Spectrum

So, currently our economy is organized according to economic laws/understanding. And we already do a bad enough job of that, which is understandable, being as that no human (or group of humans) is clairvoyant, and economic decisions at the macro level are highly complex. But given the state of our economy compared to the rest of the world, I'd say we do a pretty good job, some might even argue, the best job of managing our economy from a capitalistic point of view.
The topics you bring up here, and the topics that other commentors bring up as well, may have solid biblical substance. But from a purely economical point of view, many of these views hold less substantial ground. The economical purist would say that there shouldn't even be usury laws at all (it sounds pretty libertarian as well). If I can loan someone money at 100% interest and they can still make a profit off of it, then it benefits us both, grows our economy, and the government shouldn't interfere.
The more "social" economist would argue that the government has to step in at the point where usury becomes detrimental to society. That's a pretty vague point to pin on a map. In basic economic terms, it would be the point where the likelihood of a loan at X% causing detriment to the economy is greater than the likelihood of the same loan being economically beneficial. For all their flaws, usury laws supposedly do this with consumer debt, and accredited investor laws essentially handle the same function in the investing world. There's also a fair case to be made that eliminating these laws, and promoting a more free, laissez-fair economic would go a long way in getting the average american consumer motivated to be more financially literate.
I personally agree that charging high interest rates should be illegal. Of course the definition of "high" is amgbiguous and by the nature of all economies "high" will always be a moving target. However, I'm curious as to specifically which interest loans you're referring to that are "high" and that we need to eliminate.
I find student loans as annoying as the next person, but I would not classify them as "high" interest. Particularly given the many recourses one has with student loans that aren't available with other forms of loans. I've been out of my MBA program for nearly a year now and I have yet to pay any money on my loans for various deferrment reasons, and that's proven very beneficial for me. My economics prof at Andrews consolidated his student loans at about 2% interest, which isn't even enough to compensate for inflation.
Payday loan rates are outrageously high, but the loans themselves are typically only for smaller amounts and supposedly only outstanding for a short amount of time. Restricting payday loan businesses to significantly lower interest rate is essentially saying you want to illegalize payday loan businesses, since they won't make enough to clear their overhead.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been around for decades, and have given thousands of mortgages to thousands of people, and made their shareholders a lot of money. A few years ago they happened to have some poor decision makers at their helm. No one complains about this until the economy/real estate markets cycle downward and suddenly financial institutions start writing down their assets. So who's to say that the bank is more liable for writing a subprime mortgage than the consumer who knowingly accepts it, and then later does not pay? What about other unrelated entities in the macro-environment that contributed to the economic downturn in the first place? To be blunt, this isn't the first time mortgage lenders have been scrutinized, nor will it be the last, nor is this the first industry that the government has bailed out, nor will it be the last. In fact, you could turn around and say that bailing out these financial institutions, who play a significant role in an sector of our economy, is a form of government-organized "helping our neighbors".
When used by financially savvy individuals and institutions, interest rates are a representation of the risk perceived by the lender measured against the reward the lender intends to receive. The minute you start legislating interest rates you start clouding the risk/reward relationship. The more types of loans you start regulating, the greater the economic impact will be.
I guess ultimately the question becomes a seperation of church/state issue. Obviously you as an individual can forgive your debtors whenever you wish, there's no law saying you can't decide to forgive someones debt to you, and I'm sure God appreciates it as well. If your research and beliefs indicate that the state should adopt usury laws reflective of laws in the Bible, then by all means you should vote accordingly. I personally am at a financial position where I have no interest in "high" interest rate debt, and I would likely vote to limit or eliminate institutions that issue these debts. But personally I'm very afraid of the government dictating interest rates to businesses, because I happen to believe that the government tends to be a very poor business decision maker. I'm not saying that religious beliefs should not play a role in how we make our decisions, but I'm personally very wary about the religious understanding of other individuals taking more presidence than economic understanding in issues of economics in public legislation.

Matt