Well, you didn't take that analysis where it seemed to be going. I thought you were going to say that conservatives are more religious than liberals, and thus that the former have a more pressing basis for conservation so that divinely commanded conservation is the essence of conservatism. But then you say at the end that that kind of conservation entails something about the "redistribution of resources."
Conservatives (animalists) would favour natural distributions, whereas liberals (humanists) propose schemes for artificial redistribution.
So I'm not clear on how you use religion in the political context or on how you think this escapes my analysis. I'd be inclined to show that the myths you refer to are so many obfuscations and excuses for natural injustice and monstrosity, as in the dominance hierarchies and self-destructive social inequalities entailed by "conservative thought."
As for environmentalism, that does indeed sit uneasily with humanism, since what we call technological progress and economic growth look like they're dooming us .There's no putting the genie back in the bottle, though. Ancient myths are no longer compelling reasons to conserve natural resources. We need new, humanistic ones to have a chance.
I talk about that tension more in the links below:
