If a theist objects on religious grounds to the provisions of the recently passed health care bill, it seems that he or she can opt out.

If an atheist objects, however, sorry. Unless that atheist happens to also be an Indian, an inmate, or a special hardship case, NO exemption.

Here are some of the details:

Amish Families Exempt From Insurance Mandate (Marc Heller/Watertown Daily Times; Jan 9)

HEALTH REFORM: People with religious objections can opt out

WASHINGTON: Federal health care reform will require most Northern New Yorkers — but not all, it turns out — to carry health insurance or risk a fine.

Hundreds of Amish families in the region are likely to be free from that requirement.

The Amish, as well as some other religious sects, are covered by a “religious conscience” exemption, which allows people with religious objections to insurance to opt out of the mandate. It is in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, making its appearance in the final version routine unless there are last-minute objections.

Although the Amish consist of several branches, some more conservative than others, they generally rely upon a community ethic that disdains government assistance. Families rely upon one another, and communities pitch in to help neighbors pay health care expenses.

The Amish population has been growing in the north country, as well as in New York generally. The state ranks sixth nationally in Amish population and posted the biggest net increase in Amish households — 307 — from 2002 to 2007, according to the Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies at Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania.

Lawmakers reportedly included the provision at the urging of Amish constituents, although the legislation does not specify that community and the provision could apply to other groups as well, including Old Order Mennonites and perhaps Christian Scientists.

A professor and lawyer at Yeshiva University in New York complained last summer that exempting groups for religious reasons could run afoul of the Constitution. Marci A. Hamilton, who teaches at the University’s Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, wrote at Findlaw.com in August, “If the government can tolerate a religious exemption, then it must do so evenhandedly among religious believers with the same beliefs. This is sheer favoritism for a certain class of religions, or even for one religion.”

In her column, Ms. Hamilton speculated that lobbyists for the Christian Science Church were responsible for the provision, given their public stance that health care reform bills around the country should include religious exemptions. In an e-mail message Friday, she said she was unaware of the Amish interest in the bill and that their objections to the mandate surprised her because the Amish do buy vehicle insurance, for instance.

Ms. Hamilton said the exemption could harm the health of children whose families avoid medical care for religious reasons, although the Amish objections relate more to insurance than to medical care itself.

Congressional aides said the exemption is based on a carve-out the Amish have had from Social Security and Medicare taxes since the 1960s. Whether Amish businesses, however, would fall under the bill’s mandates is still an open question.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., who was a key negotiator on the Senate bill, supports the religious exemption, said a spokesman, Maxwell Young, who called the provision a “no brainer.”

Mandatory ObamaCare Doesn’t Apply to Muslims (Jerry A. Kane/The Canadian Free Press; April 5)

WASHINGTON: ObamaCare’s “pay-or-play” mandates require that “all” Americans carry essential health insurance coverage or face penalties; however, “all” really doesn’t mean all after all. The recently signed bill contains a clause exempting certain religious groups, American Indians, illegal immigrants, and hardship cases (prison inmates) from ObamaCare’s health insurance mandate.

Senate Health Care Bill H.R. 3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, statute 18 (5) EXEMPTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS reads…

…In the case of an individual who is seeking an exemption certificate under section 1311(d)(4)(H) from any requirement or penalty imposed by section 5000A, the following information:

(A) In the case of an individual seeking exemption based on the individual’s status as a member of an exempt religious sect or division, as a member of a health care sharing ministry, as an Indian, or as an individual eligible for a hardship exemption, such information as the Secretary shall prescribe.

The Amish are exempt because they believe it is their church’s responsibility to care for the material needs of the members, not the government or insurance companies. When members of the Amish community have need of a doctor or a hospital, they get financial help from their church and neighbors and pay in cash for the services.

The clause is not exclusive to the Amish alone; it also applies to any individual whose religion does not believe in insurance.

“(P)eople who are conscientiously opposed to paying for health insurance don’t have to do it where the conscientious objection arises from religion,” said Mark Tushnet a Harvard law professor.

According to a reputable Islamic Web site managed by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, Islam’s Council of Senior Scholars have issued fatwas (decrees) that not only prohibit Muslims from purchasing risk insurance, the fatwas also prohibit them from working for companies that provide such insurance or any other form of commercial insurance.

The Council’s fatwas brand risk insurance contracts “haraam” (forbidden) declaring that such contracts are based on probability and extreme ambiguity, gambling and riba (usury). However, Muslims are permitted to use health insurance that is paid for through a compulsory tax, such as the so-called “free” health care provided by U.S. hospital emergency rooms for those without insurance or can’t pay or government programs such as Medicaid and Medicare for people with low incomes and senior citizens respectively.

