Atheist Alexander Aan jailed today in Indonesia

Nodin

KiethM89 wrote: »

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

What?

KiethM89

Nodin wrote: »

What?

Atheists insult religion all the time and they think it's their God given right (pun intended), these very same people get their knickers in a twist when they are confronted for insulting religion.

But if a religious person insults Atheism, god help them ....


To sum it up, an atheist who attacks religion is expressing freedom of speech.

A religious person who attacks atheism is attacking freedom of speech. :mad:

Sarky

I wonder which butthurt manchild you're a re-register of. There are a fair few possibilities in fairness, and your posts all look alike.

Dades

KiethM89 wrote: »

Atheists insult religion all the time and they think it's their God given right (pun intended), these very same people get their knickers in a twist when they are confronted for insulting religion.

But if a religious person insults Atheism, god help them ....


To sum it up, an atheist who attacks religion is expressing freedom of speech.

A religious person who attacks atheism is attacking freedom of speech. :mad:

What in Zeus' name are you blathering about.

What you think happens when someone attacks atheism? Nothing. It happens ALL THE TIME in this forum, and you worst thing that happens is someone's pride gets hurt.

Also, you spelt your own name wrong.

Sonics2k

KiethM89 wrote: »

A religious person who attacks atheism is attacking freedom of speech. :mad:

Where are you getting this from?

Just because we question your religion, and request evidence for any of it's claims, does not mean we oppress your freedom of expression.

If anything, people on this forum completely support freedom of expression, and this is why we don't want to see a main jailed, and possibly executed, for using his freedom of expression.

MagicMarker

KiethM89 wrote: »

Atheists insult religion all the time and they think it's their God given right (pun intended), these very same people get their knickers in a twist when they are confronted for insulting religion.

But if a religious person insults Atheism, god help them ....


To sum it up, an atheist who attacks religion is expressing freedom of speech.

A religious person who attacks atheism is attacking freedom of speech. :mad:

Does your mummy and daddy know you're on the computer?

KiethM89

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm a filthy smelly retarded atheist

Agree !

Sonics2k

Obvious troll alt/re-reg.

He's ripped his name off from KeithM89 the AH mod, so this guy is obviously another butthurt troll who got banned recently.

Possibly this guy http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/member.php?u=564796

oldrnwisr

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!

Look, you don't have to be a Muslim or a supporter of Islam to point out that this argument is completely without foundation. I'm surprised that I still end up having to refute it. Monogamy is quite a rare family form in the history of the world. Looking at all societies across human civilisation, this is how things stack up:




Polygamy, specifically polygyny, is sanctioned and is commonplace in the Old Testament and so is at the root of both Christian and Muslim history.

This might help to explain the matter further: Polygamy

Also building your argument on an appeal to tradition is not a great start if you're trying to persuade people to your point of view.

SeanW

oldrnwisr wrote: »

What is this graph about? I have no idea what this graph is measuring: it's just a bunch of numbers and labelled bars.

Polygamy, specifically polygyny, is sanctioned and is commonplace in the Old Testament and so is at the root of both Christian and Muslim history.

This might help to explain the matter further: Polygamy

Your own link proves you badly wrong. It is almost impossible for a country to debate the issue of bigamy without Islam being a major, if not exclusive participant in favour.

In Christian history, St. Augustine took the view that polygyny could only be accepted as an extreme measure to increase population.

Saint Augustine wrote:

That the good purpose of marriage, however, is better promoted by one husband with one wife, than by a husband with several wives, is shown plainly enough by the very first union of a married pair, which was made by the Divine Being Himself.

Saint Augustine wrote:

it was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce (utrum et nunc fas sit, non temere dixerim). For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful.

Let us consider many current world cultures:

1. Christianity: Catholic Canon Law clearly outlaws polygamy, the Catchecism of the Catholic Church clearly condemns polygamy thusly:

   "polygamy is not in accord with the moral law. [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive."

   On paper, Catholicism represents 1 billion people.
   Other Christian faiths have a similar view: for example the Christian-Right in the U.S. clearly defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
   Maybe 500 million - 1 billion more, Protestant and other Christian faiths
   
2. Chinese culture
   Polygamy in China was only ever practiced among the elites of Han China, it was outlawed by the newly formed Peoples Republic of China, in the same set of reforms as the abolition of slavery, foot binding and the introduction of the Gregorian Calendar. It's safe to say most Han Chinese don't think very much of polygamy.
   There's another 1 billion people or so right there. though minor exceptions are made for Tibetan polyandry in rural regions.
3. India
   Polygamy in India is restricted based on religion: only Muslims are allowed to be in non-monogomous marriage.
   Another ~ 1 billion people or so there.
4. Japan. One of the most atheistic countries on Earth, I'm fairly sure they do not allow polygamy
   150 million people.
5. Buddhism
   Buddhist texts clearly condem polygamy thusly:

   Parabhava Sutta wrote:

   a man who is not satisfied with one woman and seeks out other women is on the path to decline

6. Judaism
   Ashkenazi Jews have followed a ban on polygamy since the 11th century, and Israel has a ban on polygamy though exceptions are made for Jewish immigrants who were in polygamous marriage before their arrival.
7. Defenders of democratic traditions
   Some have claimed that a free and democratic society is predicated on a traditional, monogomous family.

   Stanley Kurtz, Hudson Institute wrote:

   Marriage, as its ultramodern critics would like to say, is indeed about choosing one's partner, and about freedom in a society that values freedom. But that's not the only thing it is about. As the Supreme Court justices who unanimously decided Reynolds in 1878 understood, marriage is also about sustaining the conditions in which freedom can thrive. Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family.

Though, to be fair, if you are looking for movements other than Islam that promote polygamy, you might find solace in the plans of Nazi Germany. Post war, Heinrich Himmler and Martin Baumann had expected that there would be too few men, and 3-4 million women would have to go childless. They had planned that specific war heroes, having been decorated for their actions in battle, would be allowed to have multiple wives.

Adolf Hitler wrote:

The greatest fighter deserves the most beautiful woman ... If the German man is to be unreservedly ready to die as a soldier, he must have the freedom to love unreservedly. For struggle and love belong together. The philistine should be glad if he gets whatever is left

Note the use of the term whatever, not whoever.

shizz

Sonics2k wrote: »

Obvious troll alt/re-reg.

He's ripped his name off from KeithM89 the AH mod, so this guy is obviously another butthurt troll who got banned recently.

Possibly this guy http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/member.php?u=564796

Da fuq did that link bring me? Not sure what I just read...

SeanW

Standman wrote: »

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?

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here: are you saying that these extremist nutcases who want to take over Europe, live under Sharia, nuke Israel or whatever, do not exist?

Furthermore, why only Islam? When was the last time you saw a demonstration by Japanese people in Europe saying "you will bow before the Emporer!" or "cure cancer with radiation, nuke Beijing" or "Shinto will dominate Europe?"

I imagine it has been a while, though perhaps fairly recently in the delusional mind of a PC-leftist where all cultures are equal, no matter how violent and demonstrably inferior they are.

As to the EDL, I understand that they were formed primarily in response to Anjem Choudhury's disrespectful disruption of a soldiers homecoming ceremony. They welcome people of all races and colours and practice multi culturalism. But for some reason, they don't like extremist Islam (which they consider a clear and present danger) very much, I wonder why?

Oh that's right, because they're racists. I blame the Jews ... well, doesn't everybody?

oldrnwisr

SeanW wrote: »

What is this graph about? I have no idea what this graph is measuring: it's just a bunch of numbers and labelled bars.

