It is generally safe to keep close to the text of scripture. The more one speculates, one “speaks into silence”, the greater the chance of error.

Here Jesus tells the oppressed people of Judea that they must pay their taxes to their Roman overlords.

Mark 12:13-17

13Then they sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to trap him in what he said. 14And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not? 15Should we pay them, or should we not?” But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me see it.” 16And they brought one. Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” They answered, “The emperor’s.” 17Jesus said to them, “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were utterly amazed at him.

via Daily Lectionary Readings — Devotions and Readings — Mission and Ministry — GAMC.

Jesus did not say that we were to render to our country loyalty. In fact, this contradicts this, because the Judean zealots were not only avoiding taxes, they were running a low level, asymmetric war against the Romans. The state may claim our prime loyalty, but that is hubris on the part of politicians.

Our primary loyalties are to God, then our family and neighbours. Not the state. We can render money and material things. Not our soul. For this government, like all governments in the world throughout history, is but for a season. It will end.

UPDATE.

Madeline Flannigan, a kiwi lawyer, suggests that the current valuation of separation is an example of state over reach:

I will argue that the requirement of public conformity to secular perspectives exceeds the traditional understanding of separation of church and state by privileging secular perspectives over religious ones. A clear asymmetry in the way religious beliefs are treated by the State is visible in the requirement that religious believers bracket beliefs they hold as true, important and relevant when they participate in public life while secular citizens are free to utilize the beliefs central to their perspective.

It would be interesting to see that tested in court!