Word count 1,900
Is the mobilisation against sexual and reproductive rights primarily a religious project, or is
religion being instrumentalised by a larger political project?
Aspects of right-wing political thought and activism have long been dominated by opposition
to women's equality, LGBT+ rights, abortion, and what is believed to be a larger 'gender
ideology.' It concentrates primarily on preventing these groups from mobilising through
legislation and social acceptance. The extent to which religious lexicon and rationalisation as
well as funding, birth and monopolise these initiatives more so than the initial political
ideologies themselves gives voice to larger complex and nuanced debates.David Paternotte &
Roman Kuhar state in their essay (2018) “While recognizing the importance of these
crossovers, we contend the interpretation that mobilizations against “gender ideology” and
right-wing populism are the two faces of the same coin”. This essay will examine firstly, if
the influence of religion is quantifiable on these projects and if not if these two competing
pillars that hold up these projects can truly be separated. Finally, we should recognise that
these arguments and the political players that represent them are not monolithic and that the
influence of religion on people's ideas varies depending on where they live.
These projects, especially in their mobilisation can be seen as a modern phenom and a
response to social and political change in contemporary Europe. Many political critics of
these freedoms argue that they appear totalitarian in their approach (Kuby, 2016)An early
example of these projects is the Catholic Church, conservative organisations, and political
parties in Spain that opposed the 2004 same-sex marriage proposal (Aguilar Fernández, 2010,
2013), however, most anti-gender campaigns gained notoriety and attention in the mid-2010
and were catalysed by similar movements or political bills, much like "Manif pour Tous"
rallied in France in response to François Hollande's promise to legalise homosexual marriage.
The real threat they believe is gender ideology which David Paternotte & Roman Kuhar state
in their essay (2018) present as not only an “an anthropological and epistemological threat
but also as a covert political strategy, a sort of conspiracy aimed at seizing power and
imposing deviant and minority values on average people”. Here we see, that criticisms of
gender equality and abortion activist mostly centre around political arguments and language,
there is an idea put forward of liberalism as almost an enforced ‘counter-religion’ in many
European countries, where governments encourage these ideas in exchange for support from
, international nations. Pope Francis, a key Catholic figure, referred to this process of gender
ideology as “ideological colonisation”. This was about the liberal definition of language used
and the concepts themselves. Here we see a clash of both religion and political thought.
The election of Donald J. Trump in 2016 sparked a lot of abortion discussions, especially
among religious groups. Amy Coney Barret, a pro-life activist who was appointed to the
Supreme Court by Trump, received training from the Alliance Defending Freedom. This is a
Christian legal advocacy group based in the United States that sponsors legal challenges and
cases that they hope would result in legislative change. America is an example of a country
where religion and politics, though not constitutionally linked, coexist in political discourse.
The Alliance Defending Freedom is an example of bigger international networks that use
lobbying strategies behind the scenes such as petitions, referendum campaigns, and party
politics to connect these relationships even further. Politics and legislation serve as means to
a goal, whereas religion serves as a means to an end. Therefore the impact of religion on
these projects is also immeasurable because many times both political and religious goals are
intertwined.
It is important to note that political actors advocating for these issues do not exclusively rely
on religion to prove their point. Often there is an effort to show citizens that at its core
abortion law, sex education and same-sex marriage go against not only in their view the laws
of nature but the values of the family a key pillar in maintaining the function of society, this
often comes with moral-panic of anomie. This allows these movements to extend beyond
religion and its many sects and appeal to a more secular Europe as seen in the previously
mentioned “Manif pour Tous” which uses arguments of sex trafficking and Frances
‘familyphobia’ as a response to oppose surrogacy, and gay marriage. These groups' impact on
France, whilst not huge, was ultimately successful in garnering some support showing how
instrumental political agendas can be in convening the masses. Ultimately even in religious
groups, there are very few of these organisations that don't also use social or economic
justification for their beliefs to appear modern and morally driven. Other secular countries,
such as China, which has been criticised for its 'one-child policy,' and accused of restricting
women's reproductive rights, have recently stated that they will aim to prohibit abortions for
'non-medical reasons,' in a similar march for family values. What these countries show is that
Is the mobilisation against sexual and reproductive rights primarily a religious project, or is
religion being instrumentalised by a larger political project?
Aspects of right-wing political thought and activism have long been dominated by opposition
to women's equality, LGBT+ rights, abortion, and what is believed to be a larger 'gender
ideology.' It concentrates primarily on preventing these groups from mobilising through
legislation and social acceptance. The extent to which religious lexicon and rationalisation as
well as funding, birth and monopolise these initiatives more so than the initial political
ideologies themselves gives voice to larger complex and nuanced debates.David Paternotte &
Roman Kuhar state in their essay (2018) “While recognizing the importance of these
crossovers, we contend the interpretation that mobilizations against “gender ideology” and
right-wing populism are the two faces of the same coin”. This essay will examine firstly, if
the influence of religion is quantifiable on these projects and if not if these two competing
pillars that hold up these projects can truly be separated. Finally, we should recognise that
these arguments and the political players that represent them are not monolithic and that the
influence of religion on people's ideas varies depending on where they live.
These projects, especially in their mobilisation can be seen as a modern phenom and a
response to social and political change in contemporary Europe. Many political critics of
these freedoms argue that they appear totalitarian in their approach (Kuby, 2016)An early
example of these projects is the Catholic Church, conservative organisations, and political
parties in Spain that opposed the 2004 same-sex marriage proposal (Aguilar Fernández, 2010,
2013), however, most anti-gender campaigns gained notoriety and attention in the mid-2010
and were catalysed by similar movements or political bills, much like "Manif pour Tous"
rallied in France in response to François Hollande's promise to legalise homosexual marriage.
The real threat they believe is gender ideology which David Paternotte & Roman Kuhar state
in their essay (2018) present as not only an “an anthropological and epistemological threat
but also as a covert political strategy, a sort of conspiracy aimed at seizing power and
imposing deviant and minority values on average people”. Here we see, that criticisms of
gender equality and abortion activist mostly centre around political arguments and language,
there is an idea put forward of liberalism as almost an enforced ‘counter-religion’ in many
European countries, where governments encourage these ideas in exchange for support from
, international nations. Pope Francis, a key Catholic figure, referred to this process of gender
ideology as “ideological colonisation”. This was about the liberal definition of language used
and the concepts themselves. Here we see a clash of both religion and political thought.
The election of Donald J. Trump in 2016 sparked a lot of abortion discussions, especially
among religious groups. Amy Coney Barret, a pro-life activist who was appointed to the
Supreme Court by Trump, received training from the Alliance Defending Freedom. This is a
Christian legal advocacy group based in the United States that sponsors legal challenges and
cases that they hope would result in legislative change. America is an example of a country
where religion and politics, though not constitutionally linked, coexist in political discourse.
The Alliance Defending Freedom is an example of bigger international networks that use
lobbying strategies behind the scenes such as petitions, referendum campaigns, and party
politics to connect these relationships even further. Politics and legislation serve as means to
a goal, whereas religion serves as a means to an end. Therefore the impact of religion on
these projects is also immeasurable because many times both political and religious goals are
intertwined.
It is important to note that political actors advocating for these issues do not exclusively rely
on religion to prove their point. Often there is an effort to show citizens that at its core
abortion law, sex education and same-sex marriage go against not only in their view the laws
of nature but the values of the family a key pillar in maintaining the function of society, this
often comes with moral-panic of anomie. This allows these movements to extend beyond
religion and its many sects and appeal to a more secular Europe as seen in the previously
mentioned “Manif pour Tous” which uses arguments of sex trafficking and Frances
‘familyphobia’ as a response to oppose surrogacy, and gay marriage. These groups' impact on
France, whilst not huge, was ultimately successful in garnering some support showing how
instrumental political agendas can be in convening the masses. Ultimately even in religious
groups, there are very few of these organisations that don't also use social or economic
justification for their beliefs to appear modern and morally driven. Other secular countries,
such as China, which has been criticised for its 'one-child policy,' and accused of restricting
women's reproductive rights, have recently stated that they will aim to prohibit abortions for
'non-medical reasons,' in a similar march for family values. What these countries show is that
