Atheist Alexander Aan jailed today in Indonesia

robindch

Irish Islamic Vanguards wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Well, my religion requires me to spike the drinks of every person I see regardless of age, to force all kids I meet to eat rashers and to throw stones at men who wear religious clothing or have beards. Do you support me in my right to practice my religion in all spheres unimpeded?

Yawn

Would you like to answer the question, or would you prefer to admit, by default if you don't reply, that your claim that "the right to practice [...] religion in all spheres unimpeded" is preposterous?

Serves him right trying to push his non beliefs down people's throats.

Since all religions are based on false gods, no laws should take religion into consideration except to ensure people have the right to worship their false gods.
I guess i better not head to Indonesia anytime soon!

Rev Hellfire

Irish Islamic Vanguards wrote: »

I guess what is being requested here is that you observe Irish law in dealing with Muslims. Article 44 clearly allows for the free practice of religion in the public sphere, however the application of Irish law impinges on that right in so many different ways.

Absolutely, but each article in the constitution does not exist separately but rather as a complementary whole. Hence article 44 does not provide religion with a trump card but one which is tempered within the bounds of Irish law and constitution as a whole.

For example whilst the death penalty may be demanded by a religion exercising article 44 it is prohibited by the 21st amendment.

Irish Islamic Vanguards

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Irish Islamic Vanguards wrote: »

That of course would be a community decision, not that of an individual. But off hand I should imagine sharia compliant contracts, marriage and social affairs would be a start toward the inclusiveness that Muslims deserve. Remember, we are asking for no more or less than the constitution offers - the right to practice our religion in all spheres unimpeded.

That's a pretty ambiguous answer. Can you be more specific?

What is it about the current legislative environment which needs to be changed regarding the issues above.

You are already guaranteed by the constitution the freedom of religion. What consitutional amendments are you suggesting?

You know it's really strange that you're talking about inclusiveness for Muslims in society while demanding that the law treats you differently.

Irish law and society already treats us differently by not making provision for religious conviction in the public sphere. The fact that Muslims must adhere to laws that are religiously at odds with belief is in fact a breach of the constitutional commitment to respect and religious freedom. I'd like to see changes and perhaps more autonomy with regard to the application of sharia within our community. Again, no more or less than the constitution affords us.

oldrnwisr

Irish Islamic Vanguards wrote: »

Irish law and society already treats us differently by not making provision for religious conviction in the public sphere. The fact that Muslims must adhere to laws that are religiously at odds with belief is in fact a breach of the constitutional commitment to respect and religious freedom. I'd like to see changes and perhaps more autonomy with regard to the application of sharia within our community. Again, no more or less than the constitution affords us.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear with my previous posts. Allow me to repeat the question.

What laws in this country are impinging on your religious beliefs and in what way?

Specifics please.

robindch

Irish Islamic Vanguards wrote: »

The fact that Muslims must adhere to laws that are religiously at odds with belief is in fact a breach of the constitutional commitment to respect and religious freedom.

Would you like to answer the question I've asked twice above?

Or would you prefer to admit defeat by not answering?

Galvasean

Sarky wrote: »

That's not a valid response to a yes or no question. Why so afraid of answering?

It's quite obvious why he (and many other Muslims when put under the same spotlight) are reluctant to answer; because if they were to answer truthfully and unambiguously the barbarism of their religion would be exposed and no right thinking member of a civilized society would support their views.

Dades wrote: »

I'm not really sure what you hope to achieve posting here, tbh. You're unlikely to find a more vehement opposition to what you suggest anywhere on Boards - with the exception of After Hours (I wouldn't go there!).

On the contrary, I would strongly recommend a visit to After Hours to see how the Irish laypeople respond to such motives (not just us snoot atheists in our ivory towers). While he's at it I would also recommend a trip to the politics forum as there are plenty of people there with great knowledge of the Irish law system who I'm sure could offer interesting insights on his position.

Irish Islamic Vanguards

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Irish Islamic Vanguards wrote: »

That of course would be a community decision, not that of an individual. But off hand I should imagine sharia compliant contracts, marriage and social affairs would be a start toward the inclusiveness that Muslims deserve. Remember, we are asking for no more or less than the constitution offers - the right to practice our religion in all spheres unimpeded.

