Funny how things are provided. Reading letters to the editor in the Times today, I cam upon this:

To the Editor:

David Brooks makes several good points about the value of the world's holy books as guidelines for thought and behavior (column, March 23). Where he misses the point is this: Bringing one's religious values into politics is vastly different than bringing one's particular religious beliefs, dogma and practices into the realm of law and policy making.

Many religious values are arguably universal, while sectarian beliefs and practices are not. Values can help shape good law and policy; dogma does not.

GARY PEPE
Holland, Mich., March 23, 2004

Here, the words "values" and "beliefs" qualify "religious." What does "religious" mean in the sentence?
I'm thinking the common reaction is 'dealing with religion,' or 'derived from religion.' Well and good- but I wonder: can one have religious values without religious belief. Sheez. all this dang haughty totty, i know, i know.

ps- here's the article the letter refers to.