I would have thought that the graph is reasonably self-explanatory. The x-axis shows the categories of family strucutre with a divide in the polygynous cultures to show the difference between frequent and infrequent polygyny. The y-axis shows the proportion of each group as a percentage of the total.

The source data is here:

Ethnographic Atlas Codebook

SeanW wrote: »

Your own link proves you badly wrong. It is almost impossible for a country to debate the issue of bigamy without Islam being a major, if not exclusive participant in favour.

OK, first of all let me remind you of your original claim:

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!

Your claim rests on two points of fact: a) that only muslim cultures permitted polygamy and b) that the tradition of the cultures mentioned above don't include polygamy.

Now, before I continue, I must point out that we are talking about polygamy not bigamy which is usually just used to refer to a crime.

Now, regarding the first part about polygamy not featuring outside Muslim cultures that fails on two counts.

Firstly, there's these:

Kenya

Religion -83% Christian

Polygamy - "Polygamy is widespread in Kenya, the most prominent individual being Akuku Danger who married over 100 wives."


Cameroon

Religion - 70% Christian

Polygamy - "Polygamy is legal in the African nation of Cameroon, contracted frequently for reasons of both status and wealth."


Burma

Religion - 89% Buddhist

Polygamy - "Polygamy is legally permissible in Burma, also known as Myanmar, making it the only predominantly Buddhist nation in the world to allow for such unions."


Togo

Religion - 51% Indigenous beliefs, 29% Christian, 20% Muslim

Polygamy - "Polygamy is legal in Togo, although both the (first) wife and the husband must express their consent that the marriage will be polygamous during the wedding ceremony." [Source]


Central African Republic

Religion - 80.3% Christian

Polygamy - "While polygamy is legal in the Central African Republic, it has been reported that the more well-educated women living in the nation have tended to oppose it, favoring a monogamous marriage instead."

I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

Before I move on to the next point though, I should point out that not all Muslim cultures are receptive of polygamy either:

Indonesia

"Polygamy is legal in Indonesia and a man may take up to four wives, as allowed by Islam. Despite such legality, polygamy has faced some of the most intense opposition than any other nation with the majority consisting of Muslims. Additionally, Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world."

Tunisia

"Tunisia became the first Arab state to formally abolish polygamy in 1956, the same year it gained official independence. In current times, Tunisia is still one of the very few predominately-Islamic nations that has legally banned polygamy"


Now, your second point hinges on tradition. The problem is that you're only referring to modern cultures. When you examine this phenomenon historically a much different picture emerges as I have already demonstrated with the graph, but just to reinforce the point further:

Ireland

"The pre-Christian Celtic pagans were known to practice polygamy, although the Celtic peoples wavered between it, monogamy and polyandry depending on the time period and area."


Judaism

Genesis 4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives.

Genesis 16:1-4 Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai ... gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived.

Genesis 26:34 Esau ... took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite.

Genesis 31:17 Then Jacob rose up, and set ... his wives upon camels.

Exodus 21:10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.

Deuteronomy 21:15

If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love,

Judges 8:30 And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.

1 Samuel 1:1-2 Elkanah ... had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah.

2 Samuel 12:7-8 Thus saith the LORD God of Israel ... I gave thee ... thy master's wives....

1 Kings 11:2-3 Solomon ... had seven hundred wives ... and three hundred concubines.

1 Chronicles 4:5 And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.

2 Chronicles 11:21 Rehoboam ... took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines.

2 Chronicles 13:21 But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives....

2 Chronicles 24:3 Jehoiada took for him two wives....


Christianity

Matthew 25

At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish and five were wise. The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. The wise ones, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep. “At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’ .....

"Jesus taught the Parable of the Ten Virgins which is about a bridegroom and ten virgins.URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Matt%2025:1%E2%80%9313;&version=ESV;"]Matt 25:1–13[/URL This has been interpreted by some Christian sects as a plural marriage. Indeed, copyists of the New Testament manuscripts added "and bride" to a number of manuscripts at the end of Matthew 25:1, presumably because they were disturbed by the implications."


Hinduism

"Polygamy was practiced in many sections of Hindu society in ancient times."


Polygamy is something which featured in most societies throughout history. Prohibitions on polygamy, however, are a relatively modern phenomenon as I indicated in my previous post.


In any event, you are still arguing from a logical fallacy, two in fact. What does the fact that monogamy is now the accepted practice in Western culture have to do with the morality of polygamy?

Prohibitions on polygamy were introduced to protect ordinary men from being squeezed out of the gene pool, as it were. Let me give you an example.

The Incan king Atahualpa had a harem of 1500 wives. In Incan society, polygamy was rigidly enforced. Great lords were entitled to 700 wives, "principal persons" fifty wives, leaders of vassal nations 30 wives, heads of provinces of a hundred thousand people 20 wives, leaders of one thousand people 15 wives, administrators of 500 people 12 wives, governors of 100 people 8 wives, petty chiefs over fifty men 7 wives, chiefs of ten men 5 wives and chiefs of five men 3 wives. This left very little available women for ordinary women who were forced to a life of near-celibacy. The only possibility for most men to father children was through adulterous affairs, the punishments for which were severe.

The economic and political structure of most modern societies means that the possibility of a polygynous structure developing akin to the one described above is unlikely.


To finish, let me ask again, what does "tradition" as you describe it have to do with whether polygamy should or should not be legalised? Can you point to a rational argument for the prohibition of polygamy.


*Quotes from Wikipedia unless otherwise noted.

SeanW

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I would have thought that the graph is reasonably self-explanatory. The x-axis shows the categories of family strucutre with a divide in the polygynous cultures to show the difference between frequent and infrequent polygyny. The y-axis shows the proportion of each group as a percentage of the total.

The source data is here:

Ethnographic Atlas Codebook

It tells me absolutely nothing, and in as much as it claims monogomy is some kind of perhipheral viewpoint, if that is what is being claimed, cannot be accurate.

Your claim rests on two points of fact: a) that only muslim cultures permitted polygamy and b) that the tradition of the cultures mentioned above don't include polygamy.

You misread, I said almost totally unprecedented. Not totally unprecedented. As such, I cannot be accused of saying that only muslim cultures permitted polygamy, because that is a clear distortion. I maintain however, that Islam is the main actor in this regard and in a Western context, the demand from people like Irish Islamic Vanguard, is in relation to the adoption of Sharia Law.

Firstly, there's these:Burma

Religion - 89% Buddhist

Polygamy - "Polygamy is legally permissible in Burma, also known as Myanmar, making it the only predominantly Buddhist nation in the world to allow for such unions."

Indonesia

"Polygamy is legal in Indonesia and a man may take up to four wives, as allowed by Islam. Despite such legality, polygamy has faced some of the most intense opposition than any other nation with the majority consisting of Muslims. Additionally, Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world."

You couldn't avoid the Islamic countries ...

Now, your second point hinges on tradition. The problem is that you're only referring to modern cultures. When you examine this phenomenon historically a much different picture emerges as I have already demonstrated with the graph, but just to reinforce the point further:

Ireland

"The pre-Christian Celtic pagans were known to practice polygamy, although the Celtic peoples wavered between it, monogamy and polyandry depending on the time period and area."

Saint Patrick brought Christianity to Ireland in the 5th Century, you're starting to sound like a parody of yourself. Ireland also took slaves in raids in pre-Christian times but are you saying that slavery is also a part of our culture and traditions? :pac: . . .
This whole argument is going from the ridiculous to the sublime.