That's a pretty ambiguous answer. Can you be more specific?

What is it about the current legislative environment which needs to be changed regarding the issues above.

You are already guaranteed by the constitution the freedom of religion. What consitutional amendments are you suggesting?

You know it's really strange that you're talking about inclusiveness for Muslims in society while demanding that the law treats you differently.

I apologize for the ambiguity but as I have stated, it is a community NOT an individual concern. However, I would like to see changes to marital laws, employment laws etc. if not in wider society then certainly within our own community. I do not want Irish law telling me that I cannot have 4 wives but can have as many illegitimate partners as I want.

Sarky

How many illegitimate partners do you want? And who's forcing you to have them?

oldrnwisr

Irish Islamic Vanguards wrote: »

I apologize for the ambiguity but as I have stated, it is a community NOT an individual concern. However, I would like to see changes to marital laws, employment laws etc. if not in wider society then certainly within our own community. I do not want Irish law telling me that I cannot have 4 wives but can have as many illegitimate partners as I want.

First of all, regardless whether the sharia law decisions are made on a group or individual level, I am asking you where your rights are being infringed and how this should be changed.

Secondly, let's take marital law since you mention it. In the highlighted portion ,are you advocating legal polygamy, stoning for adultery or both? What about the Irish law position regarding divorce or rape committed by a husband against his wife?

Despite your interpretation of Article 44, the constitution offers no expectation that the law should adhere to Islamic principles.


Edit: As much as you think Article 44.2.1 gives you some kind of right to have the constitution and legislation changed to adhere to your beliefs, I think you'll find that other articles particularly 40.1, 40.3.1, 40.4.1, 40.6 and 41.3.2 say different. In fact your argument might have been stronger if you argued from 44.5 instead.

Rev Hellfire

Irish Islamic Vanguards wrote: »

I do not want Irish law telling me that I cannot ....

You wanting something does not create an obligation on the part of the state to provide it for you.

swampgas

Irish Islamic Vanguards wrote: »

Irish law and society already treats us differently by not making provision for religious conviction in the public sphere. The fact that Muslims must adhere to laws that are religiously at odds with belief is in fact a breach of the constitutional commitment to respect and religious freedom. I'd like to see changes and perhaps more autonomy with regard to the application of sharia within our community. Again, no more or less than the constitution affords us.

My suspicion is that you don't really care about the constitution at all - you want to live with your community in this country under sharia law, and be exempt from all the laws of the land that would interfere with this.

I sincerely hope this never happens. The political aspects of Islam, and plenty of its laws, are absolutely incompatible with the laws and culture of a democratic western state. If your religious convictions are so incompatible with life in Ireland, have you considered moving to a country where Islam is the law of the land?

Dades

IIV, maybe it would help if you could point to an Islamic country that has allowed non-Muslim communities the right to embrace their own lifestyle/faith within their borders?

We could then use that as an example of how the Ireland should embrace other cultures.

Brown Bomber

Dades wrote: »

IIV, maybe it would help if you could point to an Islamic country that has allowed non-Muslim communities the right to embrace their own lifestyle/faith within their borders?

We could then use that as an example of how the Ireland should embrace other cultures.

Syria.

Irish Islamic Vanguards

Dades wrote: »

IIV, maybe it would help if you could point to an Islamic country that has allowed non-Muslim communities the right to embrace their own lifestyle/faith within their borders?

We could then use that as an example of how the Ireland should embrace other cultures.

Seems an odd statement, unless you are asserting that Islamic lands are an example to be followed!

Irish Islamic Vanguards

Sarky wrote: »

How many illegitimate partners do you want? And who's forcing you to have them?

Islam forbids illegitimate unions, which is why we insist on marriage - something Ireland denies us.

Brown Bomber

Irish Islamic Vanguards wrote: »

I apologize for the ambiguity but as I have stated, it is a community NOT an individual concern.

Is it really a "community" concern though? If so, which community? It's certainly not the Irish Muslim community, Is it the Salafi-Fascist community in Ireland? which is on the fringes of the fringe. By what mandate do you speak for even this obscure "community"?

