Does that mean you agree with the governor of Alabama who says Christians need to support high taxes to be true to their faith? That sounds like liberation theology i.e. Marxism.
One should recognize the difference between Christian prescription for living and governing the body of believers (the church) and civil society at large. Look first at the differences in the church itself. We could start with Paul's addressing the eating of discount meat once offered to pagan idols - strong dispute there - his solution - leave it to your own conscience. Today some believe drinking alcohol is a sin. Others do not. Some believe movies and TV are sinful. Others do not. Some think it is not right to eat in restaurants on Sundays because that requires others to violate the no work clause of the Sabbath. Others feel it is OK. No need to go further to make the point - it is quite clear that Christians would not like to have their lives dictated to by other Christians. How do you suppose non believers react?
Believers and non believers alike can agree that there should be laws against theft, fraud, assault and murder. What conservatives and liberals wish is that government should enforce their values on society through the central government. Under a system of localized government people could sort matters out for themselves. Conservatives do not like New York/Hollywood values jammed down their throat. It is central government that makes that possible. Government forces individuals into groups then pits groups against each other. Jefferson said forcing a man to subsidize something he does not believe in is tyranny. Take for example a senior community center for gays in Florida funded by tax dollars. Christians are up in arms about it. Now the community is divided. If left to the free market a business would flourish or fail according to popular demand and quality of service. There would not be a hot issue dividing the community without government action.
Since you bring up drugs I can only ask why people can learn nothing from history - alcohol prohibition was a failure. Alcohol was widely available during prohibition. Organized crime came into existence because of it and is with us to this day. Politicians, judges, police officials all were corrupted by the criminal activity. Gang warfare erupted, innocent civilians were caught in the crossfire. Then gun control laws came into existence which effected the law abiding but not the criminals one bit. In the end prohibition was deemed a failure and repealed.
As for the WOD it to is also a total failure. The cons far outweigh the pros. The cure does more harm than the ill. Drugs could not be more prevalent than they are now, including in the prisons. Organized crime grows. Gang warfare plagues the cities. Politicians, judges and police are corrupted. 3rd world countries are destabilized. We meddle in 3rd world countries where we'd otherwise have no business. The constitution is trampled. Police powers expanded. New police units and bureaucracies spring up constantly, all meaning higher taxes and more pigs feeding off the government tit. Prisons populations swell with drug dealers and users while violent criminals are freed to make room for them. All this and yet faced with failure in the present and the past drug warriors refuse to face reality cause some people would do things they disapprove of. That's a short list of the cons.
The government that governs least governs best. Nothing atheistic about that. Looks more like common sense derived from the school of hard knocks.
Nope.
There is a BIG difference between the personally-directed mandate of charity prescribed by Christ and some humungous Gummint program.
We happen to agree on almost all the practical matters at hand. I think Big Gummint is a failure in many (but not all) regards.
To a great extent, BTW, Big Gummint has damn near precluded individuals from exercising personal charity--the tax and regs burden has eaten most discretionary dollars.
Of course, one could live (and I include myself here) with less possessions. It's an option which I (and a lot of others) should consider.