I find the second section of your post interesting — if you agree with the “conservative, biblical” view of government, why all the harping against “minarchism” lately? I tend to agree that government exists to protect citizens–largely from external threats to society, but also from abusing one another (through enforcement of contracts, restraints against fraud, etc). Anything else–provision of social services, etc–starts to tread into areas for which government is not best suited to meet the need.
(pardon the misposting just now — haloscan strikes again!)

‘There are no ethical problems with “reprogramming.”‘
Except, of course, that this work would have been impossible without embryonic stem cell research.

I think there’s a very good reason Clinton and Obama have not jumped on the stem cell developments, namely ‘cold fusion’. Remember how exciting that was until it turned out that whatever those scientists did couldn’t seem to be replicated and whether or not they were honest in their reports it wasn’t what it had first appeared.
Since the actual science here is beyond any of us we are just spectators to this game. We will have no idea if this breakthrough is as amazing as the hype until more time has passed. So jumping into the mix right now hyping this science leaves the candidate open to looking like a fool if later research deflates the bubble dramatically.
Both Kaufman and Brown appear to take the “conservative” view of the Biblical mandate for government, a position on which I largely agree. I’d be interested to hear how politically liberal Christians use Scripture to justify the expansion of the role of government.
What’s strange is that gov’t has never been limited to just keeping the peace and providing for common defense. Monarchs have almost always provided some type of assistance to the poor. Granted they never had New Deal style programs but they were hardly some type of libertarian fantasyland. Needless to say, until the Reformation Catholic Europe had gov’t that included not only enforcing some type of giving to the poor but also regulating the religious lives of everyone who lived in it. When Martin Luther started leading a breakaway from Catholic domination he hardly followed the Cato Institute’s model.
So many of you ere will not be surprised to hear my command of Scripture is not sufficient to hit you with any citations but I’ll observe if the Bible really did present a view of gov’t as limited to just law enforcement and defense it certainly took a long time for any of you to notice it.

I’ll take a stab at it.
I’ll distinguish the function of the visible church to preach the word, adminster the sacraments and pursue discipline from the work of the kingdom of God, which is what believers do in their everyday lives (you know, living lives worthy of the gospel, fully pleasing to God, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God). Every Christian is a member of this kingdom and engaged in the work of the kingdom.
With that distinction in mind, it seems clear enough to me that part of taking care of my neighbor and the poor involves decisions about how tax money is spent by the government. That’s part of the work of the kingdom, whether you’re a politician or a voter.
We’ve spent hundreds of billions on war against a nation that never attacked us. We can spend hundreds of billions to take care of the poor.
American Christians need to consider that some systemic problems require systemic solutions. Universal health care is one. Say you get sick or are injured and can’t work, you run up medical bills, then go bankrupt, lose your home, possibly your marriage and family. Local churches aren’t equipped to handle the financial hardships astronomical health care costs impose. While they can and should attempt to address those problems, government programs are run much more efficiently than private programs. Government programs aren’t the whole solution, obviously, but they can certainly be part of the solution.
Jesus calls us to take care of the poor. He illustrates this with the story of the Good Samaritan. We don’t normally run across folks who’ve been beaten and lying in a ditch on the side of the road. But read about something like that every day.
Every Christian in every age must heed the call to care for the poor. And the answer to that call depends on the circumstances in which they find themselves. We live in a country where our votes matter. We should consider how government policy can better the plight of our fellow man.
So I’d say that government can play a much larger role than conservative christians (who don’t like to part with “their” money) envision. It’s just a question of how much. It’s not an either or proposition, it’s just that Jesus has called us to care for the poor, we live in a country where we can decide that government should play a role in meeting the needs of the poor. It’s not really a question of whether the poor deserve our care. Jesus already answered that one.

Again Marcus wrote:
We can spend hundreds of billions to take care of the poor.
And again, what planet have you been living on the last 60 years?
We HAVE spent much more than hundreds of billions of dollars to take care of the poor. The case has already been made that this spending has done more harm than good.
Please don’t vote.

Well JD, if we follow your reasoning, we would drastically reduce defense spending, dismantle the military, and depend on neighborhood militia organized by local churches to defend our country…

JD,
Thanks for your seal of approval.
Perhaps we could both just skip voting on the Presidential election as we are just going to cancel each other’s votes….

smmtheory, Good Point. I’m sure someone else out there will be voting like me, so the vote won’t be cancelled out.
Maybe someone could put together a database of voting preferences, so only a few of us will have to go vote….on the other hand, that might be too complicated, so I’ll have to go out an vote…
hehehehheheh

Wow, Marcus made a perfectly plausible and well-thought-out comment, and jd responded with three posts, none of which rose above the level of “juvenile.”
The case has already been made that this spending has done more harm than good.
Which program(s) are you talking about? There’s more than one, you know.
Don’t you know that the only spending that is mentioned in the constitution is for defense?
Um…actually, there’s a bit about promoting the general welfare, which sometimes means government spending; and enforcing the Constitution and laws, which always means government spending.
And after all that senseless blithering, you’re calling JohnW “intentionally ignorant?” Perhaps you’re the one who should stay home on Election Day.

How about the fact that there is a whole class of people that has been dependent on government handouts for generations? And this culture has become virulently poor–almost evil–like no other poor culture in any other country.
This statement proves that you know absolutely nothing about poverty in “any other country,” such as Bangladesh, China, Sumatra, Darfur, Somalia, etc.
Furthermore, there are plenty of people who have made good use of government handouts to educate themselves, get opportunities, and grow up to become healthy, contented, productive, responsible, tax-paying citizens. If you weren’t such a shameless bigot, you’d see that people in general — yes, even those whose skin is darker than yours — actually WANT to be independent and lead good lives.

