The Limits of Religious Belief

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.

They are basic tenants of 'most' societies, not all. Yet, they were basic tenants of 'most' religions before any of those societies existed.What other "social animal" besides humans acts based upon a moral (or religions) principle? What are you talking about. Of course they are religious precepts. And they are moral precepts. Morality and religion are two different things, but they both have been heavily influenced by each other. In the same vein, the same could be said of religion. I guess it depends on the religious belief and the moral belief. You seem though to be assuming that the moral belief you cited is necessarily superior to the religious belief. Why is that?And what religious belief is against "vitally needed emergency care for pregnant women"? I hope you are not pointing to your example in Message 7, cause there was nothing in your whole rant that pointed to the decision being a religious one. Despite all that, why would your morality be any better than ICANT's or Ken Paxton's. So what makes them "obvious"? Never said it was the ONLY reason. Just hinting it is a major, contributing one.So my question for you all is: What is the basis of your supposed religion-less morality?

Probably not. But that is not what is happening in either of these cases. That some Indian tribes have a religious belief about such a practice on the moon is in no way imposing anything upon the general public, because the general public has no activity on the moon. The general public probably has not thought about it either way prior to this issue being publicized. The Indian group(s) might have more stake in this than the general public because they do have a prior interest in it (religious or otherwise), but it really holds no weight with the general public. (It's roughly the same as a camel trader in the middle of the Sahara being upset over logging in the Pacific Northwest because he's concerned for Nature)Where the conflict does have any governing weight is with whomever potentially may try to bury remains on the moon. The Indian groups may try to make a moral claim based on their religious beliefs, but whether it has any effect or not really depends on how NASA and moon-visit-capable associates view it.Abortion is a totally different animal. Anti-abortion beliefs can be based on a religious view, but it they do not necessarily have to be. A society's stance on murder does have an impact on the general public. A prohibition on murder (a moral stance taken by most everyone, religious or not) combined with a belief that the human species is special, elevated, and unique compared to other life forms (this is also a moral stance taken by the majority and is already baked into laws based upon the moral prohibition of murder) and that a human life is created at conception (science says this), all fit within a moral framework that is not necessarily religious in nature.​It is both a religious belief, and a belief held by non-religious persons. Of course it does. You're being naive if you think otherwise. What supposed dishonesty is being promoted that needs to be explained? What are you talking about? I didnt mention law.
It was many of your-side comments that insisted that morals have nothing to do with religion. So, if that is the case, what is the basis for those moral stances? As you said, "why it does it is anyone's guess". But jumping from that to "it seems very much like a moral act" is quite a stretch. What indication is there in any way that the buffalo has any understanding of right or wrong, good or bad?Same thing for the monkey that was indignant. You have no idea that such an emotion was due to some moral principle. The monkey's action could easily be explained as just an emotional action of wanting something it didnt get.
Animals can show emotion. But they have no concepts of morals. Yes, I watched it. Frans in no way demonstrated that the animals had any understanding of morality. They showed emotions, but there was nothing to indicate they had any understanding of right/wrong. Besides, Frans gave up his bias at the very end when he tried to link the supposed moral behavior with no need for religion (something he didnt mention at all during showing his examples). Nope, they do not suffice. And no, the animals are not religiously inclined, neither are they morally inclined. They are just emotional.The "Treat others as you would like others to treat you" precept is actually a religious concept. It was stated by Jesus (Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31), and the ancient Jewish law at Leviticus 19:18 in the form of: "You must love your neighbor as yourself." (That is was not part of the Ten Commandments is irrelevant. Jesus and other Christian biblical writers referred to it as one of the greatest laws from the Jewish law covenant)

Hmm, let see. Most western nations pretty much derive their laws and morals based upon Judeo-Christian ethics. Laws against murder, rape, theft all historically have their origins in religious thought. Care for your fellowman, honest, and justice has no place in evolutionary thought, and all find their ideas in religions. Answered in Message 156 and subsequent posts in that thread. Love it when you just bring up a vague topic and then expect me to elaborate it for you. Why don't you choose Ah yes. I remember PaulK the Problem Projecting Parcer. As per the top of this post, the subject in our interactions was you think religion has nothing to do with morality, especially any regarding "banning murder, rape, or theft". I slightly disagreed, then asked a question about the grounding for your religion-less morals. To which I get a non-answer, an accusation of changing the subject (not really as it was related, though I was asking a question that might take things in a different direction than the OP), and a statement directed to me about the relation of Law and morality (which I didn’t bring up at all). I hadn’t mentioned law yet, nor specified any religious-abortion beliefs yet, but he projects that is my subject.Nope. not yet.Responding: And Law is the main way that non-religious beliefs get enforced on others (ie: religious people). And so what?
Never said abortion is not an issue religious people are concerned with, because it is. Abortion is also an issue that non-religious people are concerned with. And some religious people take a pro-abortion stance, and some non-religious people take an anti-abortion stance.I never decreed that the abortion issue doesn't exist. That only happened via fantasy in your head.

