The Limits of Religious Belief

Have evangelicals overstepped their bounds on abortion by claiming that their definition of when life begins should hold for everyone? While contemplating whether this is presumptive, consider this even bolder claim: the Navajo Nation claims that for them the moon is a sacred place and that interring human remains there would desecrate it:

Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren:

---

The moon holds a sacred place in Navajo cosmology. The suggestion of transforming it into a resting place for human remains is deeply disturbing and unacceptable to our people and many other tribal nations.

---

Two private companies are providing lunar burial services for cremated remains, and the Navajos object. As strongly supportive as I am of respecting the beliefs of native Americans, I can't believe they have the temerity, the audacity, the sheer chutzpah, to in effect lay claim to the moon and tell others what they can and can't do with it.Granted their request is a small one with no practical impact, but were it in any way respected or, even worse granted, it would set a remarkably poor precedent by opening the door to arbitrary requests regarding the moon by any and all religious groups. And how would conflicting religious beliefs be resolved? How will the sacredness of the moon for Navajos be reconciled with "The Church of Bury Me On The Moon When It Becomes Technically Feasible"?In my opinion, this comment from Astrobotic Technology CEO John Thornton was inappropriately respectful:

Astrobotic Technology CEO John Thornton:

---

I’ve been disappointed that this conversation came up so late in the game. I would have liked to have had this conversation a long time ago. We announced the first payload manifest of this nature to our mission back in 2015. A second in 2020. We really are trying to do the right thing and I hope we can find a good path forward with Navajo Nation.

---

I understand Mr. Thornton's desire to make respectful comments in public, but I wish he had gone a different route by expressing respect for Navajo beliefs while noting the wide range of religious beliefs across the planet.I liked much better the comments of Celestis CEO Charles Chafer:

Celestis CEO Charles Chafer:

---

We reject the assertion that our memorial spaceflight mission desecrates the moon. Just as permanent memorials for deceased are present all over planet Earth and not considered desecration, our memorial on the moon is handled with care and reverence, is a permanent monument that does not intentionally eject flight capsules on the moon. It is a touching and fitting celebration for our participants — the exact opposite of desecration, it is a celebration.

---

Returning to what I said at the opening, isn't granting the requests of evangelicals about abortion, something that's already been done in many states, the same as granting the absurd Navajo request about the moon? Aren't state laws about abortion just elected officials improperly mixing church and state at the behest of their evangelical constituencies? Faith and Belief?--Percy

Thread copied here from the The Limits of Religious Belief thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

The Navajo objection is not stopping anything Ars TechnicaAs I understand US law, it is expected that reasonable accommodations to religious beliefs will be made. In general employers cannot expect Jews to work on Saturday, and should allow Muslims time for prayer - and so on. Even then, there are exceptions.But this is not yet a legal matter. It’s simply a question of social pressure (and to be honest, there isn’t a pressing reason to send human ashes to the moon, and if it were done at scale it would be a waste of resources).Abortion laws are a bit of a different matter. It’s very hard to prove that the motivation is religious rather than secular (even if it often is). We can only hope that the increasing harshness and cruelty of the anti-abortion movement inspires a political backlash which will sweep the responsible legislators from office.

It took me a while to decide how to answer. I guess I believe the two situations have a significant common element: injection of religious beliefs into the public sphere.--Percy

Hi Percy, Since 75% of the population in America claim to be religious why shouldn't their views count? Do you think that 25 % of the population should control our thoughts?
​
To me abortion is not a religious issue but rather a moral issue.To abort unborn unwanted children to me is no worse than
aborting an unruly child or a deformed child at 6 years old. Or to decide that when a person is not able to support the government and become a drag on society they should be exterminated as well.We have people that would like to have children but cannot. We have hospitals to help the deformed, we have nursing homes and assisted living places for people to live.I don't think you would be in favor of exterminating unruly children, deformed children nor old folks.You pitch a fit when there is a mass shooting in a school and other places.But wouldn't that just be the survival of the fittest?Those things will happen in the future.The abortion issue could be solved if people who don't want to have children would abstain from having sex and if they can't do that do not have unprotected sex.But you know my view on abortion as I have mentioned it before. Every child that is aborted goes to be with God. Most if born would never have an opportunity to be saved. I say abort away and be prepared to stand before God with a murder charge.I think the idea to put ashes of dead people on the moon is stupid in the first place. Only a rich person could cover the cost of the funeral. As far as the indians they have burial grounds on earth that are sacred to them. If ashes sent to the moon would desecrate it is not their burial grounds desecrating the earth?Just a few of my rambling thought which don't mean a thing.Have a blessed day Percy.God Bless,

