Religious Exemption Letter to Injections of a Particular Nature

                         

What is Man? Mario Chamorro and I differ on the answer. 

Preface: My employer has been really good about this so far. They appear to be doing what is necessary to comply with what they feel they are obligated to do, but are not going beyond it with the fervor of some corporations. That said, they have instructed us to prepare and have ready any exemption letters we may have and I have done as they instructed. Mine is below...

Dear (REDACTED),

I have greatly enjoyed serving (REDACTED) and our client for the projects to which I have been assigned. I believe that I have served well, and brought credit upon (REDACTED) for hiring me. Nevertheless, I object on religious grounds to each of the three injections which the present administration of the federal government is attempting to force upon the very people that any government must rely on- its productive workers. I am writing in order to obtain a religious exemption from (REDACTED) in order to continue my service to this company. It is my hope and belief that the client will be amenable to this request.

Each person will have their own way of documenting the sincerity and depth of their religious viewpoints. Perhaps the easiest way for me to do so is to point out that I have authored a book on early Genesis that runs over four-hundred pages in length. You may or may not agree with the conclusions I come to, but I do hope that you will acknowledge the depth and sincerity of my religious convictions.

In evaluating the substances which the present administration is attempting to coerce me into injecting into my body under the threat of impoverishment for me, my wife, and our three children, it should be noted that one of the injections is not like the others. The Johnson and Johnson vaccine does not use the same methods as the Pfizer or Moderna injections. Although I have religious objections to all three, my reasons are different for the Johnson and Johnson vaccine as compared to the other two.

As a part of my religious convictions, I favor respect for innocent human life and regret the prevalence of abortion in America. If they have to happen, we still don’t have to profit off of them. And we surely don’t have to inject products produced from the same into our bodies! I can document the sincerity of these convictions not only by producing a long list of pro-life political candidates to whose campaigns I contributed, but also by the accounts in another book I wrote- my political autobiography. 

It is my understanding that the Johnson and Johnson vaccine uses aborted fetal cells in all three stages; creation, manufacture and testing. The other two only used such cells in testing. In perfect frankness, using them in testing is more of a gray area for me. The substance could still exist without the testing.

Not so in the case of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. They are intrinsically bound. The product could not exist without aborted fetal material. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience take an injection derived from such sources. I am astounded that I should even have to write a letter in order to say so, it should be so obviously a matter of conscience.

The other two vaccines operate by a different and novel principle. Indeed, the CDC changed the definition of vaccine just this past September. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” It is doubtful that the action of the Pfizer and Moderna products would even meet the CDC’s definition of “vaccine” prior to this change.

This is because these substances are not “products that stimulate a person’s immune system to produce immunity” like every past vaccine. Rather, these preparations change the human genetic material itself in such a way that our own bodies produce spike proteins like those in the initial version of the COVID-19 virus. Our immune system is then stimulated by the newly-engineered products of our co-opted genomic material.

Unlike vaccines of the past and present, the product in the original injection doesn’t stimulate our immune system, rather it changes us so that our own bodies would stimulate our immune system. If they hadn’t changed the definition, it would not be accurate to even label the Pfizer and Moderna injections as “vaccines” because they don’t directly stimulate our immune systems, rather they change us in such a way that we stimulate them.

It is my contention that what is happening here is more than an inoculation against COVID-19. It is also an initiation into what amounts to a new quasi-religion. One that has a view of man that is the polar opposite of that of classical Christianity. That quasi-religion is “transhumanism”. It turns people into unwitting practitioners of a belief system incompatible with the Christian faith.

In Christianity, man is a creation of God, capable of bearing the very Image of God, and the pinnacle of His creation. Though it is understood that we fall short of His glory, we are but for a little while lower than the angels as it says in the Psalms. This life is just the test, and we look forward to new bodies from God in the resurrection. If humans are to be more than they are now, it will be the gift of God.

Transhumanism holds the exact opposite assumptions about the nature of man. That man is the product of imperfect natural forces, there is nothing special about him other than his ability to shape things by his own power. And they would apply that power to the human form itself, using technology to produce “humanity 2.0”. Indeed, it would be considered an ethical imperative to use man’s power to change in order to change man himself into something they deem better. They would cure us of perceived human imperfections by making us into something else, something greater. By our own wisdom and power, not God’s.