Members of religious groups applying for exemption from ObamaCare must prove to Health and Human Services bureaucrats that they are citizens and actual members of the recognized religious groups. The law requires the HHS Secretary to match the applicant’s personal information with the records on file at the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security to prove citizenship and religious status.

While the new law requires most Americans to sign up with insurance companies or government insurance plans, it’s clear that the Amish, Muslims, and possibly Christian Scientists will be permitted to claim exemption from the government mandates as conscientious objectors of having to carry health insurance….

Is Jerry Kane right?

Did these special exemptions for certain religious folks *really* make their way into the final bill?

Have the people who ardently embrace ancient superstitions once again been given the kind of special rights and treatment that non-superstitious rationalists can never hope to obtain?

The mind boggles….

Related posts:

1. Finally, A Place At The Table For Non-Theists
2. Can Theists Be Trusted With Children?
3. Will Health Care Reform Benefit Witchdoctors?

I’m not sure I’m able to answer those questions today.

Here are a few of the things I’m thinking about as I try to work my way towards an answer:

1) Attempts to justify or excuse the wearing of the burqa on religious grounds cut very little ice with me. Freedom of religion means freedom to *believe* whatever you want – not *do* whatever you want. Because what we do in public has an impact on the public, regulations governing what we do seem just and proper in principle.

Should a ban on the burqa in particular be considered a just and proper act? Again, I’m not sure – but given society’s right to regulate public behavior, it seems safe to say that it *might* be just and proper. Oumkheyr’s assertion that “It is very unfair that they are even considering this law” seems out of line. In fact, it seems to me to be yet one more attempt by a religious person to arbitrarily place some questions beyond the reach of rational discourse for self-serving reasons.

2) Everything else being equal, it seems to me that any rules and regulations that a society enforces with regard to dress ought to be applied fairly and evenly without regard to particular religious beliefs.

Would a ban on burqas constitute a targeted assault on Muslims? Not necessarily. If the rule is “A person’s face must be visible at all times for reasons of public safety and identification,” then a burqa ban would merely be one consequence of a rule that also bans many other things. As I understand it, many US states banned masks in the 1920s after KKK members took to wearing masks so that they could engage in their illegal activities while hiding their identities. Recently the banks in my area have banned hoodies and sunglasses so as to make it easier to identify robbers. The intent of these rules isn’t to discriminate against Muslims or members of any religion but to promote public safety.

A world of masked faces apparently would be an inherently less safe one. In a free, democratic society like ours or France’s, there seem to be few good reasons for cloaking our identify when out in public. The reasons Oumkheyr gives for wanting to cloak her face do not seem strong enough to me to justify overturning the general principle that people in public ought not to have their faces obscured. (Those reasons also seem pretty weak to me when used to avoid having one’s photo taken for a photo ID. Those reasons seem weak regardless of whether it happens to be Muslims, the Amish, or anyone else presenting them.)

3) Are there reasons besides public safety that might justify a ban? Perhaps. Some schools ban gang colors in an attempt to reduce tensions and conflict. Do burqas (and other religious symbols and dress) rise to the level of gang colors? Do they divide people unnecessarily? Do they create in-groups and cliques that make others feel excluded and inferior? If they do, does that justify a ban? If it does justify a ban, what else might be banned on similar grounds? Expensive clothes? Goth attire? When does justifiable regulation become state-mandated regimentation?

4) If the burqa offends others, is that in and of itself reason enough to ban it? I am inclined to say no. Yet many people seem to think that skimpy attire, low-riding pants, “offensive” t-shirts, flip-flops, and other “messy” or extremely informal dress ought to be banned, at least some of the time (such as in schools). If something constitutes too much of a distraction for others in a classroom, school administrators seem inclined to prohibit it for the good of others and the educational process. I don’t know of any school that allows its female students to go topless; should the other extreme be judged by a different standard? Why?

5) The burqa makes communication more difficult. That may not justify banning it, but it does seem to add to my dislike of it. Apparently we all have regions of our brains that have evolved to fixate on and recognize faces. As social animals, a lot of our brains are apparently devoted to trying to separate the living from the non-living, people from animals, friends from foes, and to trying to figure out what those friends and foes are thinking. Faces and facial expressions play a huge role. People (such as those with autism) who aren’t good at reading faces and figuring out what others are thinking are at a disadvantage and suffer as a result. The burqa serves as kind of an artificially imposed autism that disadvantages all of us – or so it seems to me. The fact that it is once again a religiously-inspired element of life that seeks to reduce knowledge and the free exchange of information further reduces my respect for religion (just as the religious origins/support for burqas make burqas naturally suspect in my eyes – it’s a real negative feedback loop).

