There seem to be a lot of you who are looking for a reasoning for this claim. Many of you are looking for Biblical evidence or what Jesus would want a government to do, but I don’t think you’re going to find Biblical answers for the purpose of the government. The purpose of the United States government is not determined by the Bible, nor should it be. It’s clear that the purpose of our government it determined by us, the people. I argue the purpose of the government should be searched for in the Constitution, not the Bible. If our government gained it’s authority and power from the Bible, than it would be a proper place to look. I would look to the preamble, which states the source of the authority of the government, and the purpose.

Both the protection of the citizens, and the pursuance of justice are both mentioned. So although the purpose of the government is to protect the people, I think that there should be a balance between it’s duties. I’ve had no indications, nor have I found any evidence that state that there is an imperative need for an increase in military spending.

On to the question about taxation, I really don’t find much justification for such a heavy taxation on the rich. I think that each citizen has a proportional duty of citizenship.This DOESN’T mean that taxation should “hurt” each person just as much as the next. Although I think that the rich should donate more to the poor of possible, I don’t think that it is the place of the government to make that decision for them.

“Still another problem with this redistributionist attitude about taxes and spending is that it assumes a zero sum state of affairs.”

That’s a broad claim. Why assume that “this redistributionist attitude” assumes this? (Mr. Baker’s strawman strategy seems to have popped up again.)

“The first question I have is how does Jim Wallis know that the level of taxation was just to begin with?”

It would be interesting to Mr. Baker’s theory on how to determine just levels of taxation.

I know, I know, this is infantile nonsense, but it works for Jim (What-would-Jesus-Cut?) Wallis and Tony Campolo on the subject of you-know-what.

I’m not sure where I stand on the progressive tax/flat tax debate, but I’m more inclined towards the latter (although not greatly). My point was more that the justification for the Bush tax cuts was largely tied to Reaganomics and the principle of “trickle down” wealth. But, unfortunately, it’s quite clear that Reaganomics doesn’t work. If it did, we wouldn’t be as in the rough as we are now. It’s not as if the rich are entitled to those tax cuts or that they’re even necessary.

Now, I am against “the war on prosperity.” I am against the government demonzing the rich. However, to me it’s not clear what a “fair” tax rate is; given the implication that comes from lowering the tax rates on the rich, however, it’s not quite clear to me that perhaps that isn’t the best option. I do think ultimately though, in the time of crisis, the middle class should be contributing too if the rich are going to be contributing.

“It’s funny that liberals complained a lot during the Bush years that Bush kept imposing his Christian beliefs (including things such as cutting off abortion funding both at home and abroad), yet under Obama liberals suddenly have a “Christian imperative”, one that has to do with money and not abortion, marriage, and euthanasia. Funny how that works.”

Orthodoxdj, I wholeheartedly agree and I’ve actually written about this contradiction before. Conservative media does contradict itself quite a bit, but the liberals aren’t immune to it either. Bush was a massive violator of church and state, but we have a Christian imperative to give to the poor? Stay on one side of the argument, please. I usually don’t align with Sojourners and Wallis on many things; I wrote a pretty long defense of Christian libertarianism in response to an article by Wallis (which ultimately tried to equivocate the Tea Party with all libertarian philosophy, which is bad).

As for what we should be taxing people, I’m not sure. I’m new to the whole tax game myself, and I’m not quite clear on what is concerned what a “fair” tax is. I wish my taxes wouldn’t go to fund unnecessary wars, the taking of innocent, unborn life, and congressional vacations, but if everyone got to pick and choose taxes, we’d all be screwed. Moreover, in a time of crisis, as much as I hate government intervention, I see a necessity for us to contribute more than we ordinarily would, even if only for awhile.

I read this article from The Atlantic recently, and I think it demonstrates a glaring problem with the rich/poor dichotomy in society:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-rise-of-the-new-global-elite/8343/1/

Now, I don’t think the solution is running into gated communities with grenades shouting “WILD CARD!!!,” but something does need to be done.

That is the point.

And to the original poster: You stated:

Probably the most essential purpose of government is to protect the life and freedom of citizens.

Is there any biblical evidence that authors believed that was the foundational reason for government? Romans 13:1-7 seems to imply that order/justice, not freedom and certainly not protection of life, is the point of the governing powers.

Of course, if Romans 13:1-7 is to be taken seriously, we can’t take up arms against a government, since God put the governments in place. But what if one government (ours, for instance) drafts us to go to to war against another government, given that attacking/rebelling against either government is tantamount to resisting God, per Romans 13? It looks like a no-win situation. We have to admit that, at some points, at least one government is acting ungodly. Could it be that both are? And if so, how do we respond to this without resisting God’s appointment of the governments?

Should we just take Gamaliel’s advice (Acts 5:38-39?