Christianity has always been considered almost synonymous with charity. Yet in order for charity to be charity, it has to be voluntary, for absent free choice, it ceases to be charity and becomes a tax. Now, I'm no theologian, but even by the most cursory analysis, it would seem that Jesus was reminding his followers that they had a duty to the state to pay their taxes when he said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." But that is not charity, and there are a number of examples of Jesus stressing the importance of charity, and the example of the poor widow comes immediately to mind:

Luke 20:45-21:4

[45] While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, [46] "Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. [47] They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely."

[21:1] As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. [2] He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. [3] "I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. [4] All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."

But religious scribes don't hold that sort of power today, If any entity robs widows of their money, I think it would be the government, via the estate tax.

In any case, I have never seen a single Biblical example where Jesus advocates state and religious entanglement, least of all in matters of charity. Charity comes from the heart, and cannot be mandated; otherwise, how could people who are charitable be praised for their charity, or the uncharitable condemned for their selfishness?

So I cannot quite make sense of the religious dispute under discussion here:

A reading from the gospel according to Barack, and not for the first time either. I get a kick out of it, partly because it's healthy to see how shameless religious politicking looks when it comes from the other side and partly because I think the Christian ethos points more towards his side of the argument on this one. Yes, granted, there's nothing in the Bible about caring for the sick by rendering unto Caesar, but if it's a choice between that and letting millions of people go without treatment, what's the more Christian-y option? Schultz's point about democracy is interesting, too. It's one thing to have Herod sending down diktats about taxes for his personal policy whims, but if a majority of the public supports taxes as a way of covering the uninsured, isn't that a form of private charity albeit through a public mechanism? And if the answer to that is, "No, because those in favor should just start their own private institution devoted to covering the uninsured and donate to it voluntarily," then what, if any, divine repercussions should there be for people who don't donate to it? Is Jesus A-OK with you letting people suffer without care even if you have spare income you could offer them? Inquiring atheists want to know!

I think the First Amendment stands for the principle that religion is not compulsory, which means that the state ought not to make people do things for religious reasons. If the state decides to tax people to make them pay for the health care of others, that is bad enough, but if the reason is to ensure compliance with Christian doctrine, then I am as much against religious-based public health care as I am religious-based sodomy laws.