Judaism

That's why the Ashkenazi Jews have upheld a ban on polygamy since the 11th Century, and the modern State of Israel has also maintained a ban on polygamy. Even among the sects that still permit polgyny, such as the Karaite group, polgyamy is so heavily constraint by biblical interpretation that it is almost nonexistant.

Christianity

Roman Catholic Church from now back to the time of St. Augustine clearly condems polygamy, in line with many protestant traditions such as those in the United States and much of Europe.

Hinduism

"Polygamy was practiced in many sections of Hindu society in ancient times."

Ancient times was a long time ago, much like Ireland much like Ireland, so long ago as to be practically irrelevant

Polygamy is something which featured in most societies throughout history. Prohibitions on polygamy, however, are a relatively modern phenomenon as I indicated in my previous post.

Yes. Along with the abolition of slavery, the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar, etc etc.

Can you point to a rational argument for the prohibition of polygamy.

An equally good question is can you point to a rational argument for the legalisation of polygamy, excluding Islam and Sharia Law?

oldrnwisr

SeanW wrote: »

It tells me absolutely nothing, and in as much as it claims monogomy is some kind of perhipheral viewpoint, if that is what is being claimed, cannot be accurate.

Why can't it be accurate? Do you have evidence to support that claim? It is a study of 1231 different cultures around the world and the findings are shown on the graph. Polygamy is the instinct of the human male, if he can get away with it and human history has reflected this.

You may want to read up on the subject:

Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage

SeanW wrote: »

You misread, I said almost totally unprecedented. Not totally unprecedented. As such, I cannot be accused of saying that only muslim cultures permitted polygamy, because that is a clear distortion. I maintain however, that Islam is the main actor in this regard and in a Western context, the demand from people like Irish Islamic Vanguard, is in relation to the adoption of Sharia Law.

OK, fair enough my mistake. Apologies. I agree that Islam is the common factor in the legality of polygamy in modern cultures. Most of the cultures which still have legalised polygamy or have introduced legalised polygamy are Muslim societies.

However, as long as a society doesn't legalised polygamy solely as an appeasement of Islam, I don't see what the problem is. You haven't presented any moral argument against polygamy just an appeal to tradition. Even if people like IIV are introducing the idea for religious reasons it should still be possible for those of us without religion to critically appraise the idea. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about polygamy on the basis that it is a facet of Muslim culture.

SeanW wrote: »

Saint Patrick brought Christianity to Ireland in the 5th Century, you're starting to sound like a parody of yourself. Ireland also took slaves in raids in pre-Christian times but are you saying that slavery is also a part of our culture and traditions? :pac: . . .

The hell he did. Palladius had already been sent from Rome before Patrick (not his real name) ever got here and he was preceded by Pelagius 20 years before that again. The idea that Patrick found Ireland entirely pagan and left it entirely Christian is bogus.

SeanW wrote: »

This whole argument is going from the ridiculous to the sublime.
That's why the Ashkenazi Jews have upheld a ban on polygamy since the 11th Century, and the modern State of Israel has also maintained a ban on polygamy. Even among the sects that still permit polgyny, such as the Karaite group, polgyamy is so heavily constraint by biblical interpretation that it is almost nonexistant.

Roman Catholic Church from now back to the time of St. Augustine clearly condems polygamy, in line with many protestant traditions such as those in the United States and much of Europe.

Ancient times was a long time ago, much like Ireland much like Ireland, so long ago as to be practically irrelevant

Yes. Along with the abolition of slavery, the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar, etc etc.

My point, which you don't seem to have listened to is that you can only make the tradition argument if you narrow your historical perspective considerably. Polygamy was a feature of human society for thousands of years and monogamy is something which is only newly being established as "tradition." Also your perspective in determining tradition is narrowed by only looking at developed civilisations and religions. When you widen the scope to examine indigenous peoples, the frequency of polygamy is much higher.

SeanW wrote: »

An equally good question is can you point to a rational argument for the legalisation of polygamy, excluding Islam and Sharia Law?

Certainly, the most obvious one would be that marriage in a secular sense is a legal contract between two (or in this case more) consenting adults. The relationships between consenting adults ought not to be prohibited by the state.

Now, you haven't answered my question is there a logically sound non-religious argument against polygamy?

Sonics2k

I'm not taking sides here, but I have to be honest based on his previous posts on various forums but;

Reading oldrnwisr's posts is like literary porn for me, anyone else getting that?

Please tell me I'm not the only one...

SeanW

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Why can't it be accurate? Do you have evidence to support that claim? It is a study of 1231 different cultures around the world and the findings are shown on the graph.

See Post 111.

Given that China, the entire Orient as well as the entire continents of Europe and all of the Americas have general preference for monogomy, the graph is somewhat misleading, or at least your presentation of it is such.

I agree that Islam is the common factor in the legality of polygamy in modern cultures. Most of the cultures which still have legalised polygamy or have introduced legalised polygamy are Muslim societies.

BINGO!!!

The hell he did. Palladius had already been sent from Rome before Patrick (not his real name) ever got here and he was preceded by Pelagius 20 years before that again. The idea that Patrick found Ireland entirely pagan and left it entirely Christian is bogus.

Interesting, but irrelevant. I claimed that polygamy is not a part of Irish (or many other) cultures and traditions. You responded by claiming that it is on, the basis that Irish society in pre-Christian times had polygamy as commonplace, that it is. Given how long ago that was, I suggest that this argument is ridiculous. Whether that was the 5th century or a few years either way is irrelevant.

Now, you haven't answered my question is there a logically sound non-religious argument against polygamy?

1. All nations laws are unavoidably derived from its culture and traditions. Polygamy is alien to ours.
2. I don't personally know of anyone who would like to be part of a non-monogomous relationship.
3. Some believe, like Stanley Kurtz (again see post 111) believe that democratic self-determination and monogomous marriage are inseparable. Considering that the main drivers for polygamy in modern history have been Extremist Islam (and the Islamised-Left), Fundamentalist Mormons and the leaders of Nazi Germany, I'm inclined to think they might be on to something.
4. A change to our laws could only realistically happen in response to demands for Islamic law. It could only happen as a start of "creeping Sharia" and it would turn Ireland into a magnet for these kinds of people.
   

Like I said, perhaps you and Nodin think this is a good idea, that our society would be enriched by having more people here that hate Western culture, despise our people and would kill Jews, homosexuals, apostates and blasphemers given the chance.


But as you can imagine, I am somewhat more cautious.

oldrnwisr

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm not taking sides here, but I have to be honest based on his previous posts on various forums but;

Reading oldrnwisr's posts is like literary porn for me, anyone else getting that?

Please tell me I'm not the only one...

Thanks for that, really, thank you. I appreciate the sentiment.

oldrnwisr

SeanW wrote: »

See Post 111.

Given that China, the entire Orient as well as the entire continents of Europe and all of the Americas have general preference for monogomy, the graph is somewhat misleading, or at least your presentation of it is such.

No, if you had bothered to read the data I posted you would see the mistake that you are making. Allow me to clarify, in post 111 you said:

"On paper, Catholicism represents 1 billion people."

"Maybe 500 million - 1 billion more, Protestant and other Christian faiths"

"There's another 1 billion people or so right there."