Some even speculate on ways that we could escape the limitations of our own bodies in death. In direct contrast to Christian ideas, they want to elevate us to god-like beings in our own strength. They would have us put an end to death not through the grace of God, but the technology of man.

I want to emphasize that I am not against the use of science and technology on a restorative basis. If for example, someone has lost their sight because of a genetic defect which fails to produce a necessary protein, by all means we should correct that unruly part of nature which is responsible for this terrible result and introduce genes able to make the protein. I would argue that we have a moral duty to do so if we can. But this is not making them something other than what they were meant to be, it is simply healing them so that normal human function is restored in some area. We are not trying to re-make man into some other form in doing so, merely returning him to a condition more typical of our type.

We may have a moral duty to use technology to restore normal human capabilities, but this isn’t what these two COVID-19 injections do. Rather, they give us a capacity which is not natural to humans. It is on a tiny scale what transhumanists want on a large scale. It is the first step to being re-made by science and technology. I for one do not wish to be re-made. I don’t wish to participate in what amounts to their quasi-religious practices.

I do not have any special knowledge as to the motives of those at the highest levels of our government who selected these vaccines and are pursuing these policies. I know that many prominent and rich people are sympathetic to Transhumanist-ideals, but I am not saying that the selection of these particular vaccines is necessarily a ploy to condition the population participate in, and by habit accept the premises of, transhumanism. But I don’t need to know motives in order to judge actions.

In practical terms, this is the effect of their polices, which run counter to two-thousand years of Christian beliefs. Once people have been conditioned into practicing transhumanism by taking a battery of such genomic-altering products, transhumanists win the war of ideas without any ideas being considered. Any contrary theological objection Christians may have would be undermined without an intellectual shot being fired.

Again, I am not privy to the private motivations of those behind these policies. At the same time, the fervor and even fanaticism with which these injections are being forced upon the unwilling is consistent with religious motivations.

By now it is clear that these vaccines are failures. They don’t stop one from getting or spreading the disease. New permutations of the virus easily evade them. What immunizing effects they have are largely temporary. Regions with 90% plus vaccination rates are still seeing an explosion of new cases in the vaccinated. One might argue that they have a moderate effect on reducing fatalities among the infected, but no more so than that demonstrated by safer and time-tested products whose use the government is falling all over itself to suppress. Add to this that the benefits of the well-supported scientific concept of natural immunity are ignored in all their policies.

So while I have no definitive evidence of what would in effect be a conspiracy to condition the population to accept and unwittingly practice transhumanism, their actions are difficult to explain outside of some ulterior motive. Indeed, the more obvious it becomes that the vaccines are a failure, the more strident their efforts to pressure people to comply become. I don’t know that a quasi-religious belief in transhumanist ideas among the elites is responsible, but something must explain this increasingly bizarre and otherwise irrational behavior.

My spiritual forebears risked life and limb for refusing to participate in an innocuous act of burning incense to a statue of the emperor in a support of a state-belief system. From that spark developed the concept of human liberty and freedom which proved a blessing to the people of the west for centuries afterward. I intend to follow in their footsteps. I appeal for a religious exemption from this vaccine mandate.

                                                                                                Respectfully,

 

                                                                                                Mark M. Moore

***********************************

The books which I mention in the piece

    You Tube Channel 

Chimp Genes Function Differently, Even if the DNA is the same

 

The headline declares "New Technique Underlies Genes in Human Evolution".

Strange how perspectives differ. They assume all of the differences, no matter how many they find, are due to "evolution".  I think the article highlights how different humans are from chimps, even if the genes seem identical. The article said they found "thousands" of genes that operate or regulate differently in human brains than in chimp brains. Well, we have maybe 30,000 protein-producing genes total. If "thousands" of them were found to operate differently (even if the underlying gene is identical) then the differences in humans and chimps functionally must be much greater than the 1.5% figure so often cited.

To use an analogy, it is almost like the gene has the job of building a carburetor. Same gene, if put in a push-mower builds one type of carb and the same gene if put in a Corvette builds another. How it expresses is coming from somewhere else. So it doesn't even matter if the genes are "98.5% identical". The gene somehow just says "build a carburetor", what that carburetor looks like depends on other things.  

