They may think they can out smart the world and its intelligence agencies playing this strategy of multiple identities and dividing the good and bad roles accordingly. But they actually only out smarted themselves and it is better for the killing and cruelty to stop because these atrocities are being added to the tab of the whole group and not only the part showing these bad actions. The idiots don't know that those on the other side invented the good-bad combination strategy in here.  

But, if true, is this the first time they used such strategy with a short sighted view to the future consequences it can bring? Or is this a repetition to how they also thought that the consequences of things they caused in Iraq wont affect them but then paid a long term heavy price for it when the United States found it hard to bring itself to help them against the dictator when they needed that help? 

There are things that seem to suggest with significant probability that some in Syria has been playing the dual identity game using the group currently in the news to carry their savage criminality without it being counted on them. If true, then they would be very stupid to expect such a game to pass on the CIA and its equivalent agencies in other countries. While innocent people shouldn't be held responsible for such games played by these groups, it would still be more helpful to the later to let the dictator's regime be on the lesser scale of morality. Or could it be that they played a show of the abduction and saving of the NBC reporter claiming it on the dictator and think it really passed on the intelligence agencies of the world?

You want to know how the religious standing of a group like the one currently in the news these days may feel to a Muslim not sick or savage like those in a group like that? What if that same group was claiming that they fight with instead of against the American forces? How directly contradictory to the facts such a claim would be? That is the level of direct contradiction and externality to the religion their religious standing claims feel. Even if we start from a level away from why they are fighting and killing, where in Islam it says that someone can be held responsible for the actions of others? Where does it say that you can take hostages let alone killing them? More than that, as it relates to their recent savagery crime, killing a messenger has always been showing the level of criminality and savagery everywhere. A news reporter is like a messenger with the additional benefit to you of being a messenger for you instead of just to you, doing you the favor of carrying your voice to the outside.     

Those who preferred the sewer- 2

If it were me in your position I would have asked what argument was intended to be supported by conveying such things. Otherwise I wouldn't allow to be dragged this low for no reason with a thing like that.

Also, if you couldn't see who is top and who is bottom and the level of inferiority feelings and desperation here then there is a serious deficiency with you. The conveying of the message itself here carries more significance than, and reverses, the intention behind the mere content of the message. 

You depended on the interpretations of a kid in a different house for what he is witnessing  through the walls for something like that on someone in my position? Did some kind of a cancer treatment depend on that? Otherwise, this is not even a question of lack of morality and rumor loving. This is the behaviour of someone who is held hostage to the shallowness he is unable to escape in the world.         

Those who preferred the sewer

And no, I am not referring to those turtles here.

I once told this hedge fund guy on a stock message board that, because of the ways he is coming from everywhere, I am afraid that one time I will open the toilet lid and see him inside. While he certainly cant physically fit there he nevertheless found a way to bring himself to be in an equivalent position. Anyway, everyone positions himself where he thinks he belongs. Unfortunately he was also able to drag so many followers with him to that same position making them in addition to sinking morally like him also sink intelligently. They sank at all the levels of what, where and how. They probably thought that since I do not spend my time complaining about the discrimination I see then it is reasonable to even judge the trivial claims on me in the environment where I live through any trivial means provided and for no worthy purpose. They assumed conclusions not necessarily implied by what is being conveyed which they also failed to see if it is equivalent to what they understand.Yet they did not recognize that sinking of them and instead thought that the other side should explain himself to them. But to my surprise that was not the whole story here. To my even bigger unexpected surprise, it appears that when the hedge fund guy felt failure despite sinking to that level he was able to turn that around by making a theory its acceptance despite its dependence on converting the positive to negative and lack of making sense showed astonishing levels of shallowness here.

[(Added 8/12/2014) Notice that I used "it appears" there not to express closeness in discovery time because I know much of what this guy does as he do them]

How I follow religion - 3

Notice that I did not concentrate on that issue to declare myself as an exception to what I came from because I witnessed or understood such thing as a common practice there. Actually, to the best of my judgment the watching and accountability on women is much bigger and/or much harder to be avoided in comparison. But I wrote that just in case I cause a positive thing which would cause that to be seen less negatively and reduce the will to stand against it and preventing it ,no matter how rarely or wherever they occur , because it is thought as a common practice where I came from. 

Sorry, that was the closest I was able to bring myself to what seems to be taken as part of normal life here watching others die without making any choice for that  because of something we empower but don't really need.   

