Basically, the Catholic Church can "get around" the Obamacare mandate by converting to Islam.

Hah! That will show him!

Obamacare exempts Muslims but not Catholics, and other Christians, from Obamacare mandate:

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.

More "unintended" irony:

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.

Update: Here is the Snopes site, which rates the claim that Obamacare specifically exempts Muslims as "false."

What Obamacare does is to incorporate certain IRS exemptions under which if a person belongs to a denomination that rejects the collection of governmental benefits, then the person may be exempted. The argument that the author of the above post connects the exemption to Islam on the grounds that Muslims reject insurance in principle.

Is that true? I don't know, but whatever the answer, if it does, then the post has some traction, albeit the "sting" of the charge seems to be false.

Being a "radical" who is "transgressive" and "provocative" is only possible ...

...if the transgression is against Catholics and Evangelicals who abide by the rules of civility.

Here's Mark Steyn's take on the New York Times double-standard under which it will print anti-Catholic rants, but won't touch anti-Islamic ones:

Pamela Geller was struck by that ad The New York Times ran the other day, “It’s Time To Quit The Catholic Church“, an “open letter to ‘liberal’ and ‘nominal’ Catholics”. So she sent in her own ad, “It’s Time To Quit Islam“, an “open letter to ‘moderate’ Muslims”. Analogous artwork, same pitch, only difference being the intended target. The Times’ Senior Vice-President for Corporate Hogwash called to tell Miss Geller that – surprise! surprise! – they were way less eager to rush this one into print:

Bob Christie, Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications for the New York Times, just called me to advise me that they would be accepting my ad, but considering the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, now would not be a good time, as they did not want to enflame an already hot situation. They will be reconsidering it for publication in “a few months.”

So I said to Mr. Christie, “Isn’t this the very point of the ad? If you feared the Catholics were going to attack the New York Times building, would you have run that ad?”

Thus the courage of the secular left: If you’re going to be “provocative”, it’s best to do it with people who can’t be provoked. Pamela is right. If you want to be treated with respect by The New York Times and the rest of the multiculti establishment, make it clear you’re willing to kill them. That’s an interesting message to send.

God bless their pointy little heads, the editors of the New York Times probably don't even begin to understand.

Tim Tebow must lose in order to keep America safe for immigrants, Muslims and gays!

Commentary points out the oikophobia - fear of one's neighbor - that informs a column written by Rabbi Joshua Hammerman in The Jewish Week:

Rabbi Joshua Hammerman’s Tim Tebow is making the rounds today–and not in a good way. The disturbing article, a vicious diatribe against American Christians, has offended not only its Christian targets but also American Jews who have worked hard to produce the gains in Jewish-Christian relations that such attacks threaten to undermine. Here is the most offensive paragraph (which the editors, since this post went up, finally deleted, though the rest of the offensive column remains):

If Tebow wins the Super Bowl, against all odds, it will buoy his faithful, and emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants. While America has become more inclusive since Jerry Falwell’s first political forays, a Tebow triumph could set those efforts back considerably.

Hammerman, a member of J Street’s Rabbinic Cabinet, says he is rooting against Tebow as a New England Patriots fan and as a concerned citizen. He gives the impression he believes that fervently hoping for the public failure of an athlete is appropriate if that athlete is overtly Christian. (While there is nothing wrong with being a Patriots fan, Hammerman does call head coach Bill Belichick a “moral exemplar,” which is a bit much considering Belichick was caught cheating to win games and carried on an affair with a married woman, resulting in the couple’s divorce just after his own. One wonders about Hammerman’s moral judgment.)

But more importantly, Hammerman surely knows that what he writes here is plainspoken bigotry, an affront to a nation of civilized people, insulting to Christians for all the obvious reasons, and is a chillul Hashem as well–a blight on Judaism’s reputation and one of Judaism’s most serious sins.

