One may, insofar as the USA, be aware of a certain 1947 Supreme Court majority decision which in part says no unit of government may require a person to join or abstain from any religious group nor require any religious organization to set forth its exact beliefs; of course, that Court then featuring a young William Rehnquist was not considering a comprehensive set of cultural issues…but suffice then the simple fact no Church can be required to explain itself for the government as far as beliefs-sans-activities goes (physical actions always limited like anyone else’s by crime statutes). 

Indeed, in the case of secular officials otherwise holding all religion is epigenetic hypertrophism and psychology to such ends, and most significantly such officials cut off from basing anything on the words of any sacred text(s), there remains no reason whatever to partake of baiting and fall for parsing the Christianity espoused by Obama-endorsing (or Obama faith-funded) clergy…posing with their Theologian In Chief in the nature of inferring mere questions about Obamacare would be racism, nationalism, suppression of religious expression, or some other hypertrophism of irrelevance too juicy for “the masses” to ignore (mere cootie-calling, if you will). 

After all, for almost 2,000 years, nobody on earth suggested Jesus had proclaimed HIS FIRST earthly time or period between that and Parousia meant He’s here directing every mortal personally, commanded them to live by personal nihilism or be destroyed, posted a few overlords over “God’s go-green gardeners” who aimlessly toil as both workers and garden vegetation, or commanded all to use or accept abject moral nihilism in making any such things happen…then came Stalin and Chairman Mao who DID see that as Christ’s message; they, and every paid or craven or willful admirer from their day to present, live(d) such nihilisms on insistence any other view is superstition, psychology, or otherwise naughty. This might explain why officials worldwide stomp on even little old ladies’ Bible circles…Bible of two millennia so different from idling Socialism…but no text expository position about in lieu of earthly facts can be a secular standard and thus all “religious cause” steamrollings by USA government re evangelical social justinians and Rapturists or others would seem moot ab initio. 

It seems most logical to state that despite one’s belief or atheism, objectively reasoning on nationalized health care, on its pros/cons/synchronicity with other laws and rights, to assess manifest accord with majority interests of the People no matter cultural mix, makes the best barometer of such health care’s merits or lackings. 

Suggesting otherwise would carry an air of jackboot propaganda covering indefensible points. Seasoned obfuscators know this, so watch for now-standard election year cloys: “More immigrants, get IN here! It’s all lies we’re a nationalized education/job and wage-dwindling flophouse!”; and the now ubiquitous: “Omigosh, Laden speaks, Alibabajihad speaks, um, terrah-terrah-terrah, EyeRack (now pronounced IrRahk), Courts or tribunals”, all while Obama cruises the globe being a “listener not preacher” (pupil not teacher?) and bows deeply to any foreign leaders except those of Israel and India…whose antagonists couldn’t exist without U.N./European Union/USA protection. 

[In forming this opinion, I included inter alia consideration of a citation from “The Encyclopedia of Philosophy”, Paul Edwards editor in chief MacMillan Company & The Free Press, ©USA 1967 Crowell Collier and MacMillan Inc, Volume 6, topic “The Idea of Progress”, subtopic “The cost of progress”, paragraph 3, sentences 2-5: 

“The role of fantasy, ignorance, superstition, and fanaticism in determining the world’s affairs continues to be enormous. It is doubtful, however, whether so many members of human society, from housewives to statesmen, have ever before thought it reasonable to make decisions on the basis of carefully acquired and sifted information, and never before have societies possessed as much knowledge about themselves and their workings as they do now, shaky and scattered though that knowledge is. Only if one thinks it morally dangerous to seek reliable information before making decisions or thinks it mistaken to try to employ rational methods in the study of human affairs can he declare such long-range social trends to be anything but progressive. Indeed, the very reason that the members of an educated society bear a particularly heavy burden of responsibility for the emergence of doctrines like Nazism is that they have opportunities to be informed and judicious which members of other societies did not have”. End of Citation. 

I considered this in re USA officials, bailed-out media, and faith-funded clergy obviously having greater capacity to know sweeping scopes and actual texts enabling same than the vast multitudes who will “just hear about it” from such sources in a priori fashion.]