Coercion or Conversion . . . or Cluelessness?

This article (which I stumbled upon at RealClearPolitics.com) seems a clever attempt to bolster the claims of the "Religious Left" that their party (the Democrat Party) is not, despite what others (including Dem Party leaders) say, secular.

Googling the article's author provided all the context necessary for the article--actually, when the article opened by quoting Mario Cuomo on the subject of religion and public policy, I kind of had an idea where it was headed. One example which provided context: Paulson argued in a Seventh-Day Adventist journal that developing humans in the womb were no different from living things like insects in promoting "pro-choice" policy.

SO, though I think the article is poorly reasoned and grossly wrong, it was regrettably published on a reputable e-journal and I have a couple of rebuttals to his article.

First, "secularism" is more menacing (eminent?) than he is willing to admit because of its prevalence among a certain class of elitist, powerful Americans--in particular, the popular media, academia and one of the two major political parties.

Second, we Religious Conservatives want to, for example, outlaw abortion because it ends innocent human life, not simply because I am afraid that I can't convince people not to do it otherwise. Heck, EVERY law is flouted regularly--even the most universally heralded, but does that mean that we are being unspiritual or less spiritual because we don't just let the crimes continue? Given Paulson's view of life before birth, he probably just views pro-lifers as interloping busybodies. As a Christian and a citizen in a democratic republic, I believe I must promote policy that is consistent with the Golden Rule. For example, I can't blame a King or a dictator for gov't policy that seizes money from one citizen to give to another.

Lastly, he confuses grace and unaccountability when attacking the orthodox Christian principle that we are saved by grace and not by doing good things. (That's also in the Bible, Rev. Paulson). Sure, people like Bill Clinton (according to Paulson's account) may abuse the grace extended to them by God, but that doesn't mean that we are no longer "worthy" of grace (we never were) nor does it mean that there are not or should not be earthly consequences for stupid, foolish, even sinful actions we do. Only God and Bill Clinton know the true status of Bill Clinton's soul, but the fact that Clinton may claim to be a Christian and may have sinned--even repeatedly, would serve to discredit him not the doctrines of progressive sanctification or salvation by grace.

All of Paulson's fallacious logic and theological malfeasance just demonstrates that only partisan Lefties will take Paulson seriously in his critique of ostensibly "fellow" Believers.