More than 22,000 mercenaries are operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. These unaccountable hired guns have shot civilians and participated in torture at Abu Ghraib and other detention facilities...for freedom's cause.

Meanwhile, the USA government sides with Laden and Laden-like stiflers of assorted freedoms, always in the name of "security" and to watch for everyday people "of interest" for so much as a non-aggressive religious, political, or personal opinion.

Worse, the only "difference" between military and civilian Courts is that hearsay can be entered in Courts Martial...there's likely enough to convict any 911 conspirators and those resisting their detention without resort to hearsay, but again, the government appears to favor actually cultivating "no cause" as if to encourage Laden's recruitments or encourage a blurring of aid in an Arab civil war...Providence forfend that it should be to aid self-described "freedom fighters" like Professor Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Osama bin Laden and the Taliban!


The Stop Outsourcing Security Act, introduced by Rep. Jan Schakowsky in the House (H.R. 4650) and Bernie Sanders in the Senate (S. 3023), would prohibit hiring private mercenaries like Blackwater to perform tasks traditionally done by the military. Let's not oppose this Act's spirit just because some say it isn't en vogue to question authority or seek more than moral and personal nihilism; since when is rational objective weighing of edicts versus results "taboo"?

One may, insofar as the USA, be aware of a certain 1947 Supreme Court majority decision which in part says no unit of government may require a person to join or abstain from any religious group nor require any religious organization to set forth its exact beliefs; of course, that Court then featuring a young William Rehnquist was not considering a comprehensive set of cultural issues…but suffice then the simple fact no Church can be required to explain itself for the government as far as beliefs-sans-activities goes (physical actions always limited like anyone else’s by crime statutes). 

Indeed, in the case of secular officials otherwise holding all religion is epigenetic hypertrophism and psychology to such ends, and most significantly such officials cut off from basing anything on the words of any sacred text(s), there remains no reason whatever to partake of baiting and fall for parsing the Christianity espoused by Obama-endorsing (or Obama faith-funded) clergy…posing with their Theologian In Chief in the nature of inferring mere questions about Obamacare would be racism, nationalism, suppression of religious expression, or some other hypertrophism of irrelevance too juicy for “the masses” to ignore (mere cootie-calling, if you will). 

After all, for almost 2,000 years, nobody on earth suggested Jesus had proclaimed HIS FIRST earthly time or period between that and Parousia meant He’s here directing every mortal personally, commanded them to live by personal nihilism or be destroyed, posted a few overlords over “God’s go-green gardeners” who aimlessly toil as both workers and garden vegetation, or commanded all to use or accept abject moral nihilism in making any such things happen…then came Stalin and Chairman Mao who DID see that as Christ’s message; they, and every paid or craven or willful admirer from their day to present, live(d) such nihilisms on insistence any other view is superstition, psychology, or otherwise naughty. This might explain why officials worldwide stomp on even little old ladies’ Bible circles…Bible of two millennia so different from idling Socialism…but no text expository position about in lieu of earthly facts can be a secular standard and thus all “religious cause” steamrollings by USA government re evangelical social justinians and Rapturists or others would seem moot ab initio. 

It seems most logical to state that despite one’s belief or atheism, objectively reasoning on nationalized health care, on its pros/cons/synchronicity with other laws and rights, to assess manifest accord with majority interests of the People no matter cultural mix, makes the best barometer of such health care’s merits or lackings. 

Suggesting otherwise would carry an air of jackboot propaganda covering indefensible points. Seasoned obfuscators know this, so watch for now-standard election year cloys: “More immigrants, get IN here! It’s all lies we’re a nationalized education/job and wage-dwindling flophouse!”; and the now ubiquitous: “Omigosh, Laden speaks, Alibabajihad speaks, um, terrah-terrah-terrah, EyeRack (now pronounced IrRahk), Courts or tribunals”, all while Obama cruises the globe being a “listener not preacher” (pupil not teacher?) and bows deeply to any foreign leaders except those of Israel and India…whose antagonists couldn’t exist without U.N./European Union/USA protection. 