6) Oumkheyr ended her defense of her decision to wear a burqa by saying “I obey the laws of God not the laws of man.” That rankles on so many levels, it makes it hard for me to see whatever good reasons there might be for her beliefs and actions. As Deve indicated in a note, those “laws of God” were written by men. In my estimation, this is yet one more example of the way theists use gOd the way a ventriloquist uses a dummy.

Setting that aside, even many of Oumkheyr’s fellow Muslims seem to disagree with her. “Yes, there ARE holy laws,” they seem to say, “but the need for women to wear the burqa is not one of them!”

And beneath those issues lies a more fundamental one: Claims like hers are what I call “value neutral” and can be used to justify virtually anything equally well. One person’s assertion that their understanding of gOd’s laws trumps everything else is a non-starter – an indefensible premise that would open the door to everyone in effect becoming a law unto themselves and doing whatever they wanted if we granted it the respect Oumkheyr apparently thinks we should.

7) But of course that’s not quite the premise Oumkheyr (or any other theist) would probably defend. A more accurate closing statement might have been “I obey the laws of the One True God and not the laws of man or the false laws of their false gods!”

There’s an element of special pleading inherent in all this – an element that often gets obscured whenever religious issues are debated. Islam, after all, isn’t about gOd in the abstract or the right of everyone to follow whatever deity or religion or secular philosophy they have decided is best – it’s about submission (the literal meaning of “Islam”) to Allah. Period. Freedom has very little to do with it. Oumkheyr’s attempts to defend her burqa-wearing on “freedom of religion” grounds consequently rings more than a little hollow. And it will continue to ring hollow until Muslims like her couple their arguments for personal respect with calls for predominantly Muslim countries to grant all their citizens the same sort of freedoms and respect she is claiming for herself. It seems to me that logical consistency demands that those who would defend burqas in France must also defend bikinis on the beaches of Dubai, Christian crucifixes in Saudi Arabia, Jewish yamakas in Mecca, pro-atheist t-shirts in the Gaza Strip, and much else besides. Unfortunately, I’ve rarely encountered a Muslim who embraces such consistency. Oumkheyr certainly doesn’t in her essay. Instead, that essay seems to me to boil down to one more long and loud demand for special rights and consideration from one particular theist whose respect for the rights of others seems questionable….

But perhaps I’m being too harsh. Perhaps my judgment has been colored too heavily by one too many stories about Sikhs demanding the right to wear their ceremonial daggers *everywhere* they go, and suicide bombers in Iraq who were able to slaughter many others because of their explosives-hiding burqas and/or the special consideration given Islamic females (and those posing as Islamic females), and the apparently endless stream of articles I’ve come across in which people who can’t defend a belief or action with logic and evidence play the religion card, then get all pissy when others don’t immediately bow down to them….

Ah, well, what can I say? I’m only human. I try to do the best I can.

If there’s a good reason for women to go around dressed up like beekeepers, I’m willing to consider it. If anyone can make convincingly the case that the right to wear such attire is more important than all the issues and objections that I’ve raised here, I’m prepared to revise my opinions accordingly.

All I can say at this point is that I’d probably vote to ban the burqa if I were a member of the French government today.

And if such a ban has the unintended effect of driving Oumkheyr out of the country (as she says in her essay that it would), well, that would seem to just provide me with more evidence that irrational religious beliefs motivate people to value and do some pretty silly things.

Related posts:

1. Should The Burqa Be Banned?
2. As Clear As Mud
3. A Few Thoughts Of My Own Now…

France Moves Toward Partial Burqa Ban (CNN; Jan 26)

PARIS: French lawmakers Tuesday recommended a partial ban on any veils that cover the face — including the burqa, the full-body covering worn by some Muslim women.

The ban on the “voile integrale” — which literally means “total veil” — would apply in public places like hospitals and schools, and on public transport, a French parliamentary commission announced.

France is not the only European Union country to consider banning the burqa. Dutch lawmakers voted in favor of a ban in 2005, although the government at the time left office before legislation could be passed.

Opinion: Why I’m Proud To Wear The Burqa (Oumkheyr/CNN; Feb 4)

(Oumkheyr is a French Muslim woman in her 40s. Of Algerian origin, she is divorced and has a daughter. She tells CNN why she’s proud to wear the burqa, also known as the niqab or full veil, and what she thinks of the law proposed by the French government to ban the burqa. A French parliament report has called for a ban on the burqa in schools, hospitals, government offices and public transport.)

