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

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

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

But it's a vastly important similarity. The key question is whether the public in general should be governed by the beliefs of religious groups they don't belong to. Some American Indian tribes have religious beliefs that burying human remains on the moon would be desecrating and wish to impose that belief on everyone else. And some religious groups believe abortion is murder and wish to impose that belief on everyone else. If you think abortion as murder is not a religious belief, perhaps you should have a conversation with ICANT who describes how God feels about abortion, for example: --Percy

Would you vote for or support people who are fine with coercing others? Are you in favor of them coercing others to accept the rules of your God? Say His rules against abortion? And to that end would you favor coercing the medical profession to withhold care from those in need of an abortion? Or would you favor coercing people to not assist anyone in obtaining an abortion, including providing transportation to a state where medical procedures can be provided based on a person's wants and needs and not on someone else's religious beliefs?You go on to misunderstand science in a way common among the religious. This misunderstanding is largely responsible for religious interference in science. Scientifically developed views and theories are not accepted because they're science, but because we've learned that science is the best way for figuring out what is likely true about the universe.That doesn't make the Big Bang or evolution the right answers, but it does make them the best answers we have at the present time.--Percy

You already said you wouldn't coerce anyone, so I didn't ask about what you would do.I actually asked if you would vote for or support those who *would* be willing to coerce others. You say you're from SSC. I don't know where that is, but if it means South Carolina then that state bans abortion after six weeks. No matter what state you're from, do you vote for or support those in favor of that law?Many in states like South Carolina are pushing for laws that would make it a crime to assist anyone in obtaining an abortion, such as by driving them to states where abortion is legal. Or to make it a crime for their residents to obtain an abortion in another state. Would you vote for or support those promoting such laws?The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, barred the abortion pill mifepristone nationwide. Their ruling has been put on hold pending an appeal before the Supreme Court. The lawsuit was brought by the Catholic Medical Association against the FDA for approving the drug. Do you believe religious groups should insert themselves into decisions about what healthcare can be provided to those who don't share their religious beliefs?If you answer yes to any of these questions then you're in favor of coercion, even if you personally don't do the coercing.You next shift onto scientific topics and at one point say about the Big Bang and evolution, "But both are just theories..." That is true, and people who say this are reflecting another common misunderstanding about science among the religious. This misunderstanding has undoubtedly been explained to you many times over the years.--Percy

Now you're making it sound like you're pro-abortion, because it allows God to save more souls. Earlier you were arguing against abortion, saying that at the end of their lives people would face God as murderers. So you do not support or vote for people who favor coercive laws? Of course you don't, but Florida has the same 6-week abortion ban as South Carolina. You're drawing a distinction without a difference. So if there were a federal ban on the death penalty, you'd be against it because you believe that should be left up to the states? South Carolina was just an example, and your state of Florida is just like South Carolina when it comes to abortion. But again, your state of Florida has the same laws as South Carolina. You acknowledge you have a say in what goes on in your state, so do you support or vote for people who are in favor of coercing women to give birth? Like Ron DeSantis? But only within the bounds of the constitution, right? Separation of church and state and all that.--Percy

Car safety improvements since 1960:

• Safety belts
• Collapsable steering columns
• Headrests
• Cage around passenger compartment
• Front-end crash absorption
• Third brake light
• Anti-skid systems
• Air bags

Gun safety improvements since 1960:

• ---

--Percy

Then what do you think is happening? For states with laws that place tight restrictions on abortion, if it isn't driven by religion then what is driving it?And that the Navajos are pressuring private companies to respect their religious beliefs about the moon is just a fact.Consider this hypothetical. A permanent colony is established on the moon. Inevitably someone dies there and the Navajos will pressure NASA or whoever's responsible to return the remains to Earth. It currently costs $25 million for a trip to the ISS. It would cost much more to return remains, or anything, all the way from the moon. When the Navajos are informed that their religious beliefs will be respected if they can just pay the costs, I wonder how important the Navajos religious beliefs will be to them then? No, it's everyone. Anyone can start a company to put remains on the moon. Anyone can pay to have remains placed on the moon. I used the term "general public," but that's just another way of saying everyone. There's no governing weight, just pressure, but yeah, basically what I just said. "Whomever potentially may try to bury remains on the moon" is everyone. Whether a request is right or wrong doesn't depend upon whether it has any effect. Prior to Dobbs a number of states had abortion laws on the books that had no effect, but whether those laws were right or wrong was still important. If this wasn't evident to some pre-Dobbs, it is most certainly evident to everyone now.Politically active evangelicals have put governors and state legislators in place who have made their views on abortion into law, but in those states that had state-wide referendums the right to abortion was backed overwhelmingly. This illustrates how religious views find their way into law. Achieving a majority of the voting public doesn't invalidate separation of church and state, but a number of states are increasingly violating this sacred principle. Nothing's 100%, but religiosity is strongly correlated with views on abortion. Why are you disputing the obvious? Why do you think science says this? Again, religiosity is strongly correlated with views on abortion. You compared it to murder, but religiosity is not at all correlated with views on murder. Almost everyone believes murder wrong, but whether people believe abortion wrong strongly depends on their religious views. Why are you disputing this? I don't see it as dishonesty, but there's some strong dissembling going on that you're arguing that views on abortion aren't related to religiosity. Morals likely have evolutionary origins because they provided a survival benefit. But morals are plastic. Everyone holds torture wrong, that is until it's necessary to cast out demons. Everyone holds murder wrong, that is until it's necessary to placate the gods with a sacrifice, or until it's necessary that the dead king have servants to accompany him into the afterlife, or until it's necessary that society be protected from some dangerous person or that the committer of some heinous crime be given the ultimate punishment, or until it's necessary to punish the persecutors of your people. And you know this how?--Percy

