In the early days of the Moral Monday movement, a good friend of mine expressed both confusion and concern about the religious overtones present. She (my friend, an avowed Atheist) found this approach disconcerting, because she had witnessed countless instances where religious intervention in affairs of the state had negative implications for one group or another. I tried to explain to her that many had misinterpreted the Bible, very often to back up their own misguided prejudices, and a religious "counterpoint" may be the only way to combat that effect. And also, Conservatives had for years dominated the religious conversation, and had successfully captured the votes of many religious folks who might have made other choices in the absence of such domination. In retrospect, I don't have as much confidence in my argument as I once did. Keeping religion out of the debate may be more important than winning it. In order to make my point, I'm going to criticize an ally in the fight against HB2, something I would normally prefer not to do:
I’ll admit that Jesus was notoriously disinterested in sexuality, though he was tough on heterosexual adultery. Jesus was adamant that his followers take responsibility for those who were vulnerable. Jesus commanded us to love others, welcome strangers, forgive enemies and pray for those who persecute us. I feel certain that Jesus would not have approved of vilifying someone for misusing a restroom.
I’ll also admit that Jesus took little notice of politics. Judea was occupied by the largest army in the Near East, at least before our occupation of Iraq. But it didn’t take politicians long to recognize Jesus as a threat. In a vain attempt to shut Jesus up, it was a politician who ordered that he be tortured to death.
Pilate was no angel by any stretch of the imagination, but he also wasn't the demon behind the crucifixion of Christ. That responsibility lies (almost) solely on the backs of Herod Antipas and the elders of the orthodoxy. Who used their influence to sway a government official into doing their bidding. Quite possibly the best (worst) example of the need to separate church and state.
In one sense, you have a valid objection that I, as a clergyperson, have “gotten political” in my criticism of our state’s politicians. Christians are “political” in that beliefs, including religious beliefs, have political consequences. We believe that Jesus Christ reigns, not Caesar; that God, not nations, rules the world. God’s peculiar answer to what’s wrong with the world, God’s showcase for creative social alternatives, is the church.
Aside from the fact that Jesus himself did not believe much of that, as evidenced by his "Render unto Caesar..." commentary on taxation, this approach opens up myriad interpretations of how to solve the world's problems. Even what is a problem and what is not, which we see all too clearly with the creation of HB2. While this particular clergyman in this particular church may have landed on what many of us would describe as the "good" side of this religious debate, we're still working from the faulty assumption that religion is an acceptable gauge to decide civil/human rights in the secular sphere.
It isn't, and it should never be.