After given in to his inner oikophobe, and reaping the pushback, Rabbi Hammerman offered this lame apology:

“I have spent my entire career engaged in dialogue with people of all faiths while speaking out passionately against intolerance and extremism. I have the deepest respect for those who are committed to their faith, including Mr. Tebow. I realize the way in which I attempted to make my points was clumsy and inappropriate, calling to mind the kind of intolerance and extremism my article was intended to disparage. I sincerely apologize to Mr. Tebow, his family, the Broncos and Patriots and all those whom I may have offended.”

Mmm...okay...but what about all those "Christians" who Rabbi Hammerman described as just waiting for a catharsis to release their barely restrained desire to re-enact the Kristalnacht?

James Taranto writes:

So the offense was not against Tebow or his family, much less the Broncos and Patriots. Hammerman made a bigoted statement about Christians, or at least an ill-defined subset of Christians--a statement that belies his claim to "have the deepest respect for those who are committed to their faith." Although he apologizes to "all those whom I may have offended," he gives no indication of understanding why his statement was offensive.

Too true.

Why Tim Tebow is blessed by those who hate him...

...because - according to Matthew 5:11 -

"Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me."

Newsbusters reports:

Outspoken Christian athlete Tim Tebow, now the starting quarterback for the Denver Broncos, has been widely criticized by many in the media. NFL analysts are starting to admit that criticism, in large part, has been because of his faith.


''Inside the NFL'' analyst and former Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Cris Collinsworth concluded that much of the hatred against Tebow was based on his religious beliefs. Responding to a question from fellow host James 'JB' Brown, Collinsworth showed his disgust for Tebow's treatment: ''It's unbelievable, though, JB, that one of the best kids - just pure kids that's ever come into the NFL - is hated because of his faith, because of his mission work, because of the fact that he wears it on his sleeve, because of the fact that he lives his life that he talks about.''

This isn't the first time the issue has come up. Many sportswriters and fans have mocked Tebow and hoped to see him fail - in large part, his defenders have argued, because of his strong Christian beliefs. Other football analysts are starting to agree with that assessment.

NBCsports.com commentator Jelisa Castrodale argued: “The NFL's other backup-turned-starters don't generate this type of negativity.” And CBS analyst and former 49ers offensive lineman Randy Cross blamed the media for anti-Tebow coverage: ''People, especially the media, root against him because of what he stands for.''

Showtime Sports' Oct. 12 edition of 'Inside the NFL' featured a nearly 5-minute segment on Tebow. Analysts Brown and Collinsworth were joined by former NFL stars Warren Sapp and Phil Simms discussing Tebow's faith - and the controversial reactions to it.

Brown teased the segment: ''This is a guy that you either love to have him or you hate to love him. What is it about him that folks are so polarized?''

Brown and Collinsworth concluded that much of the hatred against Tebow was based on faith. Brown pointed out: ''There's a number of guys who come into the league with a big marquee, fat paychecks, a lot of attention, and folks don't seem to hate them with the same intensity that they hate Tim Tebow.'' Collinsworth concurred with Brown: ''I couldn't agree with you more. And it's kind of a sad commentary, that, you know, if someone is out carousing every night, the Joe Namath thing, or whatever, they're American heroes, and Tim Tebow, who's working in missions in Asia somewhere, is a guy that we're going to vilify.''

Tebow has indeed been vilified for his Christian faith and beliefs. Commentators have taken aim at him because of his religion and pro-life stance. One sportswriter compared Tebow's confidence that he will start in the NFL to blasphemy. 'Daily Show' comedian John Oliver declared: ''I dislike Robert Mugabe. I hate Tim Tebow.''

The vitriol directed against Tebow is how religion and people of faith are often treated in the media, which often seeks to remove any mention of religion from public life entirely, including in sports.

Good question, but is it true and ...

...does it suggest something malevolent.

Why is Rome keeping schtum about Pastor Nadarkhani?

