I’ve been following, with keen interest, the controversy over the Obamite diktat that directs religious institutions to provide services like contraception, abortion and abortifacients for free even if it goes against their faith. That Barack Obama would undertake such a massive offense against the U.S. Constitution and the American people is no surprise: after all, he is on record as viewing the Constitution as an impediment and the American people as rubes in dire need of massive guidance from a “transformational president.”
Likewise, is it no surprise to me that someone like Kathleen Sebelius would be tasked with defining who and what is – and isn’t – religious, so that Obama’s diktat has some illusion of logical reasoning behind it. Charles Krauthammer ably dissects this travesty here, so I need not go into it. What is of interest to me, however, are the consequences of the criterion that exempt institutions must primarily employ, and primarily serve, persons who share its religious tenets.
Right. Let’s see now. With very few exceptions, neither Jewish nor Christian charitable institutions, medical or otherwise, care overmuch about the faith of the people they employ or serve. This might not have been so three hundred years ago, but it certainly is today. One might say that Jewish and Christian religious institution have evolved beyond such an exclusivist stance, and good for them.
My guess is that Islamic charities prefer to keep it “in the house.” That means that they will easily qualify as religious organizations under this criterion.
Thus, organizations that are so often moneybags for Islamic terrorism and imperialism will get full protection from the Obamite decrees on religion. I’m not saying that this was the intent (though given the Islamophilia that pervades the Obama administration, anything is possible), but it certainly seems to be a very interesting consequence.