To describe the right as religious is almost redundant in America. Right-wing conservative politics are colored by religion. Of particular interest to these folks, is the so-called degradation of this country, which seems to center around the rights of women and homosexuals. Regarding the former, the ability to determine whether or not you’re going to be a fucking mother, even in instances of rape, is not yours. For the latter, marriage equality is sin, or whatever. The arguments usually start from a religious framework, but they’re both politicized in the exact opposite way.
The right to abortion and birth control is contested by the religious right in terms of “decency” and “legalized murder” and similar talking points. So, certain state legislatures create these laws making the abortion process humiliating, bureaucratic, and all-around super difficult. These laws are applauded for protecting Christian values and the sanctity of human life.
The subject of marriage equality is, again, contested by the religious right in terms of “decency” and the “natural” order of things, et al. Again, they create laws, or clarify old ones (“between a man and a woman”) and these laws are applauded for protecting Christian values and the sanctity of marriage. (Never mind the fact that there isn’t the same fervor over 24-hour wedding chapels in Las Vegas. Honestly, if anything disrespects marriage it’s two drunken mother-fuckers stumbling into god’s house with their hands on each other’s genitals while slurring their vows. But I digress.)
Interestingly, whenever policy has been pro gay marriage (for example when states have narrowly legalized it in the past, and, most recently, with the SCOTUS decision) the religious right employs the exact opposite tactic that they use to illegalize abortion: they cry about government imposition into private affairs.
This morning I read an op-ed by presidential hopeful Rand Paul in TIME, where he echoed many others in saying that marriage was a “private” matter that shouldn’t be decided by the government. Other than the article contradicting itself — complaining about too much government in religion and then advocating for more religion in government — it highlights a telling hypocrisy, where it’s okay for the government to step into the private lives of women, but it’s not okay for the government to step into the private lives of homosexuals and allow them marriage. It’s also worth noting that ALLOWING homosexuals to marry — not mandating — is considered a government intrusion, but creating laws specifically NOT allowing women to have legal and safe abortions is not government intrusion.
With these easy examples, it’s clear that the religious right will use whatever excuse is politically convenient to forward their barbarous agenda, with no regard to anything like consistency or actual reason. If they actually believed in limiting government involvement in the private lives of citizens, they would disagree with abortion on a religious basis but allow it anyway. If they actually want to create legislation making abortions illegal, they should succumb to the SCOTUS ruling.
It’s safe to say that, “It’s not that I’m religious, but..” is now on par with the bullshit that is, “I’m not racist, but..”