Recognition of same sex marriage: Reasoned vs. Legal argument - 3

In other words, beside judging the issue at the root, the uniformity in applying the same rules on something as far as this from causing injury to others as was applied on its legal precedents is another question that needs to be dealt with justly.   

Recognition of same sex marriage: Reasoned vs. Legal argument - 2

Even when a person declares that he believes marriage should only be between different sexes that by itself does not imply a position against legal recognition for same sex marriage. That is because his believe could be based on starting from point zero while his position for legal recognition of it could be starting from after all the legal precedents that currently exist. After all, even if it comes simply as a consequence of the making of a general rule or special treatment of something it should be taken into account the everyday life common phenomenon that the making of rules anywhere may expand their application beyond what they were created for. Yes, courts , especially the final one, probably give themselves more freedom in not following rules they themselves established than they do that with statuary laws. But if I were a judge facing this issue then as much as I am required to follow already established rules made by common law as much as I may consider myself in luck for applying those rules on something that seems as far from causing injury to others as this and would question how justly I am dealing with the matter if I choose to exclude it from being treated the same way as its precedents carelessly. 

Can the Supreme Court justly take or refuse cases with this work load? -3

One could also say that because of its position as the final judiciary point the Supreme Court has a duty not only to rule on individual cases but also to rule on the effectiveness of the judicial system in applying justice as a whole through the individual cases reaching it. A significant step in that direction could be made if  simply when looking at cases for selection each of the judges of the court at least based on first impression indicates whether a non selected case deserves to be reviewed had there been sufficient time. I don't see how the justices were not formulating these first impression opinions on the fly while selecting cases but they simply don't reveal that which would cost them very little additional effort if they do. That is very much needed in order to enable all legislators to have a wider view about how effective in applying justice their judicial systems work. 

Since the Supreme Court is the final judiciary point each case reaching it has two types of defendants.One type of defendants are those mentioned in the complaint while the other is the judicial system itself. In other words stating the deficiency of the judicial system on the basis of individual cases would not push the court away from its judicial rule.

Recognition of same sex marriage: Reasoned vs. Legal argument

Unlike the issue of guns and firearms my main concern here was about the process itself and not the end result. It sounded to me as if some where fighting for their existence not to be lost by fusing it with that of the world through the removal of the borderline between the two. It sounded to me as if the line between forcing that a table should not be used as a chair and forcing recognizing (although there still could be different meanings for the word "recognizing" here) it as a chair was not being seen clearly and to me each of those exists in its own universe. But that had a big part of it based on the common moral and reasoned arguments I hear for the issue and when I started trying to get into the legal part I began to recognize that there seem to be a different argument. I recognized that even courts that ruled for such recognition were not necessarily all fans of it but may not have found a way out of previous rulings on discrimination based on sex and interpretations of the 14th amendment.

So while I am not convinced with the reasoned and moral (the one related to rights) arguments or even those related to the degree of need by same sex couples for such recognition these were not themselves my concern when I wrote about the issue. On the other hand as much as such recognition is based on legal bases,even if through loopholes, as much as the concern I had is not an issue.   

Can the Supreme Court justly take or refuse cases with this work load? -2

The fact that cases not taken by the Supreme Court do not seem to be cited legally as an agreement with lower courts decisions or a significant probability for such agreement , suggests very strongly that it is common knowledge that time constraint is a factor in selecting cases that more often than not can overwhelm the case deserve to be heard factor. Otherwise it is not possible for a final judiciary point like the Supreme Court not to rule on a case whether it take the case or not.  

Can the Supreme Court justly take or refuse cases with this work load?

It is hard not to see it as a moral duty on  Supreme Court Judges , being the final point for decisions on all complaints, to let Congress and even state legislators know if there are cases they are refusing despite deserving to be taken because of the load of work they have. With a load of work from all states and federal courts it is hard to see how the situation could be otherwise. The court can do that directly or indirectly by stating that as the reason for not taking a case whenever it applies so that Congress and other legislators can carry their duties based on such feedback. 

At least for federal courts the Constitution gave Congress the power to put as many intermediate courts as needed before reaching the Supreme one. More levels of intermediate courts would increase the chance for sufficiently handling more cases.The Supreme Court shouldn't support keeping such deficiency in the judicial system by abstaining from giving a required feedback in that regard. One could also say that being the final point for the judiciary system also puts the court in the position of monitoring the performance of that system in applying justice and through that apply the moral responsibility of such position on the court  .