You are making two mistakes here. Firstly, you are confusing religion with society. Secondly, you are confusing population with society. The graph represents the societies of the world by family type. Each society is counted as 1. Therefore, if you have Indian society of 1 billion and the Sanuma in Brazil of 1500 people they still only count as 1 society each on the graph. The adoption by individual societies of polygyny, polyandry or monogamy tells us much more about these family forms than the numbers of any one society. There are 1231 different ethnic groups represented on this map.

SeanW wrote: »

Interesting, but irrelevant. I claimed that polygamy is not a part of Irish (or many other) cultures and traditions. You responded by claiming that it is on, the basis that Irish society in pre-Christian times had polygamy as commonplace, that it is. Given how long ago that was, I suggest that this argument is ridiculous. Whether that was the 5th century or a few years either way is irrelevant.

Not really. You have only deemed it irrelevant because it doesn't suit your argument. Monogamy has been on the increase over the last 2000 years or so, let's say but humans have been forming societal groups for at least the last 10,000 years so you're cherry picking the data to suit your argument.

SeanW wrote: »

1. All nations laws are unavoidably derived from its culture and traditions. Polygamy is alien to ours.
2. I don't personally know of anyone who would like to be part of a non-monogomous relationship.
3. Some believe, like Stanley Kurtz (again see post 111) believe that democratic self-determination and monogomous marriage are inseparable. Considering that the main drivers for polygamy in modern history have been Extremist Islam (and the Islamised-Left), Fundamentalist Mormons and the leaders of Nazi Germany, I'm inclined to think they might be on to something.
4. A change to our laws could only realistically happen in response to demands for Islamic law. It could only happen as a start of "creeping Sharia" and it would turn Ireland into a magnet for these kinds of people.

1. The fact that societies have based their laws on traditions doesn't mean that we should. Once again, this is an appeal to tradition.



2. So what? Are you claiming that no-one wants to be in a polygamous relationship. Yet another logical fallacy.



3. I can't believe you actually managed to fit two logical fallacies into one point. Firstly, Stanley Kurtz should educate himself on the history of marriage. People throughout history rarely chose their partners in marriage and were instead married of as part of a family alliance. Kurtz is a man who clearly misunderstands the arguments surrounding marriage and simply applies his conservative bias:


What is wrong with gay marriage?



In any case, quoting Kurtz as if that should carry any weight is just an appeal to authority and a bad one at that.


Then there's the references to "fundamentalists" and "Nazis", better known as the guilt by association fallacy.




4. No, as I have already stated I am firmly opposed to amending any of our laws simply because some religion wants it that way. We've had a hard enough time as it is washing away the influence of the Catholic Church from our legal and education systems, why the hell would we want to achieve all that and then throw it away by letting Sharia in.

SeanW wrote: »

Like I said, perhaps you and Nodin think this is a good idea, that our society would be enriched by having more people here that hate Western culture, despise our people and would kill Jews, homosexuals, apostates and blasphemers given the chance.

But as you can imagine, I am somewhat more cautious.

Look, let's try and divorce the two issues at hand here, shall we. Firstly, the idea of polygamy as an alternative family form in society is one that can and should be debated albeit with a clear head and even temper. Appeals to religion or their inverse, serves no good purpose.
Secondly, I can't speak for Nodin but I don't think that society would be enriched by having more people like IIV in this country, which is why I'm a secularist. I believe that any laws we implement or change should be done on the basis of reasoned argument and good evidence and no consideration should be given to the strictures of anyone's religion.

I sense a lot of hatred in you and I think this is clouding your ability to debate the issue of polygamy separately from Islam and so I think there may not be much more point in continuing this debate.

Good night and good luck.

SeanW

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The graph represents the societies of the world by family type. Each society is counted as 1. Therefore, if you have Indian society of 1 billion and the Sanuma in Brazil of 1500 people they still only count as 1 society each on the graph.

In the end I figured it was something like that. Quite misleading.

Not really. You have only deemed it irrelevant because it doesn't suit your argument. Monogamy has been on the increase over the last 2000 years or so, let's say but humans have been forming societal groups for at least the last 10,000 years so you're cherry picking the data to suit your argument.

You are serious right? I couldn't really care less what people were doing 5,000 years ago. Something that old may be part of our history, but not of our culture or modern traditions.

4. No, as I have already stated I am firmly opposed to amending any of our laws simply because some religion wants it that way. We've had a hard enough time as it is washing away the influence of the Catholic Church from our legal and education systems, why the hell would we want to achieve all that and then throw it away by letting Sharia in.

You have more or less dismantled your own position. :pac: . . .

Look, let's try and divorce the two issues at hand here, shall we.

That would be good for your argument. But not exactly realistic.

I sense a lot of hatred in you and I think this is clouding your ability to debate the issue of polygamy separately from Islam

I would, if in fact they were separate issues. But given the rise of Islam (much of it Wahabbist and Salafist) in Europe, I don't think the issues are separate.

and so I think there may not be much more point in continuing this debate.

Good night and good luck.

I tend to agree.

Lucy8080

erm ... "incitement to hatred of religion"

where did we get this terminology from?

any honest injuns here?

ShooterSF

SeanW wrote: »

[*]All nations laws are unavoidably derived from its culture and traditions. Polygamy is alien to ours.

Uck. So you oppose gay marriage? Or is it only an appeal to tradition (which is a crock) when it suits?

[*]I don't personally know of anyone who would like to be part of a non-monogomous relationship.

Yo! Had many a discussion about this with friends and romantic others but I'm more than open to the idea. One person each sounds a bit boring to be honest. Even so what's wrong with legislating for what's right even if "no one" wants to do it?

[*]Some believe, like Stanley Kurtz (again see post 111) believe that democratic self-determination and monogomous marriage are inseparable. Considering that the main drivers for polygamy in modern history have been Extremist Islam (and the Islamised-Left), Fundamentalist Mormons and the leaders of Nazi Germany, I'm inclined to think they might be on to something.

Any argument as to why you would thing this? Or is correlation == causation good enough?

[*]A change to our laws could only realistically happen in response to demands for Islamic law. It could only happen as a start of "creeping Sharia" and it would turn Ireland into a magnet for these kinds of people.

[/LIST]

No it doesn't. Again you're in good company with the anti-gay marriage movement if you want to argue from the hypothetical slippery slope.

Like I said, perhaps you and Nodin think this is a good idea, that our society would be enriched by having more people here that hate Western culture, despise our people and would kill Jews, homosexuals, apostates and blasphemers given the chance.


But as you can imagine, I am somewhat more cautious.

I wouldn't be too fond of it nor any society that tells consenting adults what they can and can't do. And I hate to live in one that considers "culture" and "tradition" valid arguments because they are only ever used in place of logic, reason and fairness.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

What is this graph about? I have no idea what this graph is measuring: it's just a bunch of numbers and labelled bars.
.

You aren't helping yourself with that kind of thing.

SeanW wrote: »

Your own link proves you badly wrong. It is almost impossible for a country to debate the issue of bigamy without Islam being a major, if not exclusive participant in favour.
.

If you want to live your existence wondering "What would Islam do" thats entirely your pregoative. However the rest of us would rather society was run along more realistic liberal lines.

SeanW wrote: »

In Christian history, St. Augustine took the view that polygyny could only be accepted as an extreme measure to increase population.
.

Why would we give a flying crap what some saint thought?

SeanW wrote: »

Let us consider many current world cultures:
.

You mean religions? Ehhhh, no.

SeanW wrote: »

Though, to be fair, if you are looking for movements other than Islam that promote polygamy, you might find solace in the plans of Nazi Germany. ...........

