One of the more surreal moments from Tuesday's preliminary hearing in the murder case of Charlie Kirk came when defense attorney Richard Novak attempted to block prosecutors from introducing an affidavit describing Kirk's "traditional, orthodox Christian views."

The prosecution argues the document helps establish why Kirk may have been targeted.

The defense wasn't having it.

Novak's objection wasn't simply that the affidavit failed to establish Tyler Robinson's state of mind. He also suggested the court shouldn't venture into the dangerous waters of determining whether Charlie Kirk's Christian beliefs had anything to do with his political expression.

Then the judge asked what most Americans would probably consider one of the easiest, most obvious questions imaginable:

Does religion or gender intersect with political expressions?

Novak's response was a masterclass in deflection.

I think that's a great question, but probably not a question to be answered by me in this proceeding... That's actually a really, really complicated question.

Really?

Because it isn't complicated. Not even a little.

Rather than answer the judge's question, Novak essentially argued that the relationship between religion and politics is simply too difficult to untangle. But every political system rests upon moral assumptions, and every moral assumption ultimately answers religious questions.

• What is a human being?

• What gives people dignity?

• What is marriage?

• What is justice?

• What is equality?

• What is freedom?

None of those are merely political questions. They are moral questions, and moral questions inevitably become theological questions. Politics has never existed in a moral vacuum and it never will.

That is precisely why Charlie Kirk's positions on marriage, sexuality, and gender cannot be neatly divided into "religious beliefs" on Sunday morning and "political beliefs" on Monday afternoon. They are both. His politics flowed from his worldview, just as every politician's politics flow from theirs.

American history is filled with examples of religion shaping politics. The abolitionists appealed to Scripture. The Civil Rights Movement appealed to Scripture. Martin Luther King Jr. didn't stand on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial quoting polling data. He quoted the prophet Amos. The Declaration of Independence grounds human equality in our Creator, and the Constitution presupposes a people capable of moral self-government.

American politics has always been downstream from deeper convictions about God, humanity, and morality.

Which is why Novak's argument was so absurd.

He asked the court to pretend Charlie Kirk's Christian convictions somehow occupied an entirely separate compartment from his political advocacy. But Charlie Kirk never claimed that, and neither have his critics.

Many of the people who despised Charlie Kirk (including, presumably, Tyler Robinson) did so precisely because his Christian worldview informed his politics.

Perhaps the most remarkable part of Novak's argument came near the end of the exchange. He warned the court that admitting the affidavit risked turning the case into a question of whether Robinson's life was "anti-Christian."

But the prosecution isn't arguing that Robinson is on trial for rejecting Christianity. They're arguing that if someone targets one of the country's most recognizable Christian conservative activists, evidence describing what that activist actually believed may be relevant in understanding the alleged motive.

That's not exactly revolutionary.

Motive cases routinely involve ideology:

• If someone allegedly targets an environmental activist, prosecutors introduce evidence of the activist's environmental advocacy.

• If someone allegedly targets a labor organizer, prosecutors introduce evidence of the organizer's labor activism.

• If someone allegedly targets a politician, prosecutors introduce evidence of that politician's public positions.

• If someone allegedly targets a pro-life activist, no one would blink if prosecutors introduced evidence of the activist's pro-life work.

Apparently the only time that principle becomes "really, really complicated" is when the ideology happens to be Christianity.

Thankfully, the judge seemed unconvinced.

While emphasizing that the hearing was only about probable cause, he ruled the affidavit was provisionally admissible, explaining that it could become relevant as the prosecution develops evidence regarding Robinson's alleged motive.

Bingo.

Whatever ultimately happens at trial, this pre-trial hearing produced one conclusion that hardly requires expert testimony.

Charlie Kirk's Christian convictions and his political advocacy were never separate compartments of his public life. They informed one another.

Everyone knows that.

Including the man arguing otherwise.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Not the Bee or any of its affiliates.