The sad thing is that your so-called "community" which has absolutely no grassroots support will likely get a lot of media attention in the future. Just like Hasidic Jewish settler-cum-scary Muslim Joseph Cohen / Al Khattab

The amazing journey of Joseph Cohen



and this is the after:



Much like Adam Pearlam/ Adam Yahihe Gadahn another Muslim convert who incredibly was raised by his grandfather who was prominent in the ADL.

The amazing journing of Cohen/Gadahn

Before:


and after:



A similar tale is your soundalike in the UK the Muslim propogandst Al Choudary:

Before:




and after:




Even Ireland has it's own version of a "scary Muslim" who nobody listens to but will get national media attention Liam "Muhajid" Egan from the hotbed of Islamic extremism, Gorey Co. Wexford - again another convert! - why do Muslims keep stealing everyone else's extremists?

MagicMarker

They look so much sexier in the after photos, did they ever go on Ricky Lake?

Penn

Irish Islamic Vanguards wrote: »

Irish law and society already treats us differently by not making provision for religious conviction in the public sphere. The fact that Muslims must adhere to laws that are religiously at odds with belief is in fact a breach of the constitutional commitment to respect and religious freedom. I'd like to see changes and perhaps more autonomy with regard to the application of sharia within our community. Again, no more or less than the constitution affords us.

The issue is, with our constitution, you have the right to practice your religion... except where the practices of that religion is against the law. The law supercedes religious rights. As robindch implied, what if the rights of his religion allowed him to do things which would otherwise be illegal?

You say "Muslims must adhere to laws that are religiously at odds with belief is in fact a breach of the constitutional commitment to respect and religious freedom", however, you are neglecting the fact that it clearly states in the constitution:

2. 1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice
of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.

That means that if the profession or practice of religion are illegal, you do not have the freedom to do it.

swampgas

Irish Islamic Vanguards wrote: »

Islam forbids illegitimate unions, which is why we insist on marriage - something Ireland denies us.

I think you have it backwards - Islam is denying you something, not Ireland.

If your religious beliefs conflict with the law of the land, and you have to make a sacrifice as a result - well, isn't that part of being religious? Surely altering the law of the land just so you can avoid the restrictions of your own religion is missing the point somewhat?

Dades

Irish Islamic Vanguards wrote: »

Islam forbids illegitimate unions, which is why we insist on marriage - something Ireland denies us.

You can get married and illegitimate unions aren't compulsory under Irish law, so I don't see the problem.

Sarky

But but but I want to have sex with more women in a way that gives my wife no right to complain!

I want more wives. I think we should accept some of the aspects of certain religions and accommodate them as long as its not going to harm anyone. End this stupid law which says you can only be married to one person.

stevejazzx

@ Irish Islamic Vanguard
You come from a position of intangibility, vagueness and primarily superstition, you demand your beliefs to be respected and now demand for your group to have a greater inclusion into society as a whole? Where do we stop with your lists of demands for your invisible, inaudible deity?
What about those of us, like Alexander Aan who from a position of calm reality and logic?

the_syco

Irish Islamic Vanguards wrote: »

But off hand I should imagine sharia compliant contracts, marriage and social affairs would be a start toward the inclusiveness that Muslims deserve.

You do realise that the gays want marriage as well, so you'll be considered after them. So untuil then, you'll be in effect behind the gays regarding to the rights you want.

I'm confused on this "sharia" thing, though. As far as i can tell it's more backward than the catholic way of thinking, regarding womens rights.

A lot of our laws are already pandering to the catholic church. Yes, we should get rid of these stupid religious laws, but not replace them with more stupid religious laws!

Dades wrote: »

with the exception of After Hours (I wouldn't go there!).

Oh, come to After Hours, and we'll tear your religion apart with more pictures of your precious prophet, with added cats, and more cow-bell :pac:

Irish Islamic Vanguards wrote: »

I do not want Irish law telling me that I cannot have 4 wives

We'll look into it after we allow the gays to marry. How's that?