The blogger Archbishop Cranmer has done some excellent work drawing attention to the case of Pastor Nadarkhani, who is to be executed in Iran because he refuses to recant his Christian faith. One doesn’t have to be a martyrologist, or even a Christian, to recognise the Pastor’s courage. Three times he has been asked by the Iranian Supreme Court to renounce Christ, and three times, on pain of death, he has refused. Reports today suggest that the Iranian authorities are on the verge of acquitting Nardakhani, but Cranmer says that “the ‘people who know’ are treating these reports with great caution.”


Cranmer also says he has alerted the Foreign office, Lambeth Palace, and the Vatican about Nadarkhani’s situation. William Hague replied within an hour and the Archbishop of Canterbury expressed “deep concern”, but the Vatican has kept schtum. Cranmer is cross, “Iran views Evangelical Protestants as ‘corrupt and deviant’,” he writes. “Does His Holiness agree?”

Steady on. It’s possible, I suppose, that the Holy See is reluctant to intervene for fear of endangering Catholics in Iran. Or perhaps they are working behind the scenes. But I suspect the Vatican’s silence is more to do with bureaucracy and incompetence. Cranmer tends to think the worst of Rome (the clue is in his name). But he is absolutely right to say that the churches really should be united, clear and loud in response to this outrage, and they should speak out now.

Anyone who has read Pope Benedict XVI's writings knows that Cranmer is nuts.  B16 has gone on record repeatedly to denounce the irrationality and oppression of Islamic extremists.  Likewise, it has been no secret that Catholics are the ones who tend to catch it in the necks in most of the Middle East.

On which point, where is the Protestant denunciation of the many, many attacks on Catholics in the Mid-East?  I assume there are some, and I further assume that all Protestants are opposed to such attacks.  Finally, I assume that they have many other worthwhile things that divert their attention such that they don't have to keep repeating things we know they stand for.

Should the Vatican denounce this situation, if it hasn't already? Absolutely. But notice that the White House got around to denouncing it only last night. 

Bureaucracy is undoubtedly the answer here.

So, the journalistic group-mind agrees that this year it is appropriate to ask questions about the interaction of faith and political conscience because several Evangelical Christians are in the mix....

...but four years ago asking a candidate about his faith - including the effect of his father's adherence to Islam on his views or about his pastor's adherence to a weird kind of anti-Americanism - was totally off base because it intruded into matters of personal privacy.

Weird, huh?

Bill Keller of the New York Times decides that now is the time to uncork "tough questions about faith to Republican candidates...uhm, errr...candidates who are not Democrat...which is to say...candidates who belong to the dominant American religious tradition and therefore who cannot be discriminated against by definition because clearly asking such questions of a candidate whose pastor crowed about the mass murder of Americans would only be for the purpose of a political smear." 

Whew... I'm glad we got that impartial rule defined.

You have to love how the impartial Bill Keller likens religious belief to a hallucinatory belief in space aliens:

If a candidate for president said he believed that space aliens dwell among us, would that affect your willingness to vote for him? Personally, I might not disqualify him out of hand; one out of three Americans believe we have had Visitors and, hey, who knows? But I would certainly want to ask a few questions. Like, where does he get his information? Does he talk to the aliens? Do they have an economic plan?

Quick, name the fallacy.

According to my copy of the "Big Book of Cheap Shots," that would be labeling.

Strange Herring disembowls Keller's "tough questions" as the ideological argument they are, and uncorks a few that might be nice to lob at Democrats:

Now for the Sacramone Questionnaire for Nontheists:


1. Do you think that anyone who believes in the supernatural is delusional? If so, do you believe they should be treated medically? Do you believe they should be allowed to adopt children?

2. Do you think anyone who believes in six-day special creation should ipso facto be barred from holding public office?

3. Do you believe the religious beliefs of historical figures should be eradicated when discussing them in schools? For example, that Louis Pasteur was a devout Catholic who prayed the Rosary daily?

