someone had a great thing to say of the religions, that you are either punished or rewarded for eternity based on what you did in the 70-100 years of life on earth.
really puts things into perspective how the real life that we lead on earth is the one that really matters, and not the false afterlife narrative of the religions.
The Islamic faith has no central religious authority like the Vatican and the Pope. Historically the Pope and other canon lawyers churned out hundreds of laws and guidelines over the centuries and corrected older laws. The Islamic faith hasnāt got an institution like that so no one could possible change it based on authority alone. So what this leads too is the fiction that every Muslim adheres to this 1400-something year old book to the letter, which sadly some do. However interpretation of the text is also allowed which is what the lion share of the followers do eg. people whose body and mind are both in the 21st century do. This might seem somewhat dogmatic but remember no every society of people is keen on putting all rules on paper and changing them every decade. In effect the Queen of England owns every square inch of England and all other people living there are just living on her land as lenders. In America you could still try to invoke your right to settle a legal dispute in trial by combat because no one bothered writing down such a thing is prohibited.
All that said, no state in the middle east just for some rogue businessmen in Saudi Arabia seem to like ISIS very much and for the common people they arenāt even Muslims. Now they get their assets bombed to hell by a coalition of most countries in the Middle East risking that they themselves become target for terrorists. So in a few weeks/months all is good and well and perhaps someone is willing to make a reprint of the Quran.
Anyways here is some old Canonical law for giggles. This is part of the old testament being used to justify the enslavement of black people in the early modern period. Bound by historical context in a way but used creatively a few millennium after it was supposedly written down.
[quote]"20 Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; 21 and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their fatherās nakedness. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
"Cursed be Canaan;
A slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers." 26 He also said, āBlessed by the Lord my God be Shem; and let Canaan be his slave. God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave.ā[/quote]
Above makes the old testament as valid as the new one.
And then there is this.
Now some fourth Lateran council stuff
Canon 67
canon 68
[quote]In some provinces a difference in dress distinguishes the Jews or Saracens from the Christians, but in certain others such a confusion has grown up that they cannot be distinguished by any difference. Thus it happens at times that through error Christians have relations with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews and Saracens with Christian women. Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress. Particularly, since it may be read in the writings of Moses [Numbers 15:37-41], that this very law has been enjoined upon them.
Moreover, during the last three days before Easter and especially on Good Friday, they shall not go forth in public at all, for the reason that some of them on these very days, as we hear, do not blush to go forth better dressed and are not afraid to mock the Christians who maintain the memory of the most holy Passion by wearing signs of mourning.
This, however, we forbid most severely, that any one should presume at all to break forth in insult to the Redeemer. And since we ought not to ignore any insult to Him who blotted out our disgraceful deeds, we command that such impudent fellows be checked by the secular princes by imposing them proper punishment so that they shall not at all presume to blaspheme Him who was crucified for us.[/quote]
And then you got two more councils describing how to deal with the infidel, wicked, heretic and ungodly. Actually itās rather interesting what the Church wrote down in Canon law and majority seems really awesome for people back then. They were basically lawful evil socialists.
Another thing to mention. Most Christians reject Catholicism as being true Christianity. Then you add the multitude of Catholics that reject the papacy. You donāt see this sort of Division in Islam. The only division in Islam are the āmoderatesā who donāt read the Quran. The āModeratesā, who agree with Islam, but wonāt act on their faith, and the ātrue believersā who read the Quran and practice what they preach. When you come down to it thereās not really much division at all. You donāt see large groups of Muslims rejecting the true believers. You can argue āwell theyād be killed if they didā which also happens if they leave Islam. Then I would counter argue āThatās shows how messed up Islam isā
I am pretty sure that anno 2014 Catholicism is the biggest of the different subsets of Christianity due to an immense decline in protestants. And Islam has two large branches which is the root of this whole ISIS thing.
Anyways Islam is not my cup of tea either but that does not mean we should forcefully extinguish it. You canāt forbid ideologies or form a thought police, only when people act on ideaās that go against the principles of a democratic rechtsstaat can we act against them.
I take it you are unfamiliar with Appalachian fundamentalism, Pentacostal snake handlers, and other versions of āI keel j00ā rampant in fringe/extremist chistianity.
The point remains the point - humans love dichotomy for its ability to assuage their egosā¦ The root fallacy is that superiority actually matters in the construct of belief systems. Personally, I think we are worse than animals in this; both evolutionarily blocked and quite content to be so, it seems.
Well hereās a dichotomy, I agree and disagree with you. Youāre right Iām unfamilar with Appalachian fundamentalism, and Iām only vaguely familiar with pentecostal snake handlers (which means the must be barely visible or extremely rare). Though I disagree weāre certainly not worse than animals. Because we have the ability to create. Animals are limited in that ability we on the other hand are unshackled by limitation. In that respect we are almost like gods.
@Dushin I disagree. Iām all for freedom of religion, however if a religion makes itself an enemy to a nation that nation has the right to defend itself, by simply not welcoming that religion into its nation. Not saying have a witch hunt, but ban establishments, offer people a one way ticket to a country that accepts them. But Iām a practical realistic intellectual and society has a right and a nation has a duty to protect its citizens from threats foreign and domestic.