Galvasean

I think people should be allowed marry as many people as they like. The state shouldn't be interfering with who people can and cannot marry. However, the cynic in me thinks marrying multiple women is the 'tip of the ice berg' in relation to what IIV wants with respect to a more 'Muslim friendly' Ireland. What about wife beating under Sharia Law? Or punishment for leaving the Islamic faith? These would be topics I would imagine more people would be concerned about.

SeanW

Dear Islamic ... whatever the hell you call yourself.

We strive to be a tolerant, inclusive people, but there are times we must draw the line. We do not allow people to kill homosexuals, jews, or religious apostates. Our constitution also limits the freedom of religion "subject to public order and morality." As such, we are no more obliged to allow polygamy as were to allow Satanists to sacrifice kittens on Grafton Street.

But we'll take your suggestion under advisement, and get back to you as soon as gay marriage is legal in Saudi Arabia. Until then, if you find that our laws are not to your taste, there's a place called Dublin Airport where you can catch a one-way flight to somewhere that the laws are more to your liking. While you're gone, there are more than enough people who will come to Ireland and will want to live in Ireland and integrate fully into Irish society.

Yours faithfully;
- Ireland

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

.........

But we'll take your suggestion under advisement, and get back to you as soon as gay marriage is legal in Saudi Arabia. ,,,,,,,,,

So we link our way of doing things to Saudi Arabia? Brilliant, well thought out strategy that.

rccaulfield

Sent to their minister for tourism, pretended i visit them on holidays but won't go again as long as he's in prison, hit them in the pocket.

Dades

What?

Galvasean

rccaulfield wrote: »

Sent to their minister for tourism, pretended i visit them on holidays but won't go again as long as he's in prison, hit them in the pocket.

Dades wrote: »

What?

I think he's referring the the original topic. How very po-mo!

Dades

Galvasean wrote: »

I think he's referring the the original topic. How very po-mo!

LOL.

I sometimes forget we have such a thing as an original topic.

Penn

Dades wrote: »

LOL.

I sometimes forget we have such a thing as an original topic.

I remember once on another forum I go on, a thread which was started about the earthquakes in Japan turned into a conversation about Timothy Olyphant in 20 posts

robindch

Penn wrote: »

I remember once on another forum I go on, a thread which was started about the earthquakes in Japan turned into a conversation about Timothy Olyphant in 20 posts

Well, A+A managed it in 85. Clearly, there's some work to be done hereabouts.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

So we link our way of doing things to Saudi Arabia? Brilliant, well thought out strategy that.

Yes.

1. Saudi culture may be one of degenerate cruelty, but they are confident that their way is the best. There is no doubt in their minds about that. From a Western secularists perspective, there is no doubt in my mind that our way is best. So in that limited regards, yes, we should link our way of doing things to Saudi Arabia. I.E. this is a Western country with a Western way of life, and if you don't like it, leave.
2. We have no obligation to be tolerant to extremist Islam, given its track record of, among other things, severe intolerance. Any more than we have an obligation to be tolerant of Satanism or Scientology.
3. If we allow extremist Islamic culture to seep into our own, this will be the thin end of a thickening wedge. Today it's polygamy, tommorrow its arranged marriages, underage marriages, Female Genital Mutilation, honor killings, murder of apostates, homosexuals and blasphemers. It will end up with large scale ghettos, where Western law does not apply at all, where terrorist attacks and murder in the name of Islam can be plotted almost openly with the support of large sections of the populace. This is already seeping into Western Europe, e.g. the UK, Germany and the Netherlands, and I for one am keen to put the brakes on.
   
   Maybe you think allowing this is a good idea, but I don't.

legspin

SeanW wrote: »

Yes.