[In forming this opinion, I included inter alia consideration of a citation from “The Encyclopedia of Philosophy”, Paul Edwards editor in chief MacMillan Company & The Free Press, ©USA 1967 Crowell Collier and MacMillan Inc, Volume 6, topic “The Idea of Progress”, subtopic “The cost of progress”, paragraph 3, sentences 2-5: 

“The role of fantasy, ignorance, superstition, and fanaticism in determining the world’s affairs continues to be enormous. It is doubtful, however, whether so many members of human society, from housewives to statesmen, have ever before thought it reasonable to make decisions on the basis of carefully acquired and sifted information, and never before have societies possessed as much knowledge about themselves and their workings as they do now, shaky and scattered though that knowledge is. Only if one thinks it morally dangerous to seek reliable information before making decisions or thinks it mistaken to try to employ rational methods in the study of human affairs can he declare such long-range social trends to be anything but progressive. Indeed, the very reason that the members of an educated society bear a particularly heavy burden of responsibility for the emergence of doctrines like Nazism is that they have opportunities to be informed and judicious which members of other societies did not have”. End of Citation. 

I considered this in re USA officials, bailed-out media, and faith-funded clergy obviously having greater capacity to know sweeping scopes and actual texts enabling same than the vast multitudes who will “just hear about it” from such sources in a priori fashion.]  

Although I am a Christian, I recognize that as with all religion the point should be applying faith to why one does or doesn't do something...but based on objective logical error or harm that exists in a thing or proposition, and which can be perceived or stumbled upon by anyone from matter complete within an autonomous thing or proposition. Whatever faith's spiritual "commands" should not become a protected or legally valid "cause" for anything...as no religious non-aggressive spiritually religious philosophy dealing with a next life simple should be disparaged, thus no country or person should expect to substitute rational science, law, or examination for edicts of any faith at all...if for example a person says "I cannot steal" and will not do a theft defined in proscriptive law, the spiritual conscience is only coincidental if reinforcing to rationally proscribed behavior.

This brings me to several Christian groups of non-Asian construction representing to me their conclusion that the Chinese government is oppressing the Linfen Church and its followers. Again, all to me known emailings represent only conclusions without explaining if Linfen people do or do not overstep objective ministerial bounds, in the nature, say, of anti-abortionists who physically manhandle abortion clinic staff or patrons.

Wherefore, I most respectfully submit to your Honorable office my sentiments that if the Chinese government can stipulate any way(s) or practice(s) that any objectively reasonable person on earth could see as a harm to society's interests or a representative government, upon making out such case to my awareness I would not disagree with the Chinese government in re Linfen; if however Linfen Church primarily had no illogical contrary interest to society or were just teaching a non-aggressive religious view limited to what they speculate the next life holds, as modern physicists indicate the universe had a transcendental causal agent of some nature, it would seem insufficient to accuse Linfen of superstition-mongering, de facto psychology, or traffic disruptions relevant to their meetings.

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.

In support of the Resurrection, I made two comments citing Tacitus and Josephus, inter alia, as many theologians hold the Gospels to be “contoured” truth…sayings of Jesus, but presented under Apostolic kerugma apropos at their time; many theologians also hold that the NT “Acts” is actually extension of the Luke Gospel, even if “Acts” holds relevant data. I don’t think it’s fair to non-believers to say truth of Jesus was available only from the dictation of men claiming to have known Him, and that said, believe now “Acts” then has relevance insofar as further historically provable reactions to the Resurrection claim are concerned. 

 

It’s often said that a problem with Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and a host of other ontological philosophers was that they either ignored or had certain sciences not available to them, thus they labored in “ignorance” on mind-body dualisms or significance.

But a good number of atheism-prone philosophers from the Enlightenment to date also suffer from an even worse affliction…intentional intellectual poverty!