Raging Bee
This statement proves that you know absolutely nothing about poverty in “any other country,” such as Bangladesh, China, Sumatra, Darfur, Somalia, etc.
It doesn’t surprise me, you ignorant troll, that you don’t understand the difference between the poverty in this country and all those other horrible places you mentioned. Aside from the fact that the poor in this country are not poor compared to those in other countries, it’s the attitude of the poor in this country. It’s called entitlement mentality, meaning a complete and total lack of gratitude for everything that has been given to them by legalized stealing from those who have worked hard for it. You won’t find tenement housing absolutely destroyed and trashed in those other countries. But what I say doesn’t matter because you come in with trollish prejudices firmly entrenched. We Christians aren’t just ignorant, or stupid, or just plain wrong. No, according to you, we’re EEEVVILLL…we’re bigots. It’s the same old story with creeps like you.
Furthermore, there are plenty of people who have made good use of government handouts to educate themselves, get opportunities, and grow up to become healthy, contented, productive, responsible, tax-paying citizens.
I put the question back at you. Which ones? And see if you can come up with some that are not either GI bill related or student loans, both of which have some notion of payback involved.
If you weren’t such a shameless bigot, you’d see that people in general — yes, even those whose skin is darker than yours — actually WANT to be independent and lead good lives.
You moron. I have an adopted son. He’s Mexican. If I didn’t know better, I’d guess you feel stupid now.

Marcus
On principle, I’m against government involvement in almost everything. That’s because, contrary to your belief, government is NOT more efficient than the private sector.
I used to be a liberal. I used to believe I was compassionate, too, because I cared and I voted for others who cared. And we all showed how much we cared by voting for people who would take other people’s money and give it to those who didn’t have “enough.”
It’s a long journey from there to where I am now and I could say all kinds of things about government spending. But let’s look at this from the Christian perspective. As a deacon, one of my duties (and it’s something I take seriously) is to give money away. We collect money for many things, but the single most difficult decisions regarding money involve giving it to people who, for whatever reason, are in need. It is also the most satisfying part of being a deacon. In my experience, we almost always give money the first time someone asks. If there is an emergency, we give the money. If there is a continued true need we give the money. However, if it becomes apparent we are being used by someone who, for whatever reason, keeps making bad decisions, we will cut off the financial support and address the underlying problem. Cutting off the financial support serves to add a little incentive to make better decisions. (and yes, Raging Bee, it’s a form of torture)
Do you not see that it is wrong, unbiblical, unGodly, NOT COMPASSIONATE to keep on giving money to someone who is not taking responsibility for his actions?
That is what government does.
And government does it at the direction of people who are simply buying votes by giving taxpayer’s money away.
As to capitalists and capitalism: Do you think it’s news to us “Calvinists” that capitalists are not to be trusted? Please. What’s amazing to me is that YOU still seem to trust government, as if government workers are somehow more responsible.
There are millions of examples, but let’s just bring up one…And it’s right up your line of questioning, i.e., health care. Do you want the people who are in charge of the Veteran’s Administration running your health care? I didn’t think so. You’d probably prefer the kind of care that Congressmen have for themselves, a kind of Health Saving Account.
No, we’re way beyond hoping for the government to do the efficient or right thing, in spite of all our good intentions.
Your whole notion that Christians who oppose taxpayer funded health care are somehow not following Jesus’ example is offensive to me. You don’t know how much money I give, or how large a percentage of my income goes to help those who are in need. Christians are much more generous with their money than anyone will ever know, because we are commanded to hide from the left hand what we are giving with the right.
I’m sorry, but a government that has already spent trillions of dollars on social programs is large enough.

Something we can observe in ALL classes, not just the poor. Why are you only complaining about it when it comes from the poor?
Well, you’ve already given us the answer. It’s because I, like all Christian conservatives, am a bigot.
(Also, you show a bit of “entitlement mentality” yourself when you call taxation “legalized stealing” without regard to the benefits you get from the programs funded by tax revenue (i.e., laws, cops, roads, the military, etc.))
Tell you what. The next time I’m being mugged, I’ll just tell the officers that I really don’t feel entitled to their protection anymore and that they should just move on. I’LL TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEM MYSELF, OFFICER. I think that would entitle me to an entitlement offset credit, don’t you?

smmtheory: in all cases, the people, by lawful majority vote, decided to spend money on certain government programs and levy taxes to pay for them. The only difference is that you agree with one and not the other.

No, not the people, the representatives they elected by lawful majority vote in most cases. It’s a minor quibble, but let’s keep the proper perspective here. Still, that doesn’t alter the point that it is legalized theft. Whether legal or illegal, theft is theft. When the runner at first base advances to second base even though the batter hasn’t gotten a hit from the pitch, it’s legal, but it’s still a stolen base. The only way I would demonstrate an entitlement mentality would be if I expected paved roads, police and military protection without paying for it.

First of all, I wasn’t the one who asked you a question about the roles of government. You’re confusing me with Joe Carter or with some other commenter.
Secondly, the notion that you can even say the words, “government is more efficient than the private sector” is disturbing. That puts you in a place I do not understand.
Third, as to health care. The fact is that anyone who needs health care can get it. If you go to a med center or an emergency room, you have to get treated, by law. If there is a catastrophic problem, even moreso.
This is not to say that our system is perfect. It is screwed up big time. However, a case can be easily made that our system has gotten much more expensive and unwieldy ever since government became involved in it, back in the 60s.
Universal health care shows that we all have “good intentions” and we care. But it is not the answer, and it is certainly not even close to the best answer. Even the Europeans are starting to pull away from their systems.