One of the stranger assumptions of modern politics is that in order to be a social conservative you must be some sort of “religious nut.” It goes without saying that I am not an adherent of this school of thought.

I find it to be idiotic when politicians (such as a certain Senator from Massachusetts) make the idiot statements along the lines of, “I think that abortion is evil, but I’m not willing to do anything about it because that would be imposing my religion.” The strange implication of that statement is, of course, that any opposition to, for example, the agenda of the pro-abortion left, is rooted in religion. Even if one accepts the nonsensical view that the Constitution mandates an extreme and explicit separation between Church and State, that hardly means that there aren’t any secular reasons to be against abortion.

Now, obviously, Christian conservatives do oppose gay marriage, abortion, and so on. That’s certainly true. But do you have to be a member of the religious right to think that, for example, abortion is a bad idea?

I’m sure it’ll be a surprise to few when I describe myself as not being particularly religious. I read the Bible and I believe in God, but I don’t regularly go to Church. In a broad sense, I’d consider myself to be both a Christian and a Protestant, but that’s about as far as the thing would go. Frankly, I find myself uncomfortable in the face of what is generally thought of as “the religious right.” If you ask me about my personal relationship with Jesus Christ, I’m likely to mumble something and look away.

Yet, still, I generally adhere to a “religious right” standpoint on most social issues. I’m against abortion. I’m against gay marriage. I’m for prayer in public schools.

Think about it for a second. The “God cries when children die” argument against abortion is, in fact, the weakest argument against the practice. There is another, entirely secular, case against abortion just waiting to be made.

The most obvious is this: legal abortion, over the long term, certainly will result in a reduced level of population. Some will raise the specter of “back-alley abortions” which, certainly, would occur in a system where the practice was proscribed. However, simple common sense dictates that fewer abortions, over the long term, means more people.

Now, I’ll admit that I’m not 100% pro-life. I wouldn’t call myself pro-choice, either. But, in truth, I’m not sure if the total illegalization of abortion is the best way to go. Increasingly, I find myself in sympathy with Bill Clinton’s “safe, legal, and rare” statement. In sum, it means: legal abortion, but every possible restriction placed upon it. In addition, I’d offer incentives against abortion and in favor of adoption.

This isn’t because I’m terribly concerned with the religious aspects of abortion. It’s because I believe that, over the long term, fewer abortions means more people which, in turn, means a larger economy, more potential scientists, more potential soldiers, more potential leaders, and greater potential national power.

Yet, somehow, people believe that all anti-abortion criticism can be written off as being “religious” (since religious speech, apparently, is the political equivalent of a sandwich made by Typhoid Mary at a restaurant).

By the same token, I’m absolutely against both gay marriage and civil unions for a simple reason: I believe that allowing them will weaken the structure of traditional marriage which, in turn, I believe to be a vital institution for our society. For me, at least, it isn’t a matter of “God says it’s wrong”, it’s simply a matter of what I believe works and what I believe doesn’t.

I, for one, think that it’s moronic to believe that we can change an institution that dates back thousands of years and not expect it to have serious effects. (Now, of course, some gay advocates now apparently embrace the broken-windows theory of divorce, claiming that, since marriage is already in trouble, they can jump right on in). It’s not religious, it’s simply a conservative instinct (most change=bad) combined with a further aversion caused by the fact that most of the people attempting to shove this gay measure down the throats of the citizenry happen to be liberals and are therefore my blood-enemies.