For example, real scientists in a real science over and over prove the universe HAD a “transcendental causal agent”, yet many non-ontological philosophers critical of metaphysics persist as if saying: “Yeah? So? You BETTER keep listening to my musings dependent upon only a cosmos!”. Seems some can’t accept atomist, nominalist, linguistic, existentialist, or positivist philosophers AREN’T right about a universe without ex nihilio creation.

That’s not a boast: in “Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity” (1989), University of Chicago/Yale educated humanist and widely read philosopher Richard Rorty puts forth a schema to counter the Platonists he rejects in toto, a schema based on belief there is no truth higher than the human being’s ability to reproduce themselves, i.e, no transcendental causal agent. In that Rorty died in 2007, he had available science facts on transcendental causation of the universe, just like atheist-turned-believer Antony Flew, but kept insisting as in “Contingency” that government should inculcate a diverse community held together by opposition to suffering, and not by abstract ideas such as ‘justice’, ‘common humanity’, and so on.

Just some of my reasons for not tossing out Parmenides, Plato, and their chains of thought.

[I’m addressing this topic on permissive will solely from my own Christian faith’s dynamics, in particular for comparison to John Calvin’s “The Institutes” on same…not to deride or exclude any other perspectives, but to present my hesitance toward Calvinist predestination theory and general overuse of God as tailor of everyone’s life happenings.]

Modern physicists have established that many billions of years ago the universe came into existence, and for about 380,000 years after was so hot only light…not even atoms or quarks…existed; scientists generally refer to the reason for such creation as some “transcendental causative agent”, but astrophysical data are now so refined even noted atheist Antony Flew released a book titled “There IS A God”…it makes even me wonder how anything like galaxies, water, life could have “just condensed” out of an irradiated void…made up only of heat.

Staying with the folks who long before Jesus (and for all their otherwise geocentrism) said the first thing here God spoke into existence was light, I offer my observations on the short Book of Ecclesiastes when construed with the whole of Bible gravamen.

Most of the Old and New Testaments are rife with calls to ethics, and upon death God’s judgment for how we obeyed His will and commandments. However, the styling of Ecclesiastes leads some to perceive that all “good” and all “evil”, indeed every speck of any life, are engineered by God…the only judgment thereon being how obedient one was in doing and suffering what God assigned them as lot(s).  

By such measure, everyone becomes a puppet of God, the only “sins” then being reluctance to call Him the author of all things or Lord, or to resist a condition encountered, or both. Everything then is also reduced to anarchy by human perception: “if I let my baby’s carriage go into the road and a semi squashes my nicely insured infant, my church and I can have a party and create a celebratory fund for MY pleasure cruise, as God has favored me with His will all this would happen including big insurance payoffs and I was obedient to the thought put in my head by God, His Satan, or His Angel; I enslaved a race and hanged critics by God’s grace; I got my human will into any old ballot proposition/enabling legislation through God; I acknowledged Jesus as Lord and used all the connections His dad gave me to grow rich dealing drugs and murdering for hire; I slaughtered seeming innocents with airplanes as God must have intended me to do kill or they wouldn’t have died, especially since I murdered in His name”…the list of mayhem would be limited only by human imagination. Worse, can you imagine anyone committing such acts being held above the law if they say (at least in part) Ecclesiastes makes their crimes “protected religious speech and exercise”?

But the manifest weight of the Bible is that God created humans originally intending NO sorrows for them, humans lost grace for listening to Satan, humans lose grace for being oppressors or murderers and such, etcetera. Further, the Bible says all people have free will (in the sense God may know what WE will finally do but doesn’t predestine for us), and all are given such commandments that would make it impossible for anyone to do God’s inspired will through acting to the contrary…be they kings, paupers, anybody.

Ecclesiastes more properly seems like an answer to the laments in Psalms 22 and 88: God may instigate all the dynamics needed for life or earthly sustenance to exist, but only in the sense of giving humanity tools to test their conduct toward one another guided by ethics…with God also creating natural, non-human dynamics to test the strength of our character and faith, together with means by which God will call many back directly. Even Ecclesiastes 7:29 concedes as much that God made us plain and simple but we complicate ourselves, and at 12:13-14 states we are all created to see if we can live by God’s commandments, not life’s circumstances per se…conscience being how He “controls the righteous”.

