The Gospel according to Obama

  • Pin It
National Prayer Breakfast

President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama bow their heads at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 2, 2012. (Saul Loeb)

WASHINGTON — At the recent National Prayer Breakfast, seeking theological underpinning for his drive to raise taxes on the rich, President Barack 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

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, Kathleen Sebelius, to promulgate the definition of "religious" — for the purposes, for example, of exempting religious institutions from certain regulatory dictates.

Such exemptions are granted in grudging recognition that, whereas the rest of civil society may be broken to the will of the state's regulators, our quaint Constitution grants special autonomy to religious institutions.

Accordingly, it would be a mockery of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment if, for example, the Catholic Church were required by law to freely provide such "health care services" (in secularist parlance) as contraception, sterilization and pharmacological abortion — to which Catholicism is doctrinally opposed as a grave contravention of its teachings about the sanctity of life.

Ah. But there would be no such Free Exercise violation if the institutions so mandated are deemed, by regulatory fiat, not religious.

And thus, the word came forth from Sebelius decreeing the exact criteria required (a) to meet her definition of "religious" and thus (b) to qualify for a modicum of independence from newly enacted state control of American health care, under which the aforementioned Sebelius and her phalanx of experts determine everything — from who is to be covered, to which treatments are to be guaranteed free-of-charge.

Criterion 1: A "religious institution" must have "the inculcation of religious values as its purpose." But that's not the purpose of Catholic charities; it's to give succor to the poor. That's not the purpose of Catholic hospitals; it's to give succor to the sick. Therefore, they don't qualify as "religious" — and therefore can be required, among other things, to provide free morning-after abortifacients.

Criterion 2: Any exempt institution must be one that "primarily employs" and "primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets." Catholic soup kitchens do not demand religious IDs from either the hungry they feed or the custodians they employ. Catholic charities and hospitals — even Catholic schools — do not turn away Hindu or Jew.

Their vocation is universal, precisely the kind of universal love-thy-neighbor vocation that is the very definition of religiosity as celebrated by the Gospel of Obama. Yet according to the Gospel of Sebelius, these very same Catholic institutions are not religious at all — under the secularist assumption that religion is what happens on Sunday, while good works are "social services" that are properly rendered up unto Caesar.

So, to flatter his faith-breakfast guests, Obama declares good works to be the essence of religiosity. Yet he turns around and, through Sebelius, tells the faithful who engage in good works that what they're doing is not religion at all. You want to do religion? Get thee to a nunnery. You want shelter from the power of the state? Get out of your soup kitchen and back to your pews. Outside, Leviathan rules.

Sure, health care, good works and religion are important. But re-election is divine.

Washington Post Writers Group

Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist based in Washington.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

  • Pin It

Editorial Poll


THE EDITORIAL BOARD


Andy Green, the opinion editor, has taken the "know a little bit about everything" approach in his time at The Sun. He was the city/state editor before coming to the editorial board, and prior to that he covered the State House and Baltimore County government.

Tricia Bishop, the deputy editorial page editor, was a reporter in the business and metro sections covering biotechnology, education and city and federal courts prior to joining the board.

Peter Jensen, former State House reporter and features writer, takes the lead on state government, transportation issues and the environment; he is the board's resident funny man and capital schmooze.

Glenn McNatt, who returned to editorial writing after serving as the newspaper's art critic, keeps an eye on the arts, culture, politics and the law for the editorial board.

The "crush" defense [Poll]

Attorneys for Maureen McDonnell and her husband, former Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell, told a jury this week that the couple wasn't scheming to get rich by abusing the prestige of the governor's office, but rather that Mrs. McDonnell had a "crush" on an executive and couldn't help but allow the man to lavish $150,000 in gifts on the pair while they happened to promote his diet supplement. Is that plausible?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Not sure

PHOTO GALLERIES