in tithing.

In his book “The Audacity of Hope,” former constitutional law professor Barack Obama off ers some helpful insights. First, he insists that “secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square … the majority of great reformers in American history - not only were motivated by faith but repeatedly used religious language to argue their causes.”

He continues, on page 342:

“What our deliberative,pluralistic democracy does demand is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values.

It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church.

I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”

The recent flap over contraception insurance is illustrative. Contraception is legal. It is the exercise of a medical right. Some women need contraception drugs to address certain medical conditions. Most sexually active couples want some influence over their child-bearing.

Contraception is commonly covered by insurance.

Insurance companies save money since contraception is cheaper than children.

The Roman Catholic Church believes contraception is immoral.

In our country, no Catholic can be forced to usecontraceptives. The state even says that the Catholic Church does not have to include contraception insurance for its church employees. But what about Catholic hospitals and universities that employ and serve so many non-Catholics? Should Catholic doctrine prevent access to insured contraception for non-Catholic students or employees in their other institutions?

The Catholic Church has a sincere doctrine, but not a compelling universal principle. The church hasn’t reasonably convinced even a majority of their own membership, much less a pluralistic public. In an act of respect, the Obama administration relieved the requirement for church-related institutions to pay for coverage, and required insurance companies to cover contraception as a medical right. That’s a reasonable compromise, respecting both religious belief and individual freedom. It’s a sound decision in a pluralistic democracy.

LOWELL GRISHAM IS AN EPISCOPAL PRIEST WHO LIVES IN FAYETTEVILLE.

Opinion, Pages 13 on 03/18/2012