4. Do you believe that the religious faith of those responsible for the birth of modern science—Galileo, Copernicus, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, George LeMaitre (father of the theory of the big bang), Jesuit priests too numerous to mention, et al.—should be eradicated when discussing them in schools?

5. Do you believe that it should be noted that the rise of modern science occurred in the context of a civilization that was still explicitly Christian when teaching either European history of the history of science?

6. Do you think homeschooling should be illegal, as it is in some European countries?

7. Do you believe vaccines are a factor in the rise of autism cases? Do you believe parents should be allowed to opt out of vaccine programs?

8. Do you believe that global warming/climate change demands we de-industrialize?

9. Do you believe churches and all religious institutions should be taxed?

10. Do you believe that there is such a thing as life unworthy of life? Explain.

11. Do you believe assisted suicide and euthanasia should be made legal either on a state-by-state basis or by federal fiat?

12. Do you believe infanticide should be made legal? If not, when is a baby a human being protected by the rights any other human being enjoys?

13. Is there any point when an adult human being loses the right to life? If so, under what circumstances?

14. Do you believe polygamous marriage should be legalized, either on a state-by-state basis or by federal fiat? Do you believe that “minor-attracted adults” should be protected by law as a perfectly valid expression of human sexuality that was much more common in ancient Europe and among non-Western cultures? Do you believe incest and/or bestiality should be protected by law as perfectly valid expressions of human sexuality?

15. Do you believe that individuals are ultimately responsible for their behavior, or do you believe they are subject to too many internal (biochemical, psychological) and external (social pressures, strange belief systems) factors to be held accountable, such that many of our criminal laws should be seriously reformed or eradicated?

Tolerance is the moment between breathing out one orthodoxy and breathing in another.

'Teacher of the Year' suspended for Facebook comment.

A Florida teacher has been suspended and removed from the classroom in Mount Dora, Florida, for comments made on his Facebook page against homosexual "marriage." Liberty Counsel will be representing the teacher in court.


The comments by Mount Dora High School teacher Jerry Buell were posted on his Facebook page on his personal time, using his home computer. Those comments reflected the mainstream view that marriage should be between one man and one woman. According to a Liberty Counsel press release, the history and government teacher expressed his view that homosexuality is a sin and that seeing two "grooms" kissing on a news story revolted him.

Here is the coverage of the story on MSNBC.

Spot the Idiot.

Some flyspeck named Jim Naylor at some online site called Splice seems to believe that if he thinks you ought to condemn Norwegian terrorists in the form that he thinks is proper, then you have failed his test for not being complicit with the terrorist:

Where's the Condemnation?

Jim Naylor

The eerie official silence in the wake of the Norway massacre.

In the event you have no opinions on Anders Breivik, you’re a moron. This is why I’m surprised that I haven’t seen or heard from Christianity's leaders on the matter. I’ve gone from the Vatican to the Saddleback Ministries, and then some, and I’ve got to say I’ve been getting nothing back in response from all but one (and to add an insult, that one made a precursory statement of no comment). The only thing I could gather from my attempted correspondence with Christian leadership is that Rick Warren doesn’t want to say anything unless he and his people know my angle. It’s like they’re all too afraid of their own shady scriptures to condemn them, or perhaps they condone it and they just don’t want the non-Christian parts of the world to know their true colors. Why are a majority of Christians silent and unable to publicly condemn (or at least disown) a fundamentalist Christian that committed an act of terror?

I mentioned the Vatican already, but their silence has reminded me of their semi-silent acceptances of larger, more organized, mass killings. The lack of response from the Vatican shows the world just how Ratzinger feels about Breivik. I may as well lump the Vatican in with Westboro Baptist Church. At this point, only the WBC has anything to say about it; nothing nice, but at least they have the balls to come out and say what they really think instead of being silent to avoid lying. Pat Roberts and his ministry: nothing. Trinity United, ditto. I thought maybe Rick Warren would offer an opinion. After all, around 2006, he was saying that Fundamentalism in religion would be a danger to society. Why not hold Warren to his words, call him on BS, and see if he’s willing to lead by example? Instead I got a reply via email stating that neither he nor his ministry has made, or is willing to make a statement. But the next day via Twitter he asks people to pray away the pain. I guess a deleted tweet says more about what Warren really finds important at times like these. Perhaps my focus should be on Rick Warren; after all he probably doesn’t want to believe Anders Breivik is a Christian.

