Christians are directed to reach out to the poor, the sick, the widows and the orphans, but at the same time, God gave us Free will, which means that we are free to either do those things or not.

I’ve always interpreted that “Render to ceasar,” quote as being “Follow the laws of the land you live in.” but to show compassion to those that have nothing.

I think that if Christ were here today, he’d say that it’s up to you and me to help the poor, and that government should stay out of it. He’d say it’s up to you and me to fund the hospitals, not the government.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/5318.cfm

And he has been hammering Jim Wallis for years already over his “social gospel”:

http://www.garynorth.com/public/department61.cfm

When the first public education law was enacted the state took over the role of God and parent.

Since then that role has expanded and will continue to expand until parents have no rights as far as their children are concerned.

As the state has replaced God, the state giveth and taketh away. The state determines what is moral and immoral, good and bad, right and wrong.

When Christians capitulated to the modern eugenics movement implemented by Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, by approving of contraceptives, it didn’t take a rocket scientist to realize they lost their way.

Today’s health care reform crisis is simply another opportunity for Christian’s to hop on the devil’s wagon and slide on down the road.

This needs a note of clarification, though, in the light of two distinguishable kinds of moral obligation, negative and positive.

Look at the “right to life.”

In its negative obligation (“Thou shalt not kill”) it is obligatory for everyone. NO ONE (not the military, not the medicos, no one) is permitted to directly target an innocent person for death. The role of government is to forbid killing, injuring, aggressing — and that’s why it is legitimate to expect government to protect those who are at risk of being killed via abortion.

In its positive obligation (promoting life, “Inasmuch as you have done it for the least of my brethren…”) the duty obliges each person in a different way.

Who has the positive obligation to care for the sick? In the first place, family members. Spouses care for each others’ needs (“in sickness and in health.”) Parents are responsible for their dependent children. Adult children care for their aged and frail parents.

Some people have distinctive professional obligations. Public safety officials — policemen, firemen — have a particular vocation to intervene, and even to risk their own lives, to save others. Doctors and hospitals are obliged not to turn away anyone who requires emergency live-saving treatment. And so forth.

Bottom line: the positive obligations to “promote well-being” and to “care for the sick” are distributed in different degrees and in different ways to different persons. It does not constitue the government’s responsibility. It is, however, at every point, OURS.