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 belief system is purely epigenetic, or contrary to social progresses, or both.
