Any of you even vaguely familiar with the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) know that this past spring there was plenty of heated controversy concerning President Barack Obama’s inclusion of contraceptives in basic health care coverage for female employees. Obama has been subject to a lot of criticism for indirectly mandating contraception, by means of the law, and thus contradicting this country’s constitutional law defending religious liberty.

Interestingly enough, those same religious idioms professed by our founding fathers have recently resurfaced in Obama’s speech held at the Democratic National Convention. I’ll tell you one thing; the irony is not lost on rattled Catholic and Evangelical voters.

While the contraception-coverage mandate specifically exempts houses of worship, the root of the issue relates to organizations or individuals affiliated with a religion paying for their employees’ coverage. Churches and religious organizations rallied and protested Obama’s decision to make contraceptives more readily available.

Imposing values, deeming contraception sinful, on the American majority through law is not right. However, the First Amendment certainly gives those against Obama’s proposed legislation the constitutional right to express those same values that encompass their respective religious beliefs. Does the doctrine of religion take priority over government-backed regulation? I suppose it comes down to whether or not the government is inhibiting the ability for one to practice his or her religion.

Now, I would rather not get into the debate of pro-life versus pro-choice; God knows that is an exhausted issue and, due to the unwavering viewpoints held by both liberal and conservative factions, compromise is improbable just as political extremes are irrational.

However, Obama going all Thomas Jefferson on us slinging around phrases reminiscent of the founders and fueled with devout references to “divine providence,” seems awfully out of place.

Freedom of religion is an integral part of what I would call “bundled” human freedoms such as the very fundamental freedom of the press, equal rights for men and women, etc. The First Amendment states these freedoms; hence we inherit them as American citizens, plain and simple. Yet, what should be a fundamental priority for the Obama administration, I found to be rather non-existent (the president’s 2012 convention speech being a distinct and uncharacteristic exception).

Back in 2000, Congress passed the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) mandating the appointment of an ambassador- at-large for International Religious Freedom. Expected to serve as principal adviser to the president and secretary of state, this ambassador’s sole priority is to promote religious liberty around the world and, most importantly, at home.

Not until 15 months after taking office did the president nominate an ambassador-at-large and once he did make his selection, Dr. Suzan Johnson Cook, the position was filled by a very unqualified candidate void of any involvement concerning international religious freedom nor any diplomatic experience; thus a nomination seemingly to gratify domestic constituencies.

The point of religious liberty at home and overseas, within the administration, has not been much of a priority the past four years. But, recently, Obama has publically reverted back to values of religious freedom and providence to the disappointment of some God-fearing Democratic delegates; an obvious shift within the administration and the Democratic Party platform.

In 2008, Democrats made the collective decision to omit any reference to “God” in their platform, eliminating language that identified Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Only a few days prior to Obama’s Democratic National Convention acceptance speech did the respective Democratic delegates decide to add the language back into their party platform with a voice vote.

Interestingly enough, when Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the convention chairman, stood in front of the podium asking for the approval of the delegates, there were conflicting shouts of approval and of opposition about the language change. Talk about an awkward moment.

Attempting to decipher the two-thirds majority needed for the motion to pass, he had to ask for a third vote. Deeming the vote in favor, boos filled the arena in response.

This shift in religious language has not only been uncharacteristic of Obama, his administration and his Democratic Party platform, it has also been very confusing.

I interpret religion as a system of beliefs and a formal way of structuring faith to appeal to a particular group of people. The denominations differ, the doctrines vary, but they all point to a higher power. “God” is merely one of many names for said higher power. The rationale for omitting “God,” the argument that inclusion of the word is inappropriate, I fail to understand.

Words such as “faith” and “religion” have always been prevalent in addresses and speeches, but omission and reintegration of the word “God” on for the sake of political campaign strategy is rather disconcerting.

I would hope that our nation’s political leaders continue to defend and assert our constitutional right of religious freedom, that when referencing a higher power or divine providence it is done so with the utmost integrity. However, I am led to question President Obama’s sincerity.