Presumably, not all people on the right are religious; some may even be atheists.
On the political right, the view is that deregulation and absolute personal freedom or liberty are key. The "free" market is held as the ultimate "decider" of what should and should not be. This applies to everything: trade, the environment, the economy and the banking industry, and social issues such as poverty, housing and health care.
The thinking is that NO ONE should dictate what the citizens of a democracy can and cannot do, provided they do no direct harm to others. If harm is done, then the courts should decide the matter.
Also fundamental to the view is that what should be, in terms of the achievement of the best of all possible worlds, will ultimately result from this free exercise of human liberty.
While on the surface it would appear that such thinking aligns perfectly with far right religious views, in fact it does not.
Here I'm talking of organized, fundamentalist religions and their purveyors. According to these, the sheep need their shepherd. Without that shepherd and without the stern pulpit, the sheep will inevitably stray.
Which suggests that i) anyone not holding to a fundamentalist faith is, by definition, a sinner and therefore should not associate with the purportedly true neo-whatevers (cons, libs, or any other flavour) and ii) the sheep are, well, sheep.
Genesis 1:27 - "God created man in His own image."
From Wesley's Notes: "God's image upon man, consists, In his nature, not that of his body, for God has not a body, but that of his soul. The soul is a spirit, an intelligent, immortal spirit, an active [not passive] spirit, herein resembling God, the Father of spirits, and the soul of the world."
Sheep are amoral, of low intelligence and passive.
See where I'm going with this?
ETA. In the event that you don't...
No matter which flavour of neo-ism one looks at, top right or lower right quadrant on the political compass,
either the people are sheep and need to be controlled - hence there's a fundamental inconsistency in the neo-conservative property rights/economic view.
Or the people are totally free, both socially and economically - in which case, the inconsistency lies between the neo-liberal view espoused by the political right and their religious fundamentalist thinking.
Again, this post is only about those who hold rightist views both political and religious.
Recommend this post