Why do religious people get to have their cake and eat it too?

It never ceases to amaze how wonderful a tool religion is, and always has been, for politicians. One of the fundamental problems I have with organized religion is that it gives too much incentive for people to lie about their religion. For example, liberals believe that everyone has a right to choose whether to have their child or not. But we don't get to praise ourselves every time we exercise this right because it's not a religious belief. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that we don't have the right to choose whether to have a child or not, and yet, like with Sarah Palin, they get to praise themselves when they choose not to have a child. Only religion can explain such patent disparity in logic. They create restrictions on themselves which they then praise themselves for observing! "God says don't eat pork, aren't I great, I don't eat pork!" If you really believed God said to not eat pork, why should you get praise for not eating pork? Isn't that the equivalent of a law of nature? Isn't that like saying, "God created gravity, aren't I great for staying on the ground?" But gravity is a scientific and rational law, and we don't get credit for observing those. We only get credit for observing the irrational laws. "I believe this in the presence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary... aren't I great!" If abortion is really murder, why should Palin get credit for not murdering her retarded child in the womb? Now, I don't believe that is murder, but she claims to. Doesn't the fact that she wants to take credit for choosing not to abort her son show that she actually doesn't believe that it would be murder? After all, I don't praise myself for not murdering my next door neighbor, because I obviously believe that murder is wrong.

This highlights my main problem with religion, which is that it creates a culture of deception. Why claim that I believe something for logical reasons, and deny myself the opportunity to get praised when I observe my beliefs, when I can claim that I believe them for religious reasons and recieve praise when I observe them, and forgiveness when I do not? After all, no democratic politicians believe that teen pregnancy is ok, and yet if one democratic politician did have a teen who got pregnant can you imagine the shit-storm that would ensue? The religious-right would be screaming from their pew that this was a demonstration of the ungodliness and decadence of the liberal-left . Yet, when it's one of their own, the mother and child are praised and protected. Religious people are forgiven for their mistakes, non-religious people are burned at the stake for their mistakes. And people wonder why I think this a big deal. In this kind of environment it actually makes sense for non-religious people to lie and say they are religious, much like I believe McCain is lying when he says he's religious. There is no downside, other than it bothering one's conscience, and there's no way to prove you're lying. The problem is that you can't just say you're religious, you have to back that up with action. Your children must be taught that there is something called God and that he speaks to us through certain books, and you can't tell them that this is all just an act because children can't keep secrets. You certainly can't vote or campaign for a non-religious person or else your cover will be blown. But you are amply rewarded for you commitment. Just look at Palin, she gets to oppose sex ed, then garner praise for dealing with the direct consequences of her policies when her teen daughter gets pregnant! As governor, why would you spend money on sex ed and risk not getting re-elected, when you could oppose it on religious grounds "save" the taxpayer's money (while undoubtedly increasing the number of teen-pregnancies and legal or illegal abortions), and appeal to the religious base?! Oh right, one little thing called doing what's best for the people. But I hope you can see that's no longer what politics is about once religion is involved. Religion is what makes politics, politics.

Other people see these as minor issues. But I see these as the primary means by which religion maintains it's dominance over society. It subtly silences dissent, thereby avoiding violent backlash, and openly encourages compliance, either through submission or deception.