.png)
Opinion- Religion Is the Right's Answer
Written by Misha Mehrfar
Edited by Tanner Drant and Francesca Howard
On September, 9, world-famous actress and model Sydney Sweeney appeared fully nude in a widely controversial advertisement for the sports betting company Novig. The ad drew widescale criticism from many feminists who believed it was further sexualizing female athletes and just plainly distasteful. The Right, however, celebrated the ad as some sort of triumph over “Wokeism,” given how many post-2020 advertisements featured plus-size or minority models and welcomed the return of conventionally attractive models with that “Americana” feeling. Whether the advertisement was appropriate and beneficial for female athletes is a conversation for another time. The real question is why does the Right insist on supporting such a campaign when it is so clearly misaligned with our most cherished values?
There is no universal, or even nationwide definition for the “Right,” or “conservatism.” Across different time periods, regions, and presidencies, the highly contentious words have held a wide range of meanings. The basic premise of the words, though, is a political ideology focused on conserving, or preserving, traditional forms of thinking. Among the most influential of these inherited institutions is religion. Religion is viewed as a source of morality, a check on the state power, and a social unifier. Religion largely emphasizes orthodox values—such as modesty, marriage, charity, or respect for elders—that sometimes conflict with contemporary social norms. Religion as a bedrock for society has been preached by many of the greatest conservative thinkers; Edmund Burke, the “father of conservatism,” famously remarked "religion is the basis of civil society, and the source of all good and comfort.” American-Conservative hero Ronald Reagan once said, “The truth is, politics and morality are inseparable. And—as morality's foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related.”
A problem arises when the movement breaks away from its core values to pursue political victories. Needless to say, Sydney Sweeney’s ad was extremely immodest. Show it to Burke or Reagan and I think they’d faint. The fact that it boils a woman down to her body and essentially urges the viewer to judge her based on her looks, not her character, is bad enough. But the fact that it’s also being used to promote a gambling company, something truly contributing to the downfall of young men today, is especially disturbing. 45% of men aged 18-30 reported having at least one behavior that indicates a gambling problem, for example, according to a recent Fairleigh Dickinson University poll.
Politics in recent years is akin to a team sport. Everyone is on either the Republican team or Democrat team. When one’s own side does something, no matter how they truly feel about it, they are forced to support it and defend the party’s actions. Similarly, when the opposing team does something, whether it be good or bad, it is seen as the worst policy idea imaginable. Seriously, it feels like we hear that “democracy is on the line,” or some other fearmongering tactic, every two years in this country.
What’s the point in parading around religion as this pillar of civilization when, once a cultural problem arises that cuts to the very core of the issue, you jump ship? Why defend modesty in name but not in practice? The point of having principles is that they bind you right when breaking them would be convenient. A conservatism that defines itself primarily by opposition to progressivism eventually loses the traditions it claims to conserve. Religion offers an external moral standard that can keep political tribalism from becoming the movement’s only principle. A movement can end up defending pornography, gambling, vulgarity, or celebrity worship simply because progressives object to something adjacent to it.
Politics alone cannot provide a moral standard. Politics attracts money, voters, attention, engagement, and cultural victories. Politics fails to answer questions such as “what is good?” or “what obligations do we have toward other people?” If the Left moves, and the Right automatically moves in the opposite direction, then the Left is still setting the Right’s moral agenda. Now, a libertarian who has never claimed that immodesty, gambling, or pornography are immoral may be entirely consistent in defending the ad. The contradiction lies with a political movement that frequently invokes family, religion, restraint, and traditional morality as civilizational necessities, yet treats them as negotiable whenever violating them becomes politically useful. Does a movement have any standards that bind it when those standards are inconvenient? If not, it isn’t a movement of principles, but of reaction.
Religion provides a moral framework that stands outside immediate personal incentives. Elections reward popularity. Political parties reward conformity. Social media rewards outrage. Religion tells the believer that some things remain wrong even when they are popular, profitable, or politically advantageous. Freedom by itself answers “what may I do?” Religion answers “what should I do?” A civilization cannot survive indefinitely on permission alone. It also needs an account of duty, restraint, dignity, and purpose. That is the role religion has historically claimed to play. If conservatism wants to conserve anything deeper than tax rates and party loyalty, it needs a moral vocabulary that exists outside politics. Religion is not the Right’s answer because it guarantees political victory. In fact, in many cases it might as well guarantee political failure. Religion is our answer because it demands that our movement stands above selfishness and appeals to a greater being. A movement that believes nothing stands above politics will eventually sacrifice everything to politics.
Sources:
