requirements of citizenship and of faith will prove fully compatible in a religiously diverse and nontheo kratic society and there is also disagreement about what to do when they come into conflict. i propose to examine the bishop's statement not simply as an intervention and a political debate, though it is that. but as a document grounded in an interpretation of history, constitutionalism and natural law as well as an imperical analysis of the current situation. i speak as you've heard as a political theorist, one who has defended the principle of maximum, feasible accommodation for the practices of faith-based organizations. as the clinton administration's point man on rifra and religious issues, religious liberty issues generally, as a critic of the obama administration's initial announcement on the coverage of contraceptive services and as the co-author of a recent brookings report that sympathetically considers the conscience-based claims of health care providers. nonetheless, many of you will not sympathize with the argument that i'm about to make. i strongly suspect that i am not preachi