It's not apparent that Breivik is a Christian from any perspective other than that he may have said he was.  From the standpoint of living a life according to the tenets of Christian doctrine, he ain't. 

Unlike Islam, there is no text in Christianity's Holy Book imposing a duty on Christians to kill unbelievers.  The text is noteworthy for counseling loving one's neighbors.  Breivik didn't love his neighbors; he killed his neighbors because he was a psycho.  Ergo he was not a Christian. QED.

Does this flyspeck named Jim Naylor really believe that Pope Benedict - or any of the pastors he identifies - endorses the murder of children?  If he does, he needs psychotherapy, not a reasoned response.
In fact, of course, to be expected, Pope Benedict did condemn the acts of Breivik -

Pope Benedict XVI has called on people to renounce hatred in the face of the “deep sorrow” felt over the terror attacks in Norway.


The pope urged people to pray for the dead, the wounded and their loved ones as he spoke to pilgrims and tourists from the balcony of his summer palace in Castel Gandolfo near Rome.

Benedict says he is issuing a heartfelt appeal for people to “abandon hatred once and for all” and renounce what he calls “the logic of evil”.

The pope yesterday sent a condolence message to Norway’s king, denouncing the “senseless violence”.

His envoy in Norway called the terror attacks “madness” and said the victims would be remembered at Sunday Mass.

"Unfortunately, yet again comes news of death and violence,'' Benedict said at the start of his greetings to the faithful.

"We all feel deep sorrow for the grave terrorist acts.''

“I want to again repeat my grief-stricken appeal to all to abandon forever the way of hatred and to run away from the logic of evil,” Benedict said in his remarks, speaking in Italian.

Apparently, "grave terrorist acts" is not clear enough for Naylor and his intellectual pygmies at Splice.

By the way, has Splice or Naylor condemned any of the dozens of Muslim attacks on Christians that were committed during the last year?  If not, by his logic, he apparently is complicit in those attacks.

Hollywood - where all belief systems are equally superior to Christianity.

This Big Hollywood article describes the weird knee-jerk attitude of Hollywood, which used digitial technology to eliminate the title of one book from various scenes in a movie. 

The book title?  Was it Mein Kampf?  Was it Das Kapital? 

You know the title already.

In the land of Richard Dawkins, where all religions are equally superior to Christianity....

....someone has decided to vandalize a thorn tree said to have been grown from the staff of Joseph of Arimathea.

Interesting story behind the thorn tree:

Christian legend dictates that Jesus's great uncle, Joseph of Arimathea, came to Britain after the crucifixion 2,000 years ago bearing the Holy Grail - the cup used by Christ at the Last Supper.


He visited Glastonbury and thrust his staff into Wearyall Hill, just below the Tor, planting a seed for the original thorn tree.

Roundheads felled the tree during the English Civil War, when forces led by Oliver Cromwell (pictured) waged a vicious battle against the Crown.

However, locals salvaged the roots of the original tree, hiding it in secret locations around Glastonbury.

It was then replanted on the hill in 1951. Other cuttings were also grown and placed around the town - including its famous Glastonbury Abbey.

Experts had verified that the tree - known as the Crategus Monogyna Bi Flora - originated from the Middle East.

A sprig of holy thorns was taken from the Thorn tree by Glastonbury's St Johns Church on Wednesday and sent to the Queen.

The 100-year-old tradition will see the thorns sit on Her Majesty's dinner table on Christmas Day

"The sacred tree is unique in that it blossoms twice a year - at Christmas and Easter."