What I think is that you should read what I wrote and actually respond to that.
​ Do your religious beliefs about abortion differ from your moral ones? So you believe getting an abortion is just as bad as murdering a 6-year-old child. And you belief those who believe abortion is wrong on religious or moral grounds should be allowed to force people who don't share those beliefs to give birth. So people with unwanted pregencies should be forced to become baby factories for those wishing to adopt. Not the topic, but shouldn't everyone "pitch a fit" in reaction to a mass shooting? Gee, what a great idea! And you know this how? Indians don't bury their dead on their sacred grounds.Leprechauns Bless!--Percy

[voice=Dr Erskine at Steve Rogers' final enlistment attempt]So you want to kill women.[/voice]Abortion is also a necessary medical treatment for a failed pregnancy without which the mother will die or, if she survives, will become infertile. The rash of state anti-abortion laws have the effect of condemning those women to a horrible death. Even though many of those laws give lip service to allowing abortion to save the woman's life or health, in practice she has to be on the verge of death before the doctors are legally allowed to do their job. Horror stories include the woman having to leave the ER and go wait in her car until she has almost bled out.Consider the recent case of Kate Cox who needed an abortion to treat her failed pregnancy in Texas. She had to appeal to the state courts to get permission, which was blocked by Ken Paxton:

quote:

---

Paxton has sought to block rules from the US Health and Human Services Department that would require hospitals to provide abortions to women when the procedure is necessary to save their lives.

​

After Texas judge Maya Guerra Gamble ruled that Kate Cox, a pregnant woman whose fetus had the trisomy 18 condition, qualified for an abortion under the medical exemption provision in Texas law, Paxton in December 2023 called the judge an "activist" that was "not medically qualified" to make this ruling, threatened to prosecute doctors if they performed an abortion on Cox, and stated that Texas hospitals that allowed Cox's abortion could "be liable for negligent credentialing" the abortion-performing doctor. Paxton appealed Gamble's ruling to the Texas Supreme Court, arguing that "how long the child is expected to live" was irrelevant to the case, and that Cox had not proven that the pregnancy threatened her life. The Supreme Court paused Gamble's ruling, leading to Cox leaving Texas to obtain an abortion; later the Texas Supreme Court ruled against Cox, stating that even though her pregnancy was "extremely complicated", even "serious" pregnancy difficulties do not meet Texas' medical exemption provision.

---

Kate Cox had to flee the state in order to receive the medical care she needed.Remember all the Republican hysteria over their imaginary "death panels under Obamacare"? Well, those death panels are very real and are created and operated by anti-abortion Republicans.So, why do you hate women so much? Or is it just that your god demands human sacrifice? Yeah, right! While your side also attacks access to birth control as well as sex education in order to keep young people for learning how to prevent pregnancy. Instead, you [pl] push "abstinence only" programs which don't work.Sex education and easy access to birth control do work to reduce abortion rates. Your [pl] opposition to them only serve to drive up the demand for abortions. What are you [pl] thinking?

RWNJ's need to be able to have people they can shame and look down upon. They want young unmarried women pregnant. They want mothers and children living in poverty. They want women dying from back alley abortions. It makes them feel moral. They need people to look down upon so they feel good about themselves. Their psychology is not that complicated.

If 75% object to abortion they should simply refrain from it. The other 25% should also mind their own business. And, let's not forget, of course they should abstain from being raped.
​ Since being with God is the highest goal for evangelicals, I don't see why you have a problem with abortion. 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in a miscarriage. If God is so great, why doesn't he prevent them? Either he can't and is less powerful than presumed, or he won't and is less benevolent than presumed. In the latter case it's God who should stand accused.

I think that would be a perfect solution. No need for the religious to interfere with the actions of the secular then eh?

That is true. But that is hardly the theme of the story. Besides that one similarity, they are vastly different issues.You know other things that are an injection of religious belefe into the public sphere?
Prohibition on murder
Prohibition on theft
Prohibition against rape
Being honest
Care for fellowman
Concepts of justice
...WE could go on with many more.

Those that you listed are basic tenants of all societies, it's how a social animal like us normally lives together. Religion is not the basis of these human societal norms.

Those are all moral precepts, not religious. Every single human society has them even though details can vary. Has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs, except that religion keeps trying to steal credit for morality (doesn't one of them deal with theft?). Indeed, don't religious beliefs often require violating morality (eg, requiring the withholding of vitally needed emergency care for pregnant women)?Leaving for our monthly Atheists United breakfast.

Those are not religious beliefs. Every atheist I have ever known supports those obvious rules of civilization. Today religions twist and distort those concepts and diminish humanity in the process. "Onward Christian Soldiers!"

If you think that religion is the only reason for banning murder, rape, or theft you are a dangerous lunatic. The more so since you obviously don’t value being honest.