Being my brothers keeper.

I am amazed by the duplicity that dominates religious rhetoric.   Someone explain to me how welfare organizations that are Federally funded differ from those of religious origin in respect to morality.  My only quick notice is that of an elitist perspective.  While I admit that my knowledge is heavily slanted by the religious upbringing I experienced in Utah, where poverty was battled with subsidized lunches, but also by a religious ministration reliant on fast offerings and donations, contingent upon affiliation of course.  (On a long term basis, mind you, this is not a post directed towards large one time donations due to natural disasters, or other singular calamities.)  While I understand that the reputation of Government is not of virtue and prudence per se, there is no disclaimer that states that only a church or religious entity can be interested in the welfare of its patrons.  I also know many individuals enter political office in an attempt to make the world a better place.  Why is it that we will "feed the children" without batting an eyelash, but at some undetermined interval inflict judgment as a precursor of hunger or thirst?  If your going to eat the bread, you have to drink the punch?

Which isn't to state that the beauraucratic idiosyncracies of our government don't have thier own restrictions.  While there are many hot button issues, healthcare, welfare, and abortion are certainly an unholy trinity in some circles.  At the root of each of these issues however is that glimmer to make the world a better place.  As eternal as the wellspring of hope, there is need.  When something is created there is automatically a division of the populace: those with, and those without.  Society has been divided many times over along visible and invisible fault lines.  Male, female, young, old, Democrat, Republican.  Imagine the strain felt by an Transgendered 24 year old college coed Independant.  I must interject that I find argument based in extremes to be unhelpful except in the dire extremes that they mirror, in the event that there are only 12 people left to repopulate the planet, I'll have long since resigned myself to fate.  I don't believe in prolonging the inevitable.  Which isn't to say that for those 12 individuals food wouldn't be an all consuming issue (no pun intended).  But for a modern 24 year old college coed some of those issues could be just as dire. 

I have to state that as a principle I do not believe in charity as an organization.  I will also state for the record that I am an extremely selfish and metrialistic person, and as noted on my Facebook profile, Jesus thinks I am a selfish bitch.  As an individual act Charity becomes an entirely different manner as 1 Corinthians 13:13 exhorts us that "the greatest of these is charity."  (I will offer to buy a sandwich or food for the homeless.)(I will also admit that my first reaction to that those who distinctly desire only money are of an ill caste-whether my assumptions are correct isn't really the point.)  I also do not believe that people value things that they recieve for free.   I want to muddy the waters here and introduce public education, the national endowments for the Arts, Parks and recreation, and the department of transportation.  All of which are funded with tax dollars.  Should I be angry that as a homosexual I pay for the education of your children?  I also believe it counterproductive to demarcate every aspect of ones life.  Which is not neccessarily the advice admonished in Mark 12:17, or perhaps it is if you believe that we are the creations of an all powerful, omnipotent, omnipowerful, presence. (heretofore which shall be abbreviated as POOP).  So in an effort to render that which is Ceasar's and that which is God's: if I were to ask to remove in God we trust from our monetary denominations would there be a furor?  Therefore I must infer that the individual intent of our actions is the mark of our virtue; regardless of whether one is a Democrat or Republican, Baptist or Mormon.

In conclusion of the metaphorical implication of the title, and my limited understanding that the jealousy of Cain was aroused by the acceptance of Able's willing sacrifice when compared to the begrudged offerings.  As exemplified by this passage from Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Bible regarding Genesis 4:8-15

Malice in the heart ends in murder by the hands. Cain slew Abel, his own brother, his own mother's son, whom he ought to have loved; his younger brother, whom he ought to have protected; a good brother, who had never done him any wrong...Observe the pride, unbelief, and impenitence of Cain. He denies the crime, as if he could conceal it from God. He tries to cover a deliberate murder with a deliberate lie...Cain was cursed from the earth. He found his punishment there where he chose his portion, and set his heart. Every creature is to us what God makes it, a comfort or a cross, a blessing or a curse. The wickedness of the wicked brings a curse upon all they do, and all they have. Cain complains not of his sin, but of his punishment. It shows great hardness of heart to be more concerned about our sufferings than our sins. God has wise and holy ends in prolonging the lives even of very wicked men."

While I wouldn't go as far as murder, to kill is defined as depriving of life in any manner. I would say that by our omission death is the rational end for individuals who do not have access to modern healthcare.  Just as the intent of the homeless, or the intent of Cain -- the arena of judgement is not mine, so I will not judge the means that have left many of my fellow Americans without health coverage.  Which as a footnote I'll mention that God is no respecter of persons so my arbitrary distinction between immigrant or illegal alien will probably hold little water in heaven.