More cherry picked nonsense. As a debating tactic, the variations on "You don't support Osama Bin Laden, do you?" get old fast and do nothing to move the discussion on.

SeanW wrote: »

Ancient times was a long time ago, much like Ireland much like Ireland, so long ago as to be practically irrelevant..

So tradition doesn't mean the total of the past, just the bits that suit you?

SeanW wrote: »

Like I said, perhaps you and Nodin think this is a good idea, that our society would be enriched by having more people here that hate Western culture, despise our people and would kill Jews, homosexuals, apostates and blasphemers given the chance...

More "Osama" remarks. How quaint.

FullBeard

@SeanW: I think you're half right. The law of the land should not be changed because one group of religious people stridently demand it.

Where you're going wrong, imo, is in appealing to "our" culture and "our" traditions, and then making statements such as polygamy is alien.

You need to think about what you're standing on when you propose an argument like that; and the reality is that you're standing on sand.

What you should be doing is striving for intellectual consistency. Question the basis of "our" traditions just as much as you would Islamic traditions, and you'll see that in most cases, "ours" are as irrational or arbitrary as "theirs".

I'm a rationalist before I'm an atheist, and I reject broad brushstrokes that would have millions of people who will never meet each other believe that they share a certain culture, or, as you call it, "our culture". I actually don't think that national identities and associated cultures are any more real than religious identities - they are all just notions with no real basis in fact. Try to look beyond the tribe mentality and be intellectually consistent.

SeanW

ShooterSF wrote: »

Uck. So you oppose gay marriage? Or is it only an appeal to tradition (which is a crock) when it suits?

Neither. Acceptance of homosexuality is part of our modern culture. Thusly acceptance of homosexual marriage, inehritance rights, gay couple adoption would only be a natural progression of our legal system from our culture and traditions, as these have changed significantly in the past 30 years.

Yo! Had many a discussion about this with friends and romantic others but I'm more than open to the idea. One person each sounds a bit boring to be honest.

If you are a married man, try telling this to your wife and see how far you get!

Even so what's wrong with legislating for what's right even if "no one" wants to do it?

Because it's a solution in search of a problem?

No it doesn't. Again you're in good company with the anti-gay marriage movement if you want to argue from the hypothetical slippery slope.

Islam (especially the bat**** crazy kind) is already on the rise in Europe, with its numbers multipying dramatically due to unchecked immigration and crazy fertility rates. Ergo, we are already on the slippery slope, you just want to make it steeper.

Nodin wrote: »

You aren't helping yourself with that kind of thing.

I wasn't being smart, I genuinely had no idea what oldrnwiser was trying to say with that graph when he first posted it.

You mean religions? Ehhhh, no.

Yes, like China and Japan. Two of the most religious countries on Earth ...

So tradition doesn't mean the total of the past, just the bits that suit you?

Just what has been a part of our traditions for the past ... oh I don't know, millenium or so. I fail to see how what people were doing in the B.C. years is relevant, that's all.

More "Osama" remarks. How quaint.

I could understand if it were just one questionable movement who you are in agreement with, i.e. I would share your view of "Hitler was a vegetarian" type arguments.

But considering that your view is ONLY in line with those of Fundamentalist Mormons, hardline Islam and Nazi Germany. (The last two of which, don't like Jews very much ...) Should give you pause for thought.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Neither. Acceptance of homosexuality is part of our modern culture. Thusly acceptance of homosexual marriage, inehritance rights, gay couple adoption would only be a natural progression of our legal system from our culture and traditions, as these have changed significantly in the past 30 years...

And thus acceptance of wider definitions of marriage is progress too.

SeanW wrote: »

Islam (especially the bat**** crazy kind) is already on the rise in Europe, with its numbers multipying dramatically due to unchecked immigration and crazy fertility rates. Ergo, we are already on the slippery slope, you just want to make it steeper..

Name a country in Europe with unchecked immigration.

Your "Eurabia" fertility rates nonsense doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/10/why-fears-of-a-muslim-takeover-are-all-wrong.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/more_or_less/8189434.stm

You realise that, prior to world war one, there was an obsession on the proto-nazi far right with the numbers of slavs and Jews in Europe and their seemingly larger birth rate? See how that one works.

SeanW wrote: »

Just what has been a part of our traditions for the past ... oh I don't know, millenium or so. I fail to see how what people were doing in the B.C. years is relevant, that's all...

For the last thousand years? For the majority of that we lived under tribal law and brehon law. Europe-wide theres also a good case for arguing that the family unit was based on a household, rather than direct genetic relationships. Your constant appeal to the past is undermined by the fact you don't know what you're appealling to.

SeanW wrote: »

But considering that your view is ONLY in line with those of Fundamentalist Mormons, hardline Islam and Nazi Germany. (The last two of which, don't like Jews very much ...) Should give you pause for thought.

There seem to be a few here that agree with me. And I'd appreciate it if you kept your implications of anti-semitism to yourself in future.

You haven't explained why we should care what a christian saint said about polygamy etc.

You haven't put forward any argument against such practices other than "tradition" and religion. O, and that some muslims might want it.

You haven't explained what you meant by "gold standard" in relation to monogamous marriage

FullBeard

SeanW wrote: »

Neither. Acceptance of homosexuality is part of our modern culture. Thusly acceptance of homosexual marriage, inehritance rights, gay couple adoption would only be a natural progression of our legal system from our culture and traditions, as these have changed significantly in the past 30 years.

...

Just what has been a part of our traditions for the past ... oh I don't know, millenium or so. I fail to see how what people were doing in the B.C. years is relevant, that's all.

You must see how weak this is. You probably know that you're making watery statements. There's no nuance there. Just sweeping, unsubstantiated assertions, wooly notions of natural progression of "our" traditions, and an arbitrary throwing in of, "oh, a millennium or so". You can't stand honestly over any of that, and I suspect you know it.

So the next thing is to throw it out and really examine your premises. This might lead you to question everything: your beliefs about traditions, culture, national identity, religion, everything. I'm no fan of Islam either, and I trod the path you're on. Ultimately I realized that I couldn't stand over Irish or European nationalism, culture or traditions, or even the cultural Christianity that I clinged to despite my atheism as a bulwark against Islam. I was being intellectually dishonest and inconsistent. The enemy, always, is unreason, irrationalism, and an unthinking acceptance of tradition and beliefs, whatever their hue.

SeanW

FullBeard wrote: »

You must see how weak this is. You probably know that you're making watery statements. There's no nuance there. Just sweeping, unsubstantiated assertions, wooly notions of natural progression of "our" traditions, and an arbitrary throwing in of, "oh, a millennium or so". You can't stand honestly over any of that, and I suspect you know it.

So the next thing is to throw it out and really examine your premises. This might lead you to question everything: your beliefs about traditions, culture, national identity, religion, everything. I'm no fan of Islam either, and I trod the path you're on. Ultimately I realized that I couldn't stand over Irish or European nationalism, culture or traditions, or even the cultural Christianity that I clinged to despite my atheism as a bulwark against Islam. I was being intellectually dishonest and inconsistent. The enemy, always, is unreason, irrationalism, and an unthinking acceptance of tradition and beliefs, whatever their hue.

If you're arguing that culture is irrelevant and that those of us who share a culture are not linked by it, I have to disagree in the strongest possible terms.

