I'm not going to say that the Reconquista didn't have a religious ideology as one of it's main drivers, but you also can't possibly frame a process that lasted 8 centuries, with multiple intricacies, as simply as that.
Though it may have not been seen that way back then, more recently it became a defining element of Spanish and Portuguese identity. Despite how christians and muslims coexisted and intertwined to serve their own interests during the period, for the former party, which you cricticize in your comment, the moors were always the foreign invasors that held their land. Granted, none of this "reconquering" happened within a period of time that you consider rightful for a state to claim what it lost, but for the christian kingdoms in the north, they were just a continuation to the visigothics that had fallen centuries back.
So you see, it wasn't only a matter of regaining "christian" land, but what is now perceived as Spanish/Portuguese land. However, considering how religion back then was also a form of nationallity, even more so than loyalty to any given state, you can't really draw the line between religious ideology, which according to today standards should not be the reason for any conflict, and national-ish ideology, which in some cases is acceptable (decolonisation).
I'm not spanish nor portuguese, but I believe you should be a bit more careful with your comments. Though you may not have meant it, to say that the reconquista (again, a very important, if not most important element of spanish/portuguese history and identity) was ideologically, in all aspects, flawed and unjust, is damn close to say that their respective nation had no right to exist.