Whenever I see opportunity wax and wane, or injustices, I keep in mind that in this world humans…not God…often have outright or deceitful upper hands. I see even my own colds, flus, injuries as things that can happen to anybody. Were I tempted due to position, connection, or otherwise to imprudent reactions or assumption another’s loss is my gain as God’s will, I would fear God judging me as He spoke through Psalm 50:21: “You did all this, I said nothing, so you thought I am like you…but now I reprimand you”.

The true point of Ecclesiastes is that no matter who or what one is, everything comes to dust; for all humans, God is aware some never heed Him (or are misled) and will occasion unfairness on others…but don’t let them make you think you’ve got nothing to lose before God by joining the crowd.

Finally, Ecclesiastes admonishes us at 10:14 that none of us knows God’s plans for us once favorably judged and after welcome into Paradise…not any Pope, not Martin Luther, not John Calvin, not me, not one living person. 

This is why I believe God gives us all talents and sets much in motion, but judges us on our best ethical conducts for our own stations and between each other high, low, and otherwise, worldwide, without recourse to “judging by punishments of natural origins”…the only plan He’s got for ANYONE this side of eternity.

In re Christianity one gets through the writings of Paul that one must work through diverse idioms in order to simply increase salvation of souls by their conversion to ethical conduct within and between their idioms; and that to such ends, an apostle must work with whatever initial systems one meets without officious swagger...thus, even Paul saw no one religious construction as the master way of doing things, nor did he really prescribe a complex edifice of his own.

About the only caveat Paul gives is that one must ensure the converted don't reject faith due to wondering why an apostle also comports with current non-believers (i.e., anybody who believes ethics can be wiggled out of on human or some supernatural subterfuge); Paul also indicates God will Himself occasionally answer prayer compatible with His will in re strengthening souls and vanquishing wickedness...Christian disciples to use mental gifts to lessen need for such intervention in the meantime.

It's amazing how time ravaged such simple ideas. Today, there are some who don't look at all the Psalms of the OT as a whole and as to nations say: "Well, it looks like David had all kinds of non-Jews in his realm, wanted such 'strangers' protected too, yet foreign leaders and agents as polemic accused Hebrews falsely". No, some insist the Psalms are proof David was opining epigenetically to a storm god myth, solely to maximize Hewbrew offspring.

These often are the same folks who overlook olden global times where Christian or not women were as property of men, based on "fight for me" appeals of power to males on raw pleasure or epigenetic terms...to some, this wasn't a huge idiom Paul had to work with or toe into, it was his Savior's command to men. Yet the original Christian object appears to have been to get men to not view women as mere toys...daunting task where secular power facilitated to the opposite.

Today there are places on earth wherein have arisen male regimes quashing most of their fellow males, then treating females as toys; there are also places where governments adopt a faith position and epigenetically seek to impose it within their borders and against the world.

In a culture that seems almost to both say in every nation religious epigenetic hijinx of the long ago past must be by sovereignty "table turned" for justice against innocents now present, and paradoxically concurrently saying such new epigenetic religious "setting right" in all places out of one's own nation is a threat to one's homeland but all such epigenetics are prime protected religious speech "of inherently violent people", I respectfully note that none of that in history or now applies to the spiritual Christianity people like me embrace...and thus it's confounding to see in modern times where any governmental epigenetic enterprise(s) find simple ethics a gross offense or sign of diminished mental capacity rather than the object of all Christian sacramentality.

The Roman Catholic Confessional, always for what that religion deems a sacrament, has always prima facie been a way for penitents to privately meet with clergy and be informed Jesus forgives all their sins...essentially what, say, ULC Monastery conveys through its online chapel absolution; Benedict XVI opined that online confession is useless for salvation as only a Priest of properly discerned calling can inform someone Jesus forgives the sins of humanity...confession further only salvic to confirmed Roman Catholics.That is the Pope's opinion, amid many other ones in his own sect.