Assuming that you're Irish, or once accepted the Irish identity, the chances are that you hold a similar view of leisure and celebration to other Irish people, e.g. going to the bar and getting pissed. It is also likely that you enjoy(ed) many of the same sports as other Irish people, e.g. Gaelic games, Soccer, Rugby etc. You speak the same language, English, possibly some Irish, eat many of the same kinds of foods as your countrymen, listened to the same kind of music.

If you're English, you're probably as likely to tuck into a Cornish pasty as anything or snack, more likely to watch Cricket than Hurling, celebrate different holidays, rally around a different flag etc.

Americans, have their own sports (Baseball, American football, Basketball), own music, (Country & Western), own holidays (July 4th) and so on.

Now, you may have come to the conclusion that these things are irrational or irrelevant or whatever but the reality is that these things do in fact bind us as peoples together and many people identify with them.

And that's fine for the most part, the only time there's a problem with that is where people of different cultures and traditions cannot get along, e.g. Northern Ireland, and in that case they've had to try to form a shared culture.

I just don't think that's possible with extremist Islam. If we don't surrender to Sharia, they'll basically try to drown us in our own blood. Extremists have demonstrated this very clearly time and time again.

Michael Nugent

Michael Nugent wrote:

International pressure has since caused the Islamic states to start backing away from the defamation of religion tactic, but they are now re-inventing it in the guise of incitement to hatred of religion instead of defamation of religion.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

incitement to hatred of religion? where did they get that terminology from michael?

Sorry, my mistake. The terminology is religious hatred, as I cited in my original post, not hatred of religion. The point I was making is that the Islamic states at UN level are moving - tactically - from the concept of defamation to the concept of hatred, but still with the same aim of trying to prevent people from criticizing Islam in ways that they believe to be insulting.

ShooterSF

SeanW wrote: »

Neither. Acceptance of homosexuality is part of our modern culture. Thusly acceptance of homosexual marriage, inehritance rights, gay couple adoption would only be a natural progression of our legal system from our culture and traditions, as these have changed significantly in the past 30 years.

Ah but if you were around 20 years ago? Or is this where we draw the line in the sand? No more changes from here on in?

If you are a married man, try telling this to your wife and see how far you get!

Ok Im going to stop on this one because it just left a hand print mark on my face. Why would I get married in a monogamous relationship if I didn't want one and then sneak a polygamous one on a person that doesn't? What lunacy is this?
I bet I'm more honest than most men when it comes to meeting women. It's not impossible to you know express these desires before hand rather than sneak them in afterwards. No one here is suggesting we legislate forced one direction polygamy; Just that pointing to tradition is not a reason against consenting polygamous marriage (there are some genuine such as the legal minefield divorce and deaths could cause)

FullBeard

SeanW wrote: »

If you're arguing that culture is irrelevant and that those of us who share a culture are not linked by it, I have to disagree in the strongest possible terms.

It is relevant in the same way that religion is relevant.

Assuming that you're Irish

I am...

the chances are that you hold a similar view of leisure and celebration to other Irish people, e.g. going to the bar and getting pissed. It is also likely that you enjoy(ed) many of the same sports as other Irish people, e.g. Gaelic games, Soccer, Rugby etc. You speak the same language, English, possibly some Irish, eat many of the same kinds of foods as your countrymen, listened to the same kind of music.

That's the all-too-easy, common narrative. It doesn't have much substance or nuance to it though. It's a broad brush stroke. Eating certain foods and speaking English are hardly the essence of Irishness; plenty of people eschew GAA, soccer, rugby, or all three; and lots of Irish people don't get drunk. And that is the problem with such nebulous, indefinable notions as national identity. They do exist, but only as ideas and labels, replete with their various narratives and staples. They are entirely fabricated, in exactly the same way that religions are. For all the behavioral characteristics that you can rattle off about Americans, Irish, Germans and Japanese, you'll find that they don't apply to all members of the specified group. You might think that this doesn't undermine your case but it certainly does. It means that not everyone fits. Not everyone believes. Not everyone buys into the template of what they should be if they're from a particular polity. Those who do buy into these ideas simply believe them, because it's how they were nurtured and never thought much about it. It's the same phenomenon at work with people who are nurtured with certain religious beliefs, which they might never question, or never be forced to question. The reasons for subscribing to pride in national identity (note that I'm not talking about citizenship of a state, which is a legal matter) is seldom critiqued - but its basis can be questioned in precisely the same way that religious identity can.

When you appeal to notions of "our" culture as a corrective to aspects of Islamic culture, it's easy to poke holes in your stance, as many here have done. You use terribly imprecise words, ideas, and timeframes when defending monogamy, all-too-recent-and-not-as-yet-unanimous toleration of homosexuality, and "our traditions and culture". This is unavoidable for you, because your whole argument rests on the foggy notion of what Irish or western culture apparently consists of.

I just don't think that's possible with extremist Islam. If we don't surrender to Sharia, they'll basically try to drown us in our own blood. Extremists have demonstrated this very clearly time and time again.

Such extremists must be defeated; you'll have no argument from me. But the way to do this is by appealing to reason, not by trying to supplant their irrational beliefs with some of our own. In a globalized, technologized world, it's time for a new way, one that sets aside some of the more divisive notions of history. We should use our brains rather than yield to our them-and-us tribal impulses, which, thanks to the cerebral cortex, can be overcome.

SeanW

FullBeard wrote: »

That's the all-too-easy, common narrative. It doesn't have much substance or nuance to it though. It's a broad brush stroke. Eating certain foods and speaking English are hardly the essence of Irishness; plenty of people eschew GAA, soccer, rugby, or all three; and lots of Irish people don't get drunk. And that is the problem with such nebulous, indefinable notions as national identity. They do exist, but only as ideas and labels, replete with their various narratives and staples. They are entirely fabricated, in exactly the same way that religions are. For all the behavioral characteristics that you can rattle off about Americans, Irish, Germans and Japanese, you'll find that they don't apply to all members of the specified group.

Granted there are exceptions, but as an Irishman, these things mean that you are more likely to have more in common with a person down the road or in the next town than someone in Siberia, Japan or Saudi Arabia. The latter of which I am most sure of. You cannot escape that reality.

Such extremists must be defeated; you'll have no argument from me.

And of course, Step 1 in that process is embracing a fundamental aspect of Sharia Law, as demanded by people like Irish Islamic Vanguard.

SeanW

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ah but if you were around 20 years ago? Or is this where we draw the line in the sand? No more changes from here on in?

If it were 20 years ago Ireland would still be in the chokehold of the Catholic Church, and reform would have been impossible.

We as secularists would then have to work to change the culture, to promote acceptance of those among us who are that way inclined, before any changes to the law could reasonably follow.

If you're claiming that homosexuality should have been more tolerated/accepted in Ireland, say, 20, 30 or 50 years ago I agree, but expecting legal changes to preceed cultural change is like putting the cart before the horse.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

If it were 20 years (..........)change is like putting the cart before the horse.

Theres a number of questions here you might be as good as to get back to me on.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79380410&postcount=127

FullBeard

SeanW wrote: »

Granted there are exceptions, but as an Irishman, these things mean that you are more likely to have more in common with a person down the road or in the next town than someone in Siberia, Japan or Saudi Arabia. The latter of which I am most sure of. You cannot escape that reality.

A mutual fondness for a particular game is a darn poor reason to divide humanity, and it's a rather superficial thing on which to build a tribe.

A mutual fondness for a particular flag is a darn poor reason to divide humanity, and it's a rather superficial thing on which to build a tribe.