   

Same Sex Marriage Vs. The Civil Rights Movement - 2

It seems very probable that the argument questioning why the marriage recognition should not also include other things like groups (which ironically seems to be strengthened better with same sex recognition itself because it allows for every member in the group to be married to every other member) can be expanded to other processes where the type of sex or gender is also an essential part of the process and that in turn can also be expanded to other processes where things other than the sex or gender are the essential parts.

Same Sex Marriage Vs. The Civil Rights Movement

I think that seeing the demand for recognition of same sex marriage as similar to the demands of the civil rights movement is erroneous at least because of these two substantial differences. First, with the civil rights movement it is very clear that the difference in color was not an essential factor allowing or disallowing the same rights or treatments to one group and not the other but was clearly superimposed on that process. The same thing clearly cannot be said about the issue of same sex marriage where the issue being contested , the difference in sex, is  a very essential part to the level that the process would need a redesign to fit the demanding entity.

Second, the civil rights movement demand was also a formula that showed the reasoning path to apply that demand. It was a simple general formula applicable to not only blacks but all colored people and people from all ethnicities and origins. The same thing clearly cannot be said about same sex marriage where the demand did not show how it should be applied and left the question of why it should be applied to one group and not the others unanswered. On what basis should recognizing same sex marriage of a man to man or a woman to woman and not a group of three or more of different - or even same later- sexes stands? Why should the number be taken as more essential to the marriage than the requirement of being from different sexes? I think that human history would provide indications contrary to such understanding.

Remember that as much as there are other paths that give the same marriage rights to same sex couples using different names as much as the question here is about applying the word "marriage" on same sex couples and not about the recognition of their marriage.   

How I follow religion - 2

The first thing I want to add here is an example for what I said there about the level of proof requirement.If you tell me that I am in a land owned by you then I could accept restricting myself just in case you are right. But if you tell me to evict someone else from that land then I would require a full proof that it is your land. 

The second thing I want to say is that I simply moved to the final argument there sooner and was not conceding that there is a requirement to implement such ruling at our time according to the religion. On the contrary, the same religion that to the other side calls on them to do such acts significantly intensifies my refusal of violating the principles of justice with such action. In fact even with actions that are much less serious than taking the life of someone for no harm done to anybody, my fear of violating justice goes hand in hand with my fear of the consequences the religion put on such violation and I hardly think of these two separately.

So how could I make such argument even assuming the other side stands on something that really existed in the religion? Because the other side has left the moral security and guidance of holding on  to the core and instead attached itself to the confusing, fragmented and beyond comparison in being less established and supported parts.

Even at time when there existed a representation for God through the prophet people were not asked to do things that violates the principles of justice and religious orders were in line with   such   

principles.The religion appear to not just strongly calls on what we inside see as just and good but actually depends on recognition of that. So after all that you want me to accept to be as far as such action (even if by just accepting it) would put me far from what the principles of justice inside me calls for in time when there is only the on ink on paper on which I base my belief?

Also, how could you apply the same punishment that ,supposedly, existed at the time of the prophet on someone who did not see the same level of proof given at the time of the prophet? Can you give the same level of proof the messenger from God can? In other words, since if there is a rule calling for such action then it was made at a time when there is full certainty that this rule is from God through the proof given through the presence of the prophet, how could you assume that level of certainty is not a requirement that should be fulfilled before carrying on that rule?    

How I follow religion

It should be understood that just like any religion groups, there is no microchip forcing Muslims to follow anything just claimed on their religion or even with strong support pointing to its existence in their religion. For each his own choices.

Having said that, I want to state that, in case anyone wonder, my choice is the path of justice even assuming it contradict my religion. So don't even imagine that I would stand with things like killing gays based on religious claims. First we have the complication of how, when, by whom and under what condition to follow religious rulings. But still aside from all that, when God sends the one who can make the tree walk and the rock talk giving the ultimate proof that he represent God then I will look at things differently.Until then the path of what we honestly see and truly believe as justice (which has an enormous domain of applications in the religion anyway) is the ultimate one.

One may think because I have my reservations about applying the word "marriage" on gays counterpart of that relation that it would be more probable that someone like me would accept what  I mentioned at the beginning than those who do not have such reservations. I think that,on the contrary, there is a strong argument pointing to the opposite direction.That is because all the problems comes from not recognizing and accepting the existence of all sides at the same time. I am not sure that there isn't considerable percentage of the side who accept applying that word doing that as part of a process of denying their own existence rather than simply more openness to the other side. Such lack of toleration for the existence of the self and the other at same time is what is troubling here.In other words, such acceptance could be stemming from a refusal to the existence of the other side which transformed itself to the process of refusal of the existence of the self with the other side.