The Gospel According To Sebelius: Render Unto ObamaCare

[Geee]

Investors Business Daily:

At the National Prayer Breakfast last week, seeking theological underpinning for his drive to raise taxes on the rich, President Obama invoked the highest possible authority.

His policy, he testified "as a Christian," "coincides with Jesus' teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required."

Now, I'm no theologian, but I'm fairly certain that neither Jesus nor his rabbinic forebears, when speaking of giving, meant some obligation to the state. You tithe the priest, not the tax man.

The Judeo-Christian tradition commands personal generosity as represented, for example, by the biblical injunction against retrieving any sheaf left behind while harvesting one's own field. That is for the gleaners — "the poor and the alien" (Leviticus 19:10). Like Ruth in the field of Boaz. As far as I can tell, that charitable transaction involved no mediation by the IRS.

But no matter. Let's assume that Obama has biblical authority for hiking the marginal tax rate exactly 4.6 points for couples making more than $250,000 (depending, of course, on the prevailing shekel-to-dollar exchange rate).

Let's stipulate that Obama's prayer-breakfast invocation of religion as vindicating his politics was not, God forbid, crass, hypocritical, self-serving electioneering, but a sincere expression of a social-gospel Christianity that sees good works as central to the very concept of religiosity.

Fine. But this Gospel according to Obama has a rival — the newly revealed Gospel according to Sebelius, over which has erupted quite a contretemps. By some peculiar logic, it falls to the health and human services secretary to promulgate the definition of "religious" — for the purposes, for example, of exempting religious institutions from certain regulatory dictates.

[Valin]

@Geee

 

This is also being discussed at CGP. I would like to point out this excellent reply

 

Alces95

 

 

 

If this is how we are now defining equality, I need to rethink my position on a lot of things.

 

 

This is not discrimination. If the church banned those things as an employer maybe but this is total crap. I must admit, I thought commentators on the right were just being hyperbolic with the "socialism" and "power grab" meme about Obamacare. I think they may have been accurate.

 

So, sure. Let's force religious affiliated organizations to do the state's bidding. Let's reduce the noble term of "human rights" to rubbers, pills and clear skin. I just went back and read the ground zero mosque threads and those here railing against the catholic church (sorry, just asking questions) were the biggest supporters of religious freedom there. If you did not support the mosque then you were anti religious and anti freedom.

 

I believe the clinical term for that is horseshit. Folks, if you want to stand your ground for human rights on acne and free stuff, have at it. )