A mutual fondness for a particular theological dogma is a darn poor reason to divide humanity, and it's a rather superficial thing on which to build a tribe.

It's not any more credible simply because millions adhere to it, in exactly the same way that belief in the Christian god is not made more plausible by the fact that his worshippers outnumber those who believe in Thor.

Far better to recognise, as ever, that human beings have far more in common than not in common. That the majority are deluded is depressing - but I will persevere in my skeptical approach to all truth claims, leave no sacred cows unslaughtered, and challenge unreason wherever I find it.

Spread the word, and as Tommy Tiernan once beseeched, "Come over to my side!"

FullBeard

SeanW wrote: »

Granted there are exceptions, but as an Irishman, these things mean that you are more likely to have more in common with a person down the road or in the next town than someone in Siberia, Japan or Saudi Arabia. The latter of which I am most sure of. You cannot escape that reality.

BTW - I have far more in common (i.e. things upon which to base a friendship) with someone who has a similar level of intelligence, education, and temperament to me, whether they're from the US, Japan or Dubai (I've never met a Saudi), than I do with someone just because they happen to come from the same island as me. If you reflect honestly, you might find that this is the case for you, too.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

Theres a number of questions here you might be as good as to get back to me on.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79380410&postcount=127

Considering that I'm debating 3 or 4 of you cultural relativists at once, you shouldn't be surprised if I don't address every single line of text in your posts.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...all-wrong.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ss/8189434.stm

These links would seem to suggest that the situation regarding Islam in Europe is somewhat hopeful. But it is at best, very selective and somewhat naieve, at worst, written by the PC left to bury the truth.

The truth is that Islamic immigration into Europe has been a spectacular disaster, a reality that is now dawning on some.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1703/uk-anti-semitism-muslim-schools
Suggests that in the U.K the Muslim population is growing, and each generation is more poisoned and crazy than the last, the main plank of which being their absolute rejection of British culture and identity. The things you and Beard whatever his name is agree on.

And it seems that some Muslims agree with me that Islam and Western culture (there's that world culture again) are totally incompatible. Like this "German"-Turk for example.

A mutual fondness for a particular game, language, flag, theocratic dogma ...

Nonetheless all of our societies are built on these things and ours is under attack by insane Islamic extremists who are growing in both number and craziness.

Of course, it is going to be impossible to protect our culture from these barbarians - that's right, our culture, our way of life which most of us are proud of - with people like you trying their damndest to abolish it!

Spread the word, and as Tommy Tiernan once beseeched, "Come over to my side!"

The Hell I will :mad:

SeanW

FullBeard wrote: »

If you reflect honestly, you might find that this is the case for you, too.

I would like to hope I have a lot in common with an average Japanese person, considering that I deeply admire their culture (yes, there's that word again).

But I also dearly hope that I have nothing whatsoever in common with this clown:

But I'm honestly beginning to question whether you do!

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

These links would seem to suggest that the situation regarding Islam in Europe is somewhat hopeful. But it is at best, very selective and somewhat naieve, at worst, written by the PC left to bury the truth.

So its a conspiracy now, is it?

Why would the left seek to "bury the truth"?

SeanW wrote: »

The truth is that Islamic ........and identity. The things you and Beard whatever his name is agree on.

A hysterical over-reading of the situation.

SeanW wrote: »

And it seems that some Muslims agree with me that Islam and Western culture (there's that world culture again) are totally incompatible. Like this "German"-Turk for example..

I'm sure there are. There are also people who believe we should bomb mecca, and that the British royal family are lizard people.

SeanW wrote: »

Nonetheless all of our societies are built on these things and ours is under attack by insane Islamic extremists who are growing in both number and craziness...

Yet more hysterical overstatement.

SeanW wrote: »

Of course, it is going to be impossible to protect our culture from these barbarians - that's right, our culture, our way of life which most of us are proud of - with people like you trying their damndest to abolish it!
The Hell I will

Yes, you can stand guard. That way theres no chance they can sneak up on us. Before you go on duty, however, I'd appreciate it if you'd address these outstanding questions you seem to have missed

You stated

Islam (especially the bat**** crazy kind) is already on the rise in Europe, with its numbers multipying dramatically due to unchecked immigration

Please name a country in Europe with "unchecked immigration", preferably with unchecked

You haven't explained why we should care what a christian saint said about polygamy etc.

You haven't put forward any argument against such practices other than "tradition" and religion. O, and that some muslims might want it.

You haven't explained what you meant by "gold standard" in relation to monogamous marriage

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

Why would the left seek to "bury the truth"?

Because it doesn't gel well with their PC multicultural view of the world?

I'm sure there are. There are also people who believe we should bomb mecca, and that the British royal family are lizard people.

I would wager however that there are proportionally more muslims who believe in Islam related violence than there are people in the general population to believe that the British royal family are lizard people.

Yet more hysterical overstatement.

Care to deal with the points actually raised in my link?

Please name a country in Europe with "unchecked immigration", preferably with unchecked

The Netherlands, had unchecked Islamic immigration in the period of 1960-1973 and their Islamic population grew exponentially in the years between 1960 and 2004.

Germany let a crazy amount of Turks into their country and now a lot of them absolutely hate Germany (and Western traditions) as I outlined in my last post.

You haven't explained why we should care what a christian saint said about polygamy etc.

I never did, I was responding to an argument about cultural views on the matter.

You haven't put forward any argument against such practices other than "tradition" and religion. O, and that some muslims might want it.

Not just "some" muslims, the crazy ones. I have no problem with the kind of Islam where you're a normal person that just happens to pray 5 times a day. That's not the kind of Islam we're talking about though ...

You haven't explained what you meant by "gold standard" in relation to monogamous marriage

It's very simple. The vast majority of our people who want to be in a committed relationship, want to be in a relationship with one person, be they gay or straight. It doesn't really matter why. Polygamous marriage could only ever become commonplace in Ireland or any other Western country as a response to the desire among the Islamised Left to be more accepting of foreign extremist Islamic culture.

SeanW

One last thing: Polygamy is a frequent target of feminist groups and individuals, especially in relation to the Islamic world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy

Saudi Arabia. Women's groups within the United Nations have called on Saudi Arabia to outlaw polygamy. Most consider such a move extremely unlikely.

Indonesia. Feminist groups and individuals have stated their intent to work for the complete abolition of polygamy and ban polygamous marriage in the country.

Now can you please tell me why the hell we should embrace an ideal that womens rights activists in the Islamic world are trying to abolish at home?

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Because it doesn't gel well with their PC multicultural view of the world?.

So it is a conspiracy then?

SeanW wrote: »

I would wager however that there are proportionally more muslims who believe in Islam related violence than there are people in the general population to believe that the British royal family are lizard people..

Yet we've no incidents here and the overall level of violence in the West is tiny. Considering the amount of activity generated by Irish republicans from a small population, if the muslim demographic were as violent as you imply, it wouldn't be safe to leave the house.

SeanW wrote: »

Care to deal with the points actually raised in my link?..

There are bad eggs in every community.

SeanW wrote: »

The Netherlands, had unchecked Islamic immigration in the period of 1960-1973 and their Islamic population grew exponentially in the years between 1960 and 2004.
..

So theres no country that currently has unchecked immigration.

Immigrants were brought to the netherlands between 1960 and 1973. Thats not "unchecked immigration". As regards the population thats there -

Secularisation of the second generation has nonetheless been observed, mostly amongst young citizens of Iranian and Turkish background with respectively half and a third of these groups not belonging to any religious affiliation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_Netherlands

Not exactly terrifying stuff.