1. Saudi culture may be one of degenerate cruelty, but they are confident that their way is the best. There is no doubt in their minds about that. From a Western secularists perspective, there is no doubt in my mind that our way is best. So in that limited regards, yes, we should link our way of doing things to Saudi Arabia. I.E. this is a Western country with a Western way of life, and if you don't like it, leave.
2. We have no obligation to be tolerant to extremist Islam, given its track record of, among other things, severe intolerance. Any more than we have an obligation to be tolerant of Satanism or Scientology.
3. If we allow extremist Islamic culture to seep into our own, this will be the thin end of a thickening wedge. Today it's polygamy, tommorrow its arranged marriages, underage marriages, Female Genital Mutilation, honor killings, murder of apostates, homosexuals and blasphemers. It will end up with large scale ghettos, where Western law does not apply at all, where terrorist attacks and murder in the name of Islam can be plotted almost openly with the support of large sections of the populace. This is already seeping into Western Europe, e.g. the UK, Germany and the Netherlands, and I for one am keen to put the brakes on.
   
   Maybe you think allowing this is a good idea, but I don't.

I'm actually glad that I'm not the only person to think this, even if I am proved wrong in the end.

Dades

I'm confused...

I don't think anyone believes following the example of other Islamic states is a good idea - and if anyone suggested it (which I know they have) it was surely in a sarcastic/ironic manner.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Yes.

1. Saudi culture may be one of degenerate cruelty, but they are confident that their way is the best. There is no doubt in their minds about that. From a Western secularists perspective, there is no doubt in my mind that our way is best. So in that limited regards, yes, we should link our way of doing things to Saudi Arabia. I.E. this is a Western country with a Western way of life, and if you don't like it, leave.

Thats not what you suggested earlier.

Do you tell conservative catholics to return to the Vatican or leave the country?

SeanW wrote: »

If we allow extremist Islamic culture to seep into our own, this will be the thin end of a thickening wedge. Today it's polygamy, tommorrow its arranged marriages, underage marriages, Female Genital Mutilation, honor killings, murder of apostates, homosexuals and blasphemers. It will end up with large scale ghettos, where Western law does not apply at all, where terrorist attacks and murder in the name of Islam can be plotted almost openly with the support of large sections of the populace. This is already seeping into Western Europe, e.g. the UK, Germany and the Netherlands, and I for one am keen to put the brakes on.

Certain practices that violate principles of consent and tolerance etc are off the table. Thats not because they're associated with "Islam" but because they violate those principles.

Your scenario strikes me as somewhat hysterical.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

Do you tell conservative catholics to return to the Vatican or leave the country?

If they wanted laws significantly changed to support their idiotic religion, then yes I might! Or if they were constantly crying 'victim' and demanding special priviledges. Or if they had a long history of stone age bahviour and perverse values.

Certain practices that violate principles of consent and tolerance etc are off the table. Thats not because they're associated with "Islam" but because they violate those principles.

Just so we are clear - are you supporting polygamy?

Your scenario strikes me as somewhat hysterical.

It's already a reality in parts of mainland Europe.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Or if they were constantly crying 'victim' and demanding special priviledges. !..

"if"?

Well done on using yet another excuse to have a rant, btw.

SeanW wrote: »

Just so we are clear - are you supporting polygamy?.

Unless it creates problems with inheritance and such that can't be fixed, I don't see why not. Neither would I have a problem with polyandry. What odds does it make to you what adults do with themselves?

SeanW wrote: »

It's already a reality in parts of mainland Europe.

In the fervid imaginations of the Islamophobic brigade, I'm sure it is.

recedite

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Syria.

Syria as a role model for Ireland? :pac:

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

Polygamy and extremist islamic culture FTW!!!

Glad that's cleared up.

I note that your first post was taking up the cudgels for IIV, in his demand for recognition of polygamous marriages. But you did not, and most likely will not call him to account for his double standard.

Irish Islamic Vanguards wrote: »

That of course would be a community decision, not that of an individual. But off hand I should imagine sharia compliant contracts, marriage and social affairs would be a start toward the inclusiveness that Muslims deserve. Remember, we are asking for no more or less than the constitution offers - the right to practice our religion in all spheres unimpeded.

Irish Islamic Vanguards wrote: »

Hold on a second - Indonesia is a predominantly Muslim country, with Islamic principles firmly tied into its constitution. The gentleman in question Alexander Aan carried out an act that is prohibited by law in that land - he did what he did knowing the risks and now should rightly take his punishment, he's fortunate its so lenient! Mr Nugent and others should realize that their liberal approach to things sacred is by no means the norm, they are a minuscule radical fringe movement in global terms and should be treated as such.