From Scriptures, Jesus didn't lay down ANY formats except for the Lord's Prayer and a remembrance of the Last Supper; He also said His salvic mission applied to ALL nations and people, with ALL simply doing God's will (Scripturally, acting ethically in all things) already being His brothers and mothers (sisters). For Jesus, it appears one is forgiven if they turn to God's way, period...but emphasis appears upon the spiritual plane only, leaving the door open to some prudent nature(s) of earthly justice. In such regard, the Vatican Confessional arose as a man-made response to the command of Christ, making best use of all dynamics the Church then had available to ensure ethical and orderly conduct.

To start, "day one" of the Confessional, Roman Catholic clergy had actual power to try ecclesiatical and secular matters. Augustine of Hippo, one of 33 Doctors of the Church, was renowned for his fairness in trying cases and was sought as a Judge by many people regardless of origin or creed. Also, the Vatican and its clergy until the Reformation enjoyed co-opted sovereign power mostly with European nations...indeed, few arose to thrones without Vatican coronation.

In this regard, the Church recognized it had a responsibility to save souls yet not subvert the goals of secular justice and order...enter the Confessional, and concept of penance. Here, the Crown accepted whatever the Church came up with as penance even for worst offenders, but not on expectation ten "Hail Marys" got one off scot-free every time a fel;ony happened. Yes, prayers for spiritual penance, but anything from a stiff money or labor expense to the Church or community, up to joining a religious order for life (assumedly part of "true discerned calling", once), to satisfy God's (and the Crown's) preference for rational justice and order. If the Church secular penance was too much, despite spiritual forgiveness one then was open to routine Crown corrections...Confession stayed secret only if Church total penance was accepted.

Today, the Church has no co-opted say-so power of royalty or as a Supreme Court; thus the Confessional can only offer "ten Hail Marys" and such for anything at all done. With most States now requiring that all clergy of every type report suspected violent actors revealing themselves to clergy from the public, even Roman Catholic clergy and deacons across the nation are on record as giving full compliance on top of prayer penance.

The Confessional appearing to have originated as a human creation to enhance secular order; pan-faith and pan-religious traditional clergy now informing States of suspected violent types; States having laws compelling clergy to make certain disclosures; and ULC Monastery requiring its ministers to comply with all laws, where law requires, I see nothing against the ethics of Christianity or any other spirituality, nor against he interests of humanity, in aiding the State where a minister finds State "penance" prudent but can no longer administer it as religious; this could only touch upon unethical conduct where a sovereignty then would proveably be requiring divulgence to deprive people of God's intent of responsible freedom(s), to enslave persons or minds, to mete punishment grossly exceeding transgression, or to gather blackmail in lieu of justice.

As to ethics of ULC Monastery absolution, for Christians, Jesus made clear none of His disciples could call themselves the greatest in spreading His words. The sum of most faiths is that etrenal progress is had through not acting egregiously or illogically with others. Despite Vatican modern speech that only well-discerned Priests can deliver salvation, their Catechism adopted 1994 by John Paul II plainly states even non-Catholics are saved on their own if moved by grace. ULC Monastery offers public announcement that sins are forgiven on admonition to do ethical right. As I am confounded to see how the messenger in this case somehow "perfects" the same message, I see nothing unethical about ULC Monastery so informing the public they can have spiritual absolution.

[Christian Scriptural Resources: 1. Who actually forgives all transgressions, and on what very simple ethical terms, see Psalms 32 and 50; 2. that ethics are for officials also, Psalm 101; that one need not be an official or poor to have merit to God (ethics not simple class struggle), see Proverbs 30:7-9; that simply doing God's will is all He asks and Jesus requires, see Luke 8:21. This is not an exhaustive list. All citations from "Holy Bible: Today's English Version", American Bible Society, 1976. If the followers of Jesus say He came to confirm cited Old and New Testament passages, and I am one who does, then obviously one cannot expand beyond ethics matter to be "bound or loosed". Could be why even Augustine of Hippo warned to not be too rash in calling something. This is my own religious perspective, not meant to provoke or alienate anyone.]