SeanW wrote: »

Germany let a crazy amount of Turks into their country and now a lot of them absolutely hate Germany (and Western traditions) as I outlined in my last post..

Whats "a crazy amount"? Anything over a thousand? A million?

How many, precisely, is "a lot"?

SeanW wrote: »

I never did, I was responding to an argument about cultural views on the matter...

You gave it as reasoning against polygamy. So again, why should we care what a christian saint has to say on the matter? Did he and a team conduct seem hitherto unseen peer reviewed research that you're going to share?

SeanW wrote: »

Not just "some" muslims, the crazy ones. I have no problem with the kind of Islam where you're a normal person that just happens to pray 5 times a day. That's not the kind of Islam we're talking about though ......

O? Thats fascinating. Because when you stated the following

...a crazy amount of Turks ....

The Netherlands, had unchecked Islamic immigration....

The truth is that Islamic immigration into Europe...

...I saw no caveats, ifs or buts referring to or alluding to "extremist muslims".

SeanW wrote: »

It's very simple. The vast majority of our people who want to be in a committed relationship, want to be in a relationship with one person, be they gay or straight.

And of couse what a minority want doesn't count.

Isn't that the way they treat people in that Saudi place you tell people to go back to?

SeanW wrote: »

It doesn't really matter why.
.

Actually it does.

SeanW wrote: »

Polygamous marriage could only ever become commonplace in Ireland or any other Western country as a response to the desire among the Islamised Left to be more accepting of foreign extremist Islamic culture.

According to you. However as any number of things claimed by you haven't held up to much scrutiny, you'll pardon me not taking your word for it.

Who are the "Islamised left", by the way?

Since when has polygamy been synonymous with "extremist Islamic culture"?

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

One last thing:................

Now can you please tell me why the hell we should embrace an ideal that womens rights activists in the Islamic world are trying to abolish at home?

You seem to think that a relationship in the West between consenting adults is the same as in a patriarchal arch conservative monarchy. I'd go out on a limb and say you were wrong.

FullBeard

SeanW wrote: »

But I also dearly hope that I have nothing whatsoever in common with this clown:

But I'm honestly beginning to question whether you do!

I have nothing in common intellectually with knife-wielding zealots who believe in supernatural beings, no. And I don't know how you got that from my posts. As I said, I oppose unreason and idiotic traditions in all their forms.

You seem confused about my stance on polygamy. In general, I oppose any practice which forces people to do something they don't want. Case in point, Ireland's some-would-say Catholic culture and traditions prohibited couples from using contraception or divorcing for many a decade. It still prohibits women from having abortions if they choose. I oppose any baseless curb on people's freedom to have sex, marry and reproduce. To be intellectually consistent, I must therefore tolerate polygamy if that is what consenting adults desire. It's a legitimate form of human relationship. But just as Catholic stricture deprives women of a right to choose, I would oppose any Islamic stricture that compelled unwilling women or men into polygamous relationships. The key concern is consent and the freedom to do as you see fit with other like-minded consenting adults as long as no one else is injured, even if I can't fathom the appeal myself. Islam has nothing to do with it.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

Yet we've no incidents here and the overall level of violence in the West is tiny. Considering the amount of activity generated by Irish republicans from a small population, if the muslim demographic were as violent as you imply, it wouldn't be safe to leave the house.

It's already unsafe for Jews in countries like France.
More and more French Jews emigrating to Israel.

Five years ago, Linda moved from Paris to Canada and then to the Israeli port city of Ashdod. Only a week ago, she, her husband and their two sons faced a hail of rockets from the Gaza Strip. Nevertheless, Linda, who doesn't want to be identified by her last name, is delighted to be living in France no longer. "It's much safer here than in France," she says. "Anti-Semitism has become unbearable there," she says. "Children are harassed on their way to school just because they're Jews." She adds that she was also the victim of such harassment in the middle of the Champs-Élysées in Paris. "I was wearing a necklace with a Star of David attached to it," she recalls. "Someone barged into me. I said to him: 'You ought to excuse yourself!' All he said was that he didn't apologize to Jews."

Other sources are less reserved in their criticism of how things are going.
Jew Hunting Open Season in France

Things are also getting somewhat rough for Coptic Christians in Egypt, where the so-called Arab Spring is quickly becoming an Islamic Winter.

You gave it as reasoning against polygamy.

Again, I did not, I simply gave it as an example of a culture (Christianity) whose view on the matter was very clear, not an explicit reason in and of itself.

Did he and a team conduct seem hitherto unseen peer reviewed research that you're going to share?

I see you and your good friend Mr. Straw Man are already well acquainted ...

And of couse what a minority want doesn't count.

Like the Jews of France (who have to flee) ... Coptic Christians in Egypt ...

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

It's already unsafe for Jews in countries like France.
More and more French Jews emigrating to Israel....

They "feel" unsafe. How they think Israel is safer escapes me.

SeanW wrote: »

Other sources are less reserved in their criticism of how things are going.
Jew Hunting Open Season in France...

Yet more hysteria.

SeanW wrote: »

Things are also getting somewhat rough for Coptic Christians in Egypt, where the so-called Arab Spring is quickly becoming an Islamic Winter....

I don't recall things being rosy under mubarrak either. Thats what happens in countries where minorities are demonised and not respected. People come out with hysterical scare stories, these saturate society, create social division and institutional discrimination.

SeanW wrote: »

Again, I did not, I simply gave it as an example of a culture (Christianity) whose view on the matter was very clear, not an explicit reason in and of itself.....

You do know you're in the atheist and agnostic forum?

Also - Who are the "Islamised left"?

Since when has polygamy been synonymous with "extremist Islamic culture"?

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

They "feel" unsafe. How they think Israel is safer escapes me.

Yes, I figured it would.

You do know you're in the atheist and agnostic forum?

Yes, which is why I also gave examples of China (atheist), Japan (atheist), Europe (increasingly secular, for the most part), and Buddhism an almost atheistic/agnostic "religion"

Also - Who are the "Islamised left"?

Anyone who sympathizes Hamas for one thing, the people who've made it crime to criticise Islam in France for another.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Anyone who sympathizes Hamas for one thing, .

And how does that - where it occurs - equate to being "islamised"?

SeanW wrote: »

the people who've made it crime to criticise Islam in France for another.

Really? Who are they and when did this happen, because I seem to have missed it.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

And how does that - where it occurs - equate to being "islamised"?

Considering that the Hamas Charter (or Covenant) calls for the killing of Jews, anyone who sympathises with them is either a murderous anti-semite or just extremely naieve.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

Hamas Convenant, Article 7 wrote:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

Article 28 wrote:

We should not forget to remind every Moslem that when the Jews conquered the Holy City in 1967, they stood on the threshold of the Aqsa Mosque and proclaimed that "Mohammed is dead, and his descendants are all women." Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. "May the cowards never sleep.

wrote:

Also - Who are the "Islamised left"?

The Mayor of Malmo, Sweden also, like much of the European left who blames the massive increase in Anti-Semitism in Europe on the actions of Israel. A country the size of a county surrounded by people who want to drive the Jews into the sea.

From the Washington Times: Hate Crimes force Jews out of Malmo.

Shneur Kesselman wrote:

Anti-Semitic crimes in Europe have usually been associated with the far right, but Shneur Kesselman, an Orthodox rabbi, says the threat now comes from Muslims. “In the past