So, on the one hand IIV is demanding special priviledges for Muslims, i.e. the "right" to polygamous marriage, unknown in the Western world, (and presumably that's just a start) while at the same time condeming the titular atheist saying that he is lucky his punishment is not more severe, and that secularists globally should be treated as a "radical fringe movement" i.e. very harshly.

Do you not see a little problem there?

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Glad that's cleared up.

A complete distortion of what I said. If you can't find a quote to back up your claim, its generally considered bad form to create them.

SeanW wrote: »

I note that your first post was taking up the cudgels for IIV, in his demand for recognition of polygamous marriages. But you did not, and most likely will not call him to account for his double standard..

I never referenced him at all, let alone "take up cudgels" for him.

What odds is it to you what consenting adults do with themselves in terms of relationships?

SeanW wrote: »

So, on the one hand IIV is demanding special priviledges for Muslims, i.e. the "right" to polygamous marriage, unknown in the Western world, (and presumably that's just a start) while at the same time condeming the titular atheist saying that he is lucky his punishment is not more severe, and that secularists globally should be treated as a "radical fringe movement" i.e. very harshly.

Do you not see a little problem there?

There seems to be. However I never addressed anything he stated. What I did do is point out the rather bizarre notion that you raised of linking what happens in a Western state with Saudi Arabia, and your call for people to go there etc.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

A complete distortion of what I said. If you can't find a quote to back up your claim, its generally considered bad form to create them.

That's how I read it.It seems to me that every single post of yours on these boards is defending Islam from (often much deserved) criticism. Literally. I don't think I've ever seen you post on any other matter.

What odds is it to you what consenting adults do with themselves in terms of relationships?

None. All the same, I am loathe to make rash changes to our standing legal principles when the main people seeking such changes are Islamic extremist nutcases like IIV. Marriage is between two people (whether that be homosexual or heterosexual) and there has to be a better reason to change that, than to facilitate extremist muslims. Has anyone else in Ireland expressed the need/desire for polygamous marriage?

There seems to be. However I never addressed anything he stated. What I did do is point out the rather bizarre notion that you raised of linking what happens in a Western state with Saudi Arabia, and your call for people to go there etc.

I merely said that S.A. defends their culture, barbaric and cruel as it is, because they believe in it. None of that multicultural, PC left nonsense for them! That is the ONLY similarity I would see as having any value.

As for telling people to go there, well yes, someone like IIV who demands the laws be changed to facilitate Islam, while at the same time demanding that secularists be repressed and treated harshly, I make no apologies for suggesting that they piss off to some Islamic hellhole where the laws do precisely that. Like Saudi Arabia.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

That's how I read it.It seems to me that every single post of yours on these boards is defending Islam from (often much deserved) criticism. Literally. I don't think I've ever seen you post on any other matter..

Your selective reading of my posts is hardly my affair.

SeanW wrote: »

None. All the same, I am loathe to make rash changes to our standing legal principles when the main people seeking such changes are Islamic extremist nutcases like IIV. Marriage is between two people (whether that be homosexual or heterosexual) and there has to be a better reason to change that, than to facilitate extremist muslims. Has anyone else in Ireland expressed the need/desire for polygamous marriage?..

So just to clarify here for a second - you reject these things not because they violate certain principles, but because its what certain muslims may want?

SeanW wrote: »

I merely said that S.A. defends their culture, barbaric and cruel as it is, because they believe in it. None of that multicultural, PC left nonsense for them! That is the ONLY similarity I would see as having any value.?..

Ahh. So multiculturalism is a bad thing, is it?

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

Your selective reading of my posts is hardly my affair.

Ok then, show me one post where you have been critical of anything to do with Islam. I double-dare you!

So just to clarify here for a second - you reject these things not because they violate certain principles, but because its what certain muslims may want?

I'm against things like polygamy because they are almost totally unprecedented outside the Muslim world. It is not a part of anyone elses traditions, Western, American (North and South) Russian, Oriental culture e.g. , Chinese Japanese Korean and a lot of Black African cultures. Monogomy is a worldwide gold standard, a part of the traditions of virtually all of the peoples of the world, and I demand a better reason than "extremist muslims want it" as a reason to make major changes to our laws and traditions!