"It entered, as no other book has, into the making of the personal character...we owe to it an incalculable debt".- On the King James Bible, comment by Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America, 1952. Maybe until recent times and still, there is evidence within the Bible that it promotes more than cherry-picked evangelical issues du jour, and that such evangelical religious protections can't be a shield against those speaking in defense of ethics or logic.

Just as there is no single social Darwinian unifier, other than the term itself, there need be no one particular spirituality or group of them geared to peaceful eternal progress.

I see through the Bible that I may adequately express my concurrence with God through advocating “Ethical Culture”, a movement dedicated to the ethical improvement of both societies and individuals, founded in 1876 by Felix Adler and a group of Jewish supporters. He was son of Rabbi Samuel Adler of NYC Temple Emanu-el; his movement consisted of devoted belief in the inviolability and power of the moral law and the duty to apply it to problems of industrialization, urbanization, and the working poor. He trained even Christians to start Ethical Culture societies in large USA cities…it spread worldwide, and became the International Ethical Union; in 1952, humanists joined their groups to it and became the International Humanist and Ethical Union.

No symbols or rituals are required, although leaders officiate at life cycle events like marriages and funerals; they come from a variety of social and intellectual backgrounds and may have previous religious affiliations. No established Ethical Culture ideology exists, other than motto “Not the creed, but the deed”. Members may believe what they want on all issues, including religion, but must accept the ideals: each human life has an intrinsic worth, seeking ethical principles as a guide to all aspects of life is of prime importance, and there is always need for social ethics to work for the material and spiritual betterment of society and humanity.

As a believer in the Old and New Testaments and the gist of things God breathed through them, I ceaselessly practice Ethical Culturalism to my best ability as my Christian reaction to Divine causation; this ranges from professional political and commerce group participation to human rights work to disaster relief participation or even helping up and getting aid for a child others would walk past, or edifying others…all never with an eye to one’s gender, beliefs, ethnicity, race, or origin, or ability to “pay me back”…only logical best lawful aid possible.

Some say Ethical Culturalism no longer is the powerhouse it used to be, but my faith in Almighty God is far greater than it could ever be in anyone asking me to look the other way (upon pain or for profit, or worse…by being baited into gossip or by being manipulated) just because one should do what advances one in the absence of an unseen God. After all, if just appearing unseen is all it took to not exist, how could anyone even be scammed by phishers or traditional con rings or even a lousy roofer  if schemers don’t exist around you because you haven’t seen them…yet?

For such reasoning, I continue to press on in pursuit of any proofs where social Darwinians claim any society at all can evolve without need of even a Linnaeus-like physically observable and recordable set of necessaries beyond echo-chamber opinion.  

One understands the social Darwinian position is that religion is but a common innate self-projection in all humanity, with any religion being but an excuse for enabling one collective to suppress or conquer another(s) through singular action or in combination with allies…in the social and intellectual/martial pursuit of mere survival of the fittest, with one system or religion easily cast off as long as a replacement of any nature exists. To such Darwinists Christianity is “expendable” as they portray it no longer suits the European and Americas’ geopolitical interests to be perceived Christian, due to Christianity simply having been Europe’s and the entire Western Hemisphere’s way of advancing their own genetic competitions against the rest of the world.

Where Christianity expressed through the New Testament is religiously responded to in the nature of emulating earliest Christians, is practiced by diverse nationalities and ethnicities together such that ALL humanity is important (including LBGT, believers, and non-believers), and logical prudence leads simply to a common dignity-respecting ethics toward and between all humans regardless of faith or absence thereof, obviously such Christian response is neither epigenetic nor antagonistic against interests of atheists, different beliefs, or racial and national diversity. Throughout all relevant history and into today, many Christians worldwide have always held and currently do hold such ethics are the crux of the New Testament, on spiritual concept practicing it increases one’s odds of an eternal life of progress, while refusing to practice it or warping it for one’s own interests increases odds of an eternity in none too enjoyable environs.