@Dekssan Alot of the space in those countries they took are villages and deserts/hills/forests. Also, the Military in those zones is doing a bad Job. (As example:The People of Donesk are holding quite a big area against a Military that has been geared with American weapons.) Also, ISIS uses American weapons and vehicles and tanks. Iāve never heard about big riots from only muslims, please send me a link to something to back ur claim up.
Your āPeople of Doneskā is russian army so no big surprise they are hoding their ground 
Feel free to google for more, even more recent ones.
clearly humans are animals because theāre alive and they sure arenāt plants. Judging how good or bad other animals are compared to humans by human standards seems like a really stupid idea. There is no inheritly good or bad without human standards. Gods are clearly a human idea, so humans being closer to something they made up to feel good about themselfs doesnāt seem very meaningful.
Hm. No, a dichotomy is division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups; usually in a context where only one may be chosen. What you have is conflicting perspectives in relation to whether or not you can completely say Iām ārightā or āwrongā; but, since itās perspective/opinion, itās all good. 
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but animals are territorial only because they need a claim to attract/secure food and mating rights. Humans definitely are worse than animals on this count as we purport to help others while actively subsuming them and it isnāt a matter of literal survival as much as it is an egotistical sense of entitlement, divine right, or some other human-constructed context of rationalization to crowd out reason (contextually consistent with the discussion rather than veering away from it).
If we are in any way superior to animals, it is only to the extent we can dominate them and the environment in which both they and we liveā¦ and frankly, if you think on it, thatās really not saying a lot given that weāre doing a pretty good job of killing them (the animals) off and, in the process, creating a situation through which the planet will be increasingly unable to sustain us as a species. (Note that I distinctly do NOT claim weāre destroying the planet; that would be arroganceā¦ weāre destroying itās capacity to sustain us at a level of reasonable existence, which is quite a different thing.)
Religion doesnāt make itself an enemy to a nation; people do that and use religion as a poor attempt at justification.
And, to be clear, ALL religions do this and ALL of them have their extremists that make any one religionās assertions of any semblance of āsuperiorityā laughable at best and, candidly, self-absorbed to the point of being sociopathic at worst.
The idea that any single religion on this planet has cornered the market on extremism is specious; the insistence that some objective case for the assertion may be made is hyperbole, and the only people I ever see pursuing such efforts seem to have a strikingly stubborn confirmation biasā¦ usually rooted in a deep fear and insecurity that any alien belief is, simply by virtue of existence, an inevitable threat to self.
Thank you, but no thank you, and again, I thank you notā¦ pluralism is preferred here.
and is domination a bad thing? Ok, we could delve into the discussion of species and philosophy, however thatās a topic for another thread. I apologize for responding to your comments tangenting further.
Hm. Riddle me this, Mr. Madaras - why is it that domination is āa good thingā for you, your beliefs, etc, but āa bad thingā for those who believe differently than you do?
This is why domination is a bad thing - it is dichotomous by nature and, therefore, can only create more dichotomy.
Capiche?
Well then thatās where we agree to disagree.
Itās something of a slippery slope to expel people on basis of religion. Especially when the host nation is not of one unified religion either and I donāt think abandoning principles which kept this country afloat for 400+ years is the right thing to do.
@Dekssan Nice, you give me 10 year old proof. Ukraine Army is also American mercenarys, so that equals it. People of Donetsk (Russian volunteers) vs Ukraine Army (American Mercenarys) Kinda funny how russians beat americans.
You probably accidentally missed that YT vid from 2014. Wiki is just a cherry on the top.
And russian volunteers ā¦ on vacation, oh yeah, we know (you are just joking, right?)
Vostok battalion, russian/chechenyan volunteers. Now, my question is, why do you bring up āon vacationā, war is not vacation, maybe you donāt know. Thereās a big difference between vacation and war. Google it.
Why? You should pay more attention to your comrades. Itās hilarious and bitter at the same time.
Putin has denied that Moscow has sent regular troops to fight in Ukraine, but pro-Russian rebels have said that many Russian soldiers have volunteered while āon vacationā.
Among us are fighting serving soldiers, who would rather take their vacation not on a beach but with us, among brothers, who are fighting for their freedom," said Zakharchenko in an interview posted on Vesti.ru, the Internet site of a Russian state television station.
Well, isnāt it good? You guys ('Muricans) get paid for destroying nations, we help them.
Yeah, we have been helped in 1968 as wellā¦ please stop helping that way.
Also disagree with your comparation of āhow russians beat americansā. Russia is much more involved than anyone. Especially with thier ālittle green menā aka freikorps.
You only need to view this thread to realize how much propaganda is spewed out by national news on either side.
Canāt we all just agree that Ukraine is being used as a playground by the US and Russian fighting something resembling a proxy war?
PS, the American mercenary thing sounds like bullshit. Iāve heard there are a few volunteers but I doubt Ukraine would be able to hire mercenaries with their current budget, never mind the fact that those guys hardly posses more than to take on rebels groups in the middle east.