You're stating this backwards. The 40% want nothing but the best for the 60% and want them to be free to make their own medical decisions. It is the 60% who based on their religious beliefs want to restrict the freedoms of the 40%.Or stated another way, if the 60% get their way then the 40% who would like access to abortion would be denied it. If the 40% get their way then no one is denied anything. No matter how big the majority, it cannot pass unconstitutional laws that violate both civil rights and separation of church and state. You said this before, and it's a pretty bad look. You're saying that you're in favor of murder because it saves more souls, something you couldn't possibly know. They shouldn't. The minority belief that abortion is okay is not being imposed on the majority. The majority is still perfectly free to believe that abortion is not okay. Can't the majority refrain from restricting people's rights? There is no indication that anyone has ever gone to heaven, or that it even exists.Leprechauns bless!--Percy

Sure he did. I think you mean T=10^-43. I believe that that time duration is part of a scientific theory representing our best understanding of the early universe based upon the available evidence and subject to change in light of new evidence and/or improved understanding. What does naming things we don't know prove? Even if what we think we know were just speculation, what would that prove? What is thought likely true based upon evidence is not faith.But the side comment I made in passing is not the thread's topic, which is whether people should be pushing their religious views into the public sphere.Leprechauns Bless!--Percy

What is thought likely true based upon evidence is not an assumption either.You've been corrected on this dozens of times, yet you keep mindlessly repeating it. Here's you are making the same claim over and over (and usually being corrected) in this and other threads: Why after all this time do you still believe that calling something an assumption is a valid argument? Certainly there are assumptions out there, and in the right thread we should examine them, but your knee jerk reaction to anything related to science is to mindlessly call it an assumption. In the right thread, what assumptions are involved in reaching the 300,000 year figure? So it's evidence enough for you, but you know it's not enough for anyone else or you'd be telling everyone about it. Doesn't really sound like evidence, does it? We've never known everything and never will. What does reminding us of that prove? You left out that I was responding about "the first 300,000 years," not about everything. I added it back in to restore context. Your dishonesty is kind of off-putting but very consistent. The religious have demonstrated many times here over the years that this is the kind of behavior to be expected of them. Unable to use honest means to defend their faith they resort to dishonest ones.I was asking what it would prove should the 300,000 years be one of those things we don't know. Why don't you try answering the question actually asked for change. If you try honesty you might be surprised to discover how much better you feel when you're not hunkering down in your religious faith blindly repeating misguided and long ago dispatched arguments. The secular is the public domain. Religious views are private. Let's quote Madison for you again:

Madison in A Memorial and Remonstrance:

---

The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people.

---

In case you find the references obscure and the language opaque, he's saying that a free government requires that government and religion ("each department") be separate. This is to the benefit of us all. While you no doubt would feel very comfortable with Christians controlling the reins of government, if it were legal for Christians to control government then it would also be legal for Muslims to control government. They could outlaw Christianity and require you to purchase a prayer rug and pray towards Mecca five times daily. It's not a good idea for religions to control government.So we require separation of church and state in our country so that no one is subject to the authority of another religion. That's the definition of a secular state, which we are.--Percy

Since you're math challenged, sedimentation 5 miles deep laid down over 4 billion years would be 0.00008 inches per year. Miniscule.3.5 trillion barrels of oil in 4 billion years would be 875 barrels per year. Since the surface area of the world, including oceans, is about 200 million square miles, that would be 0.000005 barrels of oil per square mile per year. Again, miniscule.Of course that's not the way it really happened. There was no continuous sedimentation for 4 billion years. There were episodes of uplift and subsidence, of sedimentation and erosion, all about the world in an unending sequence.A quick search reveals that misinformation similar to what you posted is plastered all over the Internet. Which website did you use?About space dust, it is estimated that 40,000 tons of space dust falls to Earth every year. That is 0.0000000000000006% of the earth's mass. Negligible.Considering it over the Earth's entire history, that much dust falling every year for 4.56 billion years would be .000003% of the earth's mass. Again, negligible.--Percy

You're wrong, but this is the wrong thread to correct you further. What's been provided so far is plenty, for example, the last two paragraphs of Message 56.In this thread discussion about the propriety of government support for private religious beliefs would be more pertinent.--Percy

If you have something to say along those lines then that *would* be on topic, so go right ahead. it was you who raised the off-topic subject. Find an appropriate thread or propose a new one.Leprechauns bless!--Percy