Perhaps it is, as I stated before, (1) most people don’t like murdering human beings, and (2) most people think unborn babies are human beings. It may be that in the camps of religious vs non-religious people that a higher percentage of religious people affirm the 2nd premise than the non-religious, but it certainly isn’t exclusive that one side totally agrees, and the other side totally disagrees.That being said, it is an issue that has profound implications on just about everyone, that being the wellfare and protection of life for newly generated humans. The Navajo issue is nowhere near as impactful as the abortion debate, and it's extremely more limited in scope. Despite you indicating that "anyone" can get involved with putting stuff on the moon, it is currently not the case that any significant percentage of people are involved with that, nor is that amount of involvement likely to change soon. It is the current level of involvement that is of issue, not some hypothetical possible future level. I agree with you for the most part here. The only thing though I would add is that this works both ways though. Religious people sometimes gain power and push agendas relating to their religions that many non-religious people dont like. But then also non-religious people gain power and push agendas that infringe on religious people that is not liked. Whether it happens more for one group or another is not really relevant. It is part of how the systems work, however flawed it may seem. Usually in democratic or republic style governments, elections matter. And though it may be a slow process, there is usually a way for people to address these inconsistencies over time.I did find it rather amusing, considering your anti-religious position, that you characterized the separation of church and state as a "sacred principle". I'm not disputing it. Abortion is an issue that many, probably a majority, hold according to a religious position. But that does not hold for everyone, nor is it exclusively religious people that are anti-abortion OR non-religious people that are pro-abortion. The level of how strong one side or another is is irrelevant considering that both views are significantly represented by persons from both groups. And that is primarily why I disagreed with your premise: "The key question is whether the public in general should be governed by the beliefs of religious groups they don't belong to."So to be clear, I am not saying that many people’s views on abortion aren't related to religiosity. For many, it obviously is. But for others, it is not related. And those others are not an insignificant population. These statements somewhat get to the core of my problem with this whole discussion. They seem contradictory to me.But I suspect we hold differences in what "morality" means. Can you please define what you mean by "morals" or "morality"? Not what constitutes them (ie, murder is wrong), but what is it itself.

Granted. You have no idea that this is true. The buffalo could be merely curious ("Hey, a moving rock. What's that?" *FLIP* "Oh, it looks mostly the same on the other side. Ok, on we go.")I searched for the video, found one that matches your description. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAjWB_UG-zY
So if that was the video you are referring to...... Noting the environment, it looks like the buffalo is in a pen, and the ground appears to be all dirt. No rocks anywhere else in the shot. So the buffalo could be noticing something that is not usually there, got curious, tried to interact with it with it's horns. Just curiosity. Nothing in that behavior necessarily says "I have concern for the turtle.Also that video shows people yelling and cheering on the buffalo. After it flipped the turtle, the cheers got louder and the buffalo then immediately started heading towards the people. It could easily be that the buffalo likes people and was reacting to their actions. When the input was at its highest, the buffalo seemed to forget about the turtle. There was no apparent concern for the turtle by the buffalo after it flipped it. If there was some moral impetus by the buffalo, one could say that it would have stuck around with the turtle to make sure things were ok with it. But that didn’t happen. But there was no indication by the buffalo that is has any understanding of what a "bad situation" is. For one, a turtle flipped on its back is not objectively bad (it happens to those animals all the time and they survive just fine). Secondly, once it was turned over, what indication from the buffalo is there that things were now "good". There is none.The problem is you are reading into the situation too much. You might even be anthropomorphizing the buffalo. Just because that action appeals to YOU as a good thing, there is no evidence that the same feeling is felt by the buffalo. Alternative explanation already provided above. I could easily think of many more that would fit the situation. That's the problem though, it's just me imagining what might be going through the buffalo's head. The same goes for your story. In reality, we both have no idea.So with your story, there may be an indication that it might be due to a moral view by the buffalo. But I don't buy it. Demonstrating morality involves a lot more than just an action that you or I would take as 'good'. There is no evidence that the buffalo, or animals, understand concepts of good or bad on a moral level. They can show emotions and evidence that they like or dislike something, but that is not the same as demonstrating morality. Humans can demonstrate their understanding of morals and link it to actions by their language. Animals do not have that capability. How do you know it was "fairness" that the monkey was thinking of? Probably because you are projecting your own thoughts to the monkey. You have no evidence that it was 'indignance' vs just 'anger or desire.'Fairness, like most aspects of morality, are abstract concepts, and animals don’t demonstrate a knowledge of them. There is no specific reason to link the actions to fairness. It looks more to me that the monkey just wanted the grapes (simple desire) once it realized they were available and acted out accordingly. If the monkey truly was interested in fairness, wouldn’t he have done something like give the cucumber to the other monkey and ask for a grape from the other monkey? That action would have been interesting, but I doubt even that is enough to demonstrate a knowledge of morals. Of course, neither of us can be 100% sure of our positions. And I am not claiming 100% certainty. But where I think the weight of evidence is against you is due to what would be required to show understanding of morals. It goes way beyond just an emotional response (that frankly could be interpreted in several ways). Yes, an emotional response to a situation could (would?) be part of demonstrating an understanding, but it is only a part. You need much more than that.As an analogy, just because a monkey drops a coconut from a tree, it doesn't mean it is thinking about Newtonian gravity. Anyone could easily claim: "Well you don't know for sure they aren't thinking about properties of gravity", and they could possibly be right. But I think it’s obvious, a monkey would have to demonstrate much more than dropping something for a reasonable person to entertain the idea that a monkey is considering physics of the motion of gravity. Why? Because an understanding of gravity involves more than just dropping things.In the same way, understanding morality involves much more than just an emotional response.