I wear the burqa for the simple reason that I am a Muslim and the Koran says that I must wear the full veil in order to be modest.

I am proud of my Muslim faith and my modesty. I am proud to follow God’s law.

Nobody ever forced me to wear the full veil and I have been wearing it for around 10 years now.

In fact, very few of my friends actually wear one. There are, of course, situations in which some men force their wives or daughters to wear the burqa but, believe me, these cases are a very, very small minority.

For those of us who are believers, we just want to do God’s will and live by the sacred text, so what any man says has nothing to do with that.

I am testament to that as I don’t have a husband and I practice my religion freely, that’s why I’m always shocked when people say it’s the husband who forces his wife to wear a burqa.

It is actually the case that a lot of men in France do not wish their wives to wear the full veil because when they go out, they are insulted or attacked and their husbands don’t want them to be put in that situation.

I first started wearing the full veil when I was a teenager but I stopped for a while because when you’re young, you don’t want to be set apart, you want to look like everyone else.

But later after seeing what was happening with terrorist attacks involving Muslims all over the world, I decided to become more conscious and find out more about my faith.

In the process, I found myself becoming more spiritual and decided to start wearing the burqa.

Now, my liberty is being threatened with this law proposed by the French government. If this law is passed, it will be a great injustice. It is very unfair that they are even considering this law.

Perhaps the French authorities are terrified that women will start dressing like this, despite evidence to the contrary.

Why am I, as a Muslim woman, targeted unfairly, when there are less than 2,000 of us in France who wear the burqa? Where is my freedom of clothing or expression?

France prides itself as a country that upholds the rights of man but where are my rights? Why am I not free to wear what I want?

Many cite security reasons because they can’t tell who is under the veil. But myself and a lot of women who wear the burqa are always happy to identify ourselves when asked.

In the past, I have taken off my veil when it is asked of me — as long as it’s a woman who does it. My religion demands that I cover my face in front of any man who is not either my brother, father or husband.

I have been wearing the veil in France for years and it has never been a problem, I use public transport like everyone else and I’ve never had any problems.

Although, it can be quite strange when I’m on a bus for example and people say to me: ‘You poor thing, we feel sorry for you.’ And I wonder exactly why they feel sorry for me.

I’m very happy wearing the veil and it makes me spiritually fulfilled as I’m practicing my religion, so I don’t really see it as anything to pity me for.

I really believe that France is scared of Muslims, which is the motivation for this law, but people shouldn’t generalize as not all Muslims are the same.

Yes, some have done terrible things, but it is done in the name of man, never in the name of God. I, as a French Muslim woman, have nothing but love in my heart towards all people.

And whatever the outcome, if France succeeds in banning the veil on its streets, I will never take mine off. My freedom means a lot to me and if this law is passed, I would rather move to another country where I can worship in peace.

I obey the laws of God not the laws of man.

If you were a member of the French parliament, would you vote to ban the burqa?

Related posts:

1. Burqa Ban Thoughts
2. As Clear As Mud
3. Christians banned from using Allah in Malaysia

“[S]ell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven…. How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!” - Jesus (as quoted in Luke 18:22, 24)

“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed.” – Andre Bauer, South Carolina lieutenant governor, using what he later called a badly phrased metaphor to explain why he believes the government should stop assisting the poor (Time magazine, Jan 25)

According to Wikipedia, Bauer is a member of Union United Methodist Church. He seems to have been the one who first came up with the idea to have “I Believe” inscribed on South Carolina’s license plates in an attempt to promote Christianity – an idea that was determined to be unconstitutional by a federal judge last November (as explained here). According to the Associated Press, Bauer himself was a child of divorce who benefited from free government lunches.

Facts Don’t Back Bauer’s Remarks (Tim Smith/TheState.com; Jan 31)

Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer’s comments that welfare programs in the state are out of control and recipients face no repercussions once enrolled largely don’t square with the numbers, a review of state records shows.

People on welfare don’t get rewarded for having babies, the number of those receiving benefits has declined dramatically and South Carolina welfare recipients face some of the toughest limitations in the nation, according to records of the state Department of Social Services.

Bauer ignited controversy when he drew comparisons between people receiving government assistance and “stray animals” during a recent appearance at a Fountain Inn town hall meeting.

The lieutenant governor later said he could have chosen a better “metaphor,” though he stood behind his basic position that more needs to be done to break the cycle of government dependency.

The Greenville News checked Bauer’s speech and statements on government aid against available records and information about government programs operating in South Carolina to separate fact from political myth.

