Would you have found Jesus Christ to be hysterical, overreaching, and misrepresenting Scripture when He cleared the moneychangers from the Temple grounds twice during His earthly ministry? No doubt his actions were in defiance of the civil statutes of His day. Did the apostles Peter and John overstep the bounds of propriety when they told the authorities in Jerusalem: "But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:19-20) In Acts 16, the apostle Paul called upon his jailers, who beat and imprisoned him, to obey the laws relative to the treatment of Roman citizens, which he was. Psalms 2:10-12 emphasize the command to civil rulers to serve and fear God. "Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."
Jesus and the Apostles taught us to honor, obey, and respect those in authority over us. However, they also recognized that said authority is limited. "And He (Jesus) said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." (Luke 20:25) Look at the laws of the commonwealth of Israel, as outlined in Deuteronomy and elsewhere in the Pentateuch. The role of the civil magistrate was highly restricted to the preservation of civil order, the fairness of weights and measures, and defense of the nation from foreign invasion. Acts of charity were to be handled by the priests, the Jewish "church." Trade, farming, the crafts, etc. were only regulated to ensure honest weights and measures. In the areas of charity and economics, the civil government did not intervene. Of course, these were laws for the commonwealth of Israel, which ended with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. However, the principles of civil governance found in the Bible should serve as a role model for our times, adapted for the different functions of ancient Israel and the modern Christian church.
Our own American history provides precedent to establish the fact that many Christians recognized that magistrates are subject to moral law. Furthermore, resistance, even to the point of revolution, is justified when governments defy that law. There is an underlying principle in English common law and history, dating to the rebellion of the noblemen against King John, which led to the Magna Carta, that supports this position. Several clergymen, such as John Witherspoon, were among the leaders of the War for Independence.
Your analogy of government run entities, such as roads and elections, with privately run entities, such as banks, is a false one. The government owns the roads and the voting booths and thus may set standards for those items it owns. Banks and credit unions are private enterprises that are not owned by government. It is beyond the proper jurisdiction of government to force bankers to demand identification from customers before they can do business with said bank. The same could be said for other laws that interfere with the use and enjoyment of private property where such use and employment. Such laws are contrary to the teaching of Scripture in these matters.
"Your analogy of government run entities, such as roads and elections, with privately run entities, such as banks, is a false one. The government owns the roads and the voting booths and thus may set standards for those items it owns. Banks and credit unions are private enterprises that are not owned by government. It is beyond the proper jurisdiction of government to force bankers to demand identification from customers before they can do business with said bank. The same could be said for other laws that interfere with the use and enjoyment of private property where such use and employment. Such laws are contrary to the teaching of Scripture in these matters."
You missed the point. Sure banks can decide whether to require ID. Why do they? Because they need to be sure you are who you say you are. Similarly, the police need to be sure who someone is when they are pulled over for a traffic violation.
If it is the job of government to punish theft, then that gives them the responsibility to protect property. Our nation is wealthy, in part, because of the respect for property ownership that is encoded into our laws (even if there has been an erosion). It is necessary in determining proper title to a property to have some way to ascertain the claimant is who they claim to be. This is what ID is.
Like I said, you missed the point. You stated that government owns voting booths and can regulate those. Yet you argue that a national ID violates the teachings of the Bible (if I understand what you are saying).
In answer to your question, no I do not consider anything Christ did "hysterical, overreaching, and misrepresenting Scripture". You said "No doubt his actions were in defiance of the civil statutes of His day." Actually, He cast out the money changers for fraudulently charging to exchange Roman money for Jewish currency at a profit AND setting up shop in the courtyard of the temple.
This area of the temple was the only place available for gentiles to worship and pray, as they were not allowed beyond it. So Gentiles who were seeking God would come to the courtyard of the temple to pray. The moneychangers had literally turned this area into a stinking zoo. What Christ did was to defend the honor of the temple and God's reputation - He is the God of all people. And so it says, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all people, but you have made it a den of thieves."
To extrapolate this and other scriptures as a command not to have a national ID system, is to twist scripture to your own preferences.
Perhaps you are concerned that an ID will become required to buy and sell (like the mark of the beast). That is a reasonable concern for Christians and non-Christians alike. I would agree that this would be dangerous.
But I support standardizing state ID and drivers' licenses, and requiring positive identification when voting. I think having and presenting ID should be optional. For those who do not want an ID, or have lost their ID, on the spot fingerprinting could be used as positive identification without disenfranchising anyone. This would help stop voter fraud without encroaching on our liberties.