Ergo, that the parts are the same does not at all demand natural evolution from a common ancestor any more than Briggs and Stratton and a 3.6 liter automobile engine must have even the same designer!
They have put jellyfish genes in mice and developed glowing mice. It isn't because they are closely related, but because the 'language' works. If I insert a word, "lavender" in one story from another in a place where color is a factor, it can still work even if the two stories were not in the same series or about the same subjects. That's because they were written in an intelligently, if haphazardly, designed code called "English". 

The more we learn, the less important similarities in chimpanzee vs human DNA seems to get. 

*****
The book is mostly not about evolution vs. creation, indeed part of it explains how most of the conflict is a false on. It is about something way more important than that- how early Genesis points to the work and person of Christ!

    You Tube Channel 

Gobekli Tepe is Much Younger than 12,000 Years

 

Many are familiar with the fantastic site of Gobekli Tepe in south-central Turkey. It is very near one area where I speculated the original garden of Eden was located. There is little doubt it is near to where true agriculture and animal domestication originated. It appears to have been a religious center where a series of large enclosed but roofless temples were constructed, used, and then deliberately buried over and over for a long period of time. 

The researcher who first popularized the site, a man named Schmidt, claimed that the site dated from the tenth millennium B.C., that is up to 12,000 years old. That date always bothered me a bit for reasons I will describe later. People like to think they have found "the oldest site of its kind" rather than say, the "the fifth oldest site of its kind". Researchers are humans and humans tend to look at the evidence in ways that are best for them. It turns out that the "tenth millennium B.C." date has been contested for years. We just don't know about the research because science media is so terrible and sensationalistic. 

A researcher named Dimitrios S. Dendrinos wrote a paper in 2016 claiming Gobekli Tepe was a much younger site, and was ignored. But the evidence kept coming in. He wrote a paper in 2021 making the case that Gobekli Tepe was a sixth millennium B.C. site. His logic is strong 

It is hard to date stone structures. So they got the date from dating things in the earth that was used to fill the structures when they were buried, and also some plaster that covered one of the pillars. The problem with that is that the dirt used to fill and cover could be much older than the structure itself. You can't use the oldest dirt you find in a fill to date the fill, the best you can do is find the youngest. In addition. the type of plaster they dated at the site is extremely prone to contamination. It is is buried from dirt that contained ashes from a campfire 12, 000 years ago, both the dirt and the plaster will show an C-14 date of 12,000 years even if the structure that was buried was much younger than that. 

Dendrinos dates Gobekli Tepe to the mid-sixth millennium B.C. In other words, around 5500 B.C. He does this by comparing the complexity of the structures and certain symbols found at the site to surrounding sites that are more firmly dated. It really makes sense that they would not start out with the most lavish and gigantic form at the beginning. 

Now onto why I found this of such interest. The focus of each enclosure was two immense T-shaped pillars. One of them was given anthropomorphic carvings, the other had carvings representing many animals. I had suggested in my book on Early Genesis that there is a connection between the two pillars which are central to each enclosure at this site and the "two trees" that were at the center of the garden of Eden. The ceremonies at Gobekli Tepe would then represent an attempt to "re-do" the garden with a more favorable result, choosing the Tree of Life (the God figure) over the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. As each attempt failed, they would bury it, construct a new one, and try it again for their generation. Please don't be confused because I am writing as if there were other people around besides Adam and Eve. I believe that scripture teaches this, and this video gives some of the reasons why. 

What had been nagging at me was the extremely ancient age ascribed to the original structures. Perhaps you have heard reports saying that this site was constructed around 10,000 B.C., or twelve thousand years ago. Others tried to pin it down a bit more and say 11,300 years ago or about 9,300 B.C. 

These dates are very early if what we see at Gobekli Tepe is indeed a response to Adam's fall. I consider the dates for Adam in the Masoretic text (4004 B.C.) to be too young. The numbers in the Septuagint (about 5,500 B.C.) may be correct, but it is also possible that these are only theoretical minimum dates for reasons I describe in this video. I suggested in my book that Adam could have lived as early as 10,587 B.C., but this near the extreme end of the possible range and I was really thinking a date sometime between this date and the Septuagint date of 5,500 B.C. would be more probable. Low and behold, along comes this paper pushing the date for Gobekli Tepe to quite near the Septuagint date for Adam. 

    You Tube Channel