| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| ObamaCareÂ’s Muslim Exemption |
| 2012-05-11 |
| Laws almost always create unanticipated consequences. This is certainly likely to be the case when politicians bend over backwards to accommodate the currents of political correctness. ObamaCare uses the Social Security language of the Internal Revenue Code to determine who is eligible for “religious conscience” objection to the insurance mandate. Specifically, the law provides exemptions for adherents of “recognized religious sects” that are “conscientiously opposed” to accepting benefits from any insurance, public or private. As a consequence of this provision, Muslims may claim a religious exemption that is denied Christians and Jews. Since Islam believes insurance is haraam (forbidden) and likens insurance to gambling, the religion is excluded from requirements, mandates, or penalties set forth in the bill. Others who fall into this category are the Amish, American Indians, and Christian Scientists. Although the U.S. Constitution grants all Americans equal protection of the law, some Americans are more equal than others. ObamaCare is specifically written not to apply equally to everyone. It is in most respects a law intended to discriminate — what some might call an extended Jim Crow law. If this seems exaggerated, consider: Jim Crow laws were based on racial discrimination, while ObamaCare is predicated on religious discrimination. Government acted based on a preconceived and arbitrary understanding of what is right. For example, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee Max Baucus indicated that the purpose of ObamaCare is as much about redistributing income as it is about reforming health care. This is an application of government’s iron fist, putting income distribution and religious discrimination in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. By any reasonable standard, ObamaCare (and the Congress that enacted it) is completely unfettered from the Constitution. If logic — Washington logic — accommodates Sharia’s prohibition against gambling and hence insurance, Christians and Jews should claim that the state’s ability to expropriate property under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby legitimating an exemption for these groups as well. Muslims are given exemptions from law everyone else must follow. What has actually been enacted is a wedge between Muslims and Christians and Jews. Americans are pitted against Americans, Christian against Muslim, the Torah against the Koran. In a curious way the privilege granted Muslims and denied to most others translates into what Muslims call “dhimmitude,” or the taxing of non-Muslims in exchange for the acceptance of their presence. Intentionally or not, ObamaCare allows for the establishment of this practice and Sharia dictates in the United States. Conversely, if a Christian refuses to pay for required health care insurance, liens can be placed against assets and hard prison time could accompany noncompliance. Non-Muslims are, in effect, paying a tax to subsidize Muslims. |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #4 The clause was inserted, persumably, for the Amish. With respect to Moslems, probably 60-80% of them have health insurance now, notwithstanding whether it is considered haram. The authority to declare Moslems (or for that matter Amish) as exempt from the insurance mandate rests with the Sec of HHS. |
| Posted by: Lord Garth 2012-05-11 15:16 |
| #3 So that's how they got around the Sovereign Nation argument. Ummm, doesn't this bolster the Catholic Church's argument? |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2012-05-11 14:15 |
| #2 Democrats - no quarter. Do not call, do not say hello. Go straight to hell. |
| Posted by: newc 2012-05-11 13:13 |
| #1 Where is my rug? Praise Allen! |
| Posted by: Mohammad bin Besoeker 2012-05-11 12:52 |