Some of his assertions were correct, such as the number of voters now outnumbering the number of workers in the state. However, other statements appeared tied to the welfare programs of the 1980s and early 1990s that were overhauled in a 1996 federal reform effort.

“A lot of what was said was somewhat true prior to welfare reform,” said Linda Martin, state director of DSS welfare, food stamps and child-care programs. “But we have worked really hard to change the program and I think we really have.”

Records show the state’s primary welfare program rolls are less than half the number they were before federal welfare reform.

Bauer issued a two-sentence statement defending his position.

“While reform efforts of the early ’90s were a good start, they were only mildly effective and frankly, we still have a cycle of dependency,” he said. “There are numerous public assistance programs and some of them hurt as much as they help.”

Bauer’s most controversial passage in the speech used a metaphor to address the issue of government dependency.

“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals,” he said. “You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better.”

Bauer later said he did not regret his comments at the town hall meeting but said “maybe the ’stray animals’ wasn’t the best metaphor.”

Bauer’s major argument, then and since, is that dependency on government benefit programs needs to be addressed. In the speech, he suggested that parents of children participating in free or reduced-price meal programs at school be required to attend PTA meetings and parent-teacher conferences.

“Look, folks, if you receive goods or services from the government and you don’t attend a parent-teacher conference, bam, you lose your benefits,” Bauer told the crowd of about 115.

In 1995, the last full year before reform, the state had 50,025 welfare cases. That number declined to a low of 14,313 cases in 2007 and has since risen to 20,648 with the recession, according to DSS records.

The amount spent on welfare also is a small fraction of the state’s budget. The annual cost of the state’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, what most people think of as welfare, is about $38 million for the state, $32 million in various support services offered by state agencies and $6 million in direct welfare aid.

The federal government pays $44 million for the program, Martin said. The $38 million amounts to less than 1 percent of the state’s $5 billion General Fund budget, most of which is spent on K-12 education and Medicaid.

The numbers of people on food stamps, welfare and subsidized school meals have increased in recent years, officials say. Statewide, 58 percent of students participate in the free and reduced-price school meal program, up from 54 percent two years ago.

But the increases, they say, are due to a recession and a record 12.6 percent unemployment rate that has left nearly 300,000 people in the state without jobs and ranks as the fourth-highest jobless rate in the nation.

Bauer noted in his speech that schools in which high numbers of students participate in the Free and Reduced Meals Program also have the worst test scores.

True enough, said Jim Foster, spokesman for the state Department of Education, who said there is a direct correlation between schools with the poorest students and schools with the poorest scores. But he said the problem is chiefly one of parents of poor students who are uneducated, not that most do not care about what their children do in school.

Debbie Elmore, spokeswoman for the South Carolina School Boards Association, said the issue is far more complicated than requiring drug tests and meeting attendance for parents.

“I don’t think it’s as simple as pointing to one thing,” she said. “It’s not just parental participation. It’s a lot of things.”

The amount of instruction time, the quality of teachers and leaders at the school, attendance by students, the health of students and after-school instruction are among the factors that determine a school’s success where most of the students come from a background of poverty, she said.

Bauer said in his speech that fixing the problem of poor students’ low scores is one of holding parents more accountable for their benefits and fixing the system so that recipients can’t take advantage of it.

“We are a compassionate people, and we will always take care of those who are truly needy, as we should,” he said in a statement posted on his campaign blog. “But there are also those who are not truly needy, merely lazy or greedy, who are taking advantage of the system. And, unfortunately, the system is actually designed to encourage them to take advantage of it.”

In his speech, Bauer said much the same thing. Right now, he argued, “If you receive goods and services from the government, there are no repercussions.”

Not true, according to DSS welfare requirements.

Those receiving benefits can only receive them for two years during any 10-year stretch. Able-bodied recipients must work or be in job training at least 30 hours per week or their benefits stop. Parents are asked to attend school meetings, help with homework and request help if their children are having school difficulties.

Recipients who are identified with alcohol or drugs are ineligible for benefits, unless they agree to participate in a treatment program and make good progress in the program.

South Carolina provides one of the lowest assistance checks in the nation, according to DSS. A mother of two children receives a maximum of $271 per month to pay for rent, utilities, clothing and all other needs except food.

To learn more about Christian compassion in South Carolina, see the entry I posted on Feb 27, 2009.

To learn a bit more about how Christian morality is practiced by South Carolina’s Republican governor (among others), see the entry I posted on July 9, 2009.

Related posts:

1. Christian Compassion In Action Yet Again
2. Good News You Might Have Missed
3. Christian Mad Hatters Have A Tea Party