Simply put, for many Christians, the only “epigenetic” interest there has ever been is detached from the world described by Darwin (whether or not humans are held subjects of ethology)and applies wholly to post-mortem eternity…a complete reaction to the Divine, not to any human collective of any singular or combined earthly “competition”.

When this is pointed out, many Darwinists ignore it and latch on to historically atypical errata to support claims Christianity is nonetheless a very cunning façade for multi-ethnic geopolitics, claiming: Latin Americans, assorted Caucasians, African-Americans, and other racial people band together in traditional religions under the banner of being Christ’s “royal priesthood”; this eclectic royal laity engages in such acts as putting New Testament verse numbers on military rifles to “remind” Muslims, atheists, or anyone at all not part of their number who’s boss; such laity pushes around their own kind(s) or shuns them when in need, as somehow being more sinful and experiencing God’s disdain, and only  wayward Americans ever need help; such laity fear LBGT rights on ground their children will fail to be maximized offspring for catching “lifestyles” from any LBGT allowed to openly be part of society; and such laity will play to instinctive charity yet stand against even more of their own ethnic immigrants coming into their economy for no better purpose than keeping more for themselves and offspring.

Thus Darwinists cling to such examples, and submerge the ethics-intensive Christians in favor of faith-funded or outright government-regulated traditional Christian clergy willing to render the faith epiphenomenal (good-sounding but casually ineffective, in need of re-thinking so expressions become “more globally idea-inclusive”), with claim the faith bringing them to their ordinations is absolute hogwash and thus superstition at best(as ALL faiths were always claimed to be by governments regulating them)…ethics then being certainly no form of expression or belief manifestation worthy of ANY nation’s ear or protection, as anything any Christian on earth says is at best psychology plied to upgrade one’s own or one’s offspring’s earthly holdings.

What seems worth pointing out is that social Darwinists (and clergy offering to accept money for opining in support of Darwinists) are actually arguing for the enforced epigenetic demands of foreign faith regulators…be they British Crown, Canadian Provincial, Pakistani or Afghani government, Russian or Chinese government, or otherwise…with Darwinists being the elite necessary to shepherd the superstitious or pugnacious West into a culture less worried about themselves than accommodating the leaders of “more evolved” faith leadership concepts (made to stabilize their own cultures on such leaders’ epigenetic terms and not necessarily involving ethics, and without relevant Western Darwinist concern reciprocal global statisms continually show no true evolution of any society).  

Social Darwinians certainly are entitled to their opinions. But in the United States of America, and under various international declarations, I and those similarly interested may hold to our belief and expression that the ethics-driven peaceful Christianity we live is a metaphysically viable religious belief, and USA social Darwinians would be exercising undue setting of orthodoxy by requiring any such Christian (or any religious or secular analogous other person) to confess their faith is purely epigenetic, or contrary to social progresses, or both.

Some Christian religious have a penchant for swaggering in the name of Jesus without concern for the feelings or rights of others (or for prudence), and without regard for how it makes their own or all religious look...sometimes such religious are part of a dualistic philosophy so they can remain clergy but appease public policies requiring Christianity to be portrayed as a mere epigenetic, anthropomorphized Darwinian projection. 

John Money as a psychologist criticized the view that categories of mental disorder are only a codification of social morals; his research appears to have indicated that paraphilia occurs among both straight and LBGT people, a paraphilia being some thing (e.g., one type of clothing) or some other issue (e.g., rape) which must be present for straight or LBGT satisfaction; see “Lovemaps” (1986) or “Gay, Straight, and In-Between: The Sexology of Erotic Orientation” (1988), Oxford University Press, both by Money.