In other words, there is no such thing as a true, fixed interpretation of a religion or ideology

Well, it's hard to interpret Islam as anything BUT hypocritical.

Here is my Tetris implementation:

a()

However, it only works on custom Javascript interpreters which have a global a() function that implements a full game of Tetris.

The fix is to remove the police campaign abilities

100% agree, but Theresa May (alone) isn't "the problem" - she's just Home Secretary. I can't remember in my lifetime ANY Home Secretaries that have given a shit about civil liberties. Either they're weak-willed and cave into ACPO as you said, or they're strong willed and think up the Orwellian ideas themselves (think David Blunkett, Michael Howard). There's no such thing as a good Home Secretary.

Supplement with wind and solar (in fact, even replace completely with wind and solar if the technology advances to the point at which it's practical to do so

Why? When you get to safe nuclear fission and even nuclear fusion, there's pretty much NO benefit to using wind and solar. They provide small amounts of power with an unreliable baseload, and we have enough nuclear material to keep us in nuclear power for 100000s of years.

Well-regulated nuclear power is green energy, in my book.

In short, I have every respect for Islam, but I have nothing but disrespect for your way of thinking of your religion. Fuck you you backwards ignorant tribal assholes. You don't stand for Islam. Any REAL Muslim with REAL CONFIDENCE in their religion would not care what some doubtful journalist tweets. Any cowardly, spineless, and completely without confidence person, who does not represent anything good about Islam, would get upset so easily.

You don't understand Islam. If you did, you wouldn't have any respect for it. The Saudis are practising Islam 'correcly'.

Communistic regimes have been another subset of totalitarianism, as religion is. It is the totalitarian nature of various murderous Communist regimes (worship and follow a leader or a small set of leaders unquestioningly) that has caused deaths, not the fact that it was a non-religious version of totalitarianism.

Hey, lawyers: You Forgot Poland!

... and before virtually every mainstream reporter started automatically condemning any violence (certainly any shooting). Basically, you fire a gun at an important person, and you get arrested and never allowed to partake in free society again.

Our social interactions have become a perverted version of what we've evolved for, and patterns of interaction through technology abuse the neurological mechanisms responsible for controlling communication and other social aspects of the mind

I don't really understand why modern social interactions are 'preverting' or 'abusing' our evolutionary neurological mechanisms. Care to expand on that? It seems to me that we're communicating in different ways, and over greater distances... but that doesn't really mean your statement is true.

Our morals/ethics are not equipped for situations that have no analogy whatsoever to anything in our evolutionary past. If we extend ourselves, we would have to extend our morals and ethics too, and the latter extension is basically arbitrary.

Virtually all of our morals and ethics beyond "don't kill too many people" (which must be hardwired into the surviving because the others died when they killed each other) are an arbitrary creation of culture. I think you could even make a (relatively miserable) society survive with a morality that stealing and raping was OK. It would just be far from the most happy society - as indeed today's societies are in many ways.