hmmmm....I think you're being overly generous, but...
I understand your underlying point that the problem is the mixing of politics and faith. However, while I think that there will always be tension between the law and faith, I don't think there should necessarily be tension between politics and faith. And, to the extent that there is that tension between politics and faith, often it is more accurately described as a tension between partisan politics and faith.
I hate to turn this into a debate over abortion (and I hope it doesn't) but it's a good example of what I mean. (And I seem to recall that you share some of the views I am about to express--although maybe it was Sope)
If someone who believes that life begins at conception and therefore abortion should be against the law, then that person, I think, should firmly be opposed to exceptions for rape and incest (and, possibly, when the life of the mother is at serious risk). Yet, most politicians, and even people who oppose abortion based on their own faith, refuse to go that far. Why? I think mostly for political expediency--and, perhaps, because they would not be willing to look into the eyes of a rape victim and tell her that she must carry the baby to term (which, of course, means that they ARE willing to allow a woman to choose if it wasn't her fault that she's pregnant!).
On the flip side (and I admit this one is, perhaps, not nearly as valid, and some might even say a false dichotomy), if you personally believe that abortion is morally wrong yet think it's a personal choice for a pregnant woman to make, aren't you devaluing the personhood of the unborn child whom you think it would be immoral to kill? In other words, if you think abortion is morally wrong yet you still support the woman's right to choose throughout the full term of pregnancy, shouldn't the mother also be permitted to choose whether to allow her 1-week old newborn to live to 2-weeks+? If not, haven't you arbitrarily drawn a line, with absolutely no basis for that delineation apart from where that baby happens to be residing (inside vs. outside the womb)?
Of course many will argue that because of this tension on the question of abortion, and the fact that so many of our laws are, in fact, based upon moral determinations on which not everyone agrees, coupled with the political necessity to compromise, we have reached a compromise wherein abortion is permitted, under the law, up until viability (with certain exceptions, such as when the life of the mother is at stake). I get that. But it does not mean that someone who, based on their own religious beliefs and faith, is staunchly pro-life should follow Paul's counsel in Romans, Chapter 13, and declare "the law is the law, we must follow it"--never seeking to change that law.
That clearly is not what Paul meant. Yet, Van and many, many others seem to selectively interpret Paul's teachings in that manner when it suits their own partisan political views rather than taking the time to decide for themselves what they believe is right and just.
Or, in a lot fewer words, being a conservative or a Republican should never have to mean that I can't oppose the death penalty, or support immigration reform which allows some illegal immigrants to stay, or {gasp!} believe in a little more gun control. Sadly, however, too many of us have become lemmings, blindly nodding along in agreement at whatever issue others on our side of the political spectrum tells us we should believe. No, it's not politics vs. faith--it's PARTISAN politics vs. faith.
And its sad and frustrating to watch play out day after day, election after election.