Remember that we're talking about the crazy muslims who conform to all the nasty sterotypes, people like this:


Did it ever occur to you that this might not be a good idea? No, as a multicultural PC-leftist, I shouldn't imagine that it did.

Ahh. So multiculturalism is a bad thing, is it?

It can be, at best it encourages division, whereas a policy of integration promotes a stronger society and social cohesion, though not always. Sometimes with cultures that are genuinely different-but-equal, multiculturalism can in theory work. For example, a spokesman and chief strategist for the English Defense League is a practicing Sikh! If that's not a good example of people from different cultures working together, I don't know what is!

At worst though, Multiculturalism = large ghettos filled with these kinds of people:



Again, maybe you think this is a good idea - I do not, and I make no apologies for it!

Standman

Do you really think getting your info from sites with links to the EDL and similar organisations are the best places to get a well rounded, unbiased view on Islam?



No-one's saying extremism should be tolerated, but it doesn't mean we should respond with our own small minded bullshit.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Ok then, show me one post where you have been critical of anything to do with Islam. I double-dare you!!

O a "double-dare". Thats different then.

You're incapable of using boards search function?

Bit odd I was thanking this only a few days back, but you seemed to miss that.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79313180&postcount=1300

SeanW wrote: »

I'm against things like polygamy because they are almost totally unprecedented outside the Muslim world. It is not a part of anyone elses traditions, Western, American (North and South) Russian, Oriental culture e.g. , Chinese Japanese Korean and a lot of Black African cultures. Monogomy is a worldwide gold standard, a part of the traditions of virtually all of the peoples of the world, and I demand a better reason than "extremist muslims want it" as a reason to make major changes to our laws and traditions!!

Tradition is sacred now, is it? And I don't recall giving the reason as "extremist muslims want it". The President of South Africa comes from a culture where more than one wife is common and has two himself. It's far more common in Africa than anywhere else, afaik. I'd suggest you're grasping at straws.

Whats this "gold standard" nonsense?

Should I run off now and get a few pictures of Brevik, BNP posters and state that lack of multiculturalism leads to white ghettos?

KiethM89

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Indonesian civil servant Alexander Aan was jailed today for sharing material on Facebook about the Prophet Mohammad.

Please contact the Indonesian embassy demanding his immediate release, and ask the Irish Government to urgently raise the issue with the Indonesian authorities.
http://atheistalliance.org/media/website/indonesian_contact.pdf

In Ireland, Senator Ivana Bacik and Senator Jillian Von Turnhout have raised Aan’s case in the Seanad in February, and called on the Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Eamon Gilmore to raise the issue with the Indonesian authorities.

Cases like this also show the urgency of Ireland repealing our own new blasphemy law. Islamic states led by Pakistan have praised the new Irish law at the United Nations. And when the Indonesian blasphemy law was constitutionally challenged in 2010, the existence of the new Irish blasphemy law was cited in its support.

Alexander Aan is a 32-year-old Indonesian civil servant who started an atheist group on Facebook on which he published articles about Mohammad and questioned the existence of God. He was beaten up by his work colleagues then arrested for blasphemy. He was today jailed for two and a half years and fined Rp 100m (about $10,000).

Aan was originally charged with blasphemy and persuading others to embrace atheism, but was instead convicted under the Electronic Information and Transactions Law of deliberately spreading information inciting religious hatred and animosity.

This shows the dangers of mixing the ideas of blasphemy and incitement to religious hatred, as prosectors can easily interchange one with the other. The law should protect people, not ideas. And it should protect people from actual harm, but not from being offended.

We have consistently highlighted this case as part of our overall campaign to repeal blasphemy laws, including in this talk at the European Atheist Convention in Cologne in Germany last month, on the topic ‘Why we must combat blasphemy laws’.

I am Christian. I think what this man did was despicable. He insulted the blessed Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be upon Him) and he expects to get away with it. He should pay for this.

Why are people upset when an Atheist is punished for insulting religion but it's OK for Atheists to bash religious people.