At one of my religious organizations, in re my commentaries as a member, some raise or appear to fish for or infer that my posts "might" be eloquent or artful attempts to dodge this or that law with no tether to metaphysics or faith.

For the record, whenever I see it put to members of any faith or secular group that their acceptance of the mere word "evolution" makes them superior to anyone holding even the simplest of nonviolent belief in an Absolute (and with circumstantial inference to do otherwise will give them not stigmata but stigma or "cooties"), I usually meander off in mental doodling with hopes of pointing to what a number of folks on earth (laity, officials, doctors, educators, others) might think you endorse as "hypertrophisms" of evolution commonly known as social Darwinism.

In so doing, on terms employed by those opposed to as little as short verbatim Bible or other text reading or even plain agnosticism, I further try to illustrate the secular evidence and reasoning causing my belief our genes not only don't give us the same "tendencies" toward criminality or greater purpose as if clones of our parents or make our reproduction the highest truth, they don't make every last one of us de facto cases of dysfunction or epigenetically motivated earthly self-interested sore losers projecting a God as our armor.

In other words, I believe that religious metaphysics may be no more for many (including myself) as to what they believe they need to do for prospects of the next life, and that separately or with no spiritual belief(s) at all these same people can look at common secular human propositions, use secular logic and evidence wherever an argument leads, and determine if...autonomously and completely within itself...a proposition contains error, understatement, deception, or harm, with whatever faith then just being surplusage as to why they won't participate in or with a rationally inept or legally void proposition. I don't believe faith always needs to be defined as subjective rule-making merely making something "seem" bad, where it could be shown to be secondary to objective and fair examination of a proposition.

I will help anyone who'd like to see a Biblical Scripture or hear about it, and if requested or apropos refer them to academically competent scholars;that I also engage in secular ethics ephemera is not driven by "definitions" of the Bible, but where a secular proposition is wrong by secular terms, my faith is only an "extra" reason for not going along. Like many people, I also publicly volunteer my time wherever requested and able in traditional compassion pursuits.

Lastly, never once have I "skirted" ANY legal proposition or been disciplined or convicted or "busted"....I do not practice any "-isms" or "-iatries" or whatever outside the tiny religious ministry in the here foregoing paragraph. Also, I don't encourage ANYONE to do things they know or should know they CANNOT, and I will not fail to report ANYONE in my life to proper legal power if it should occur to me a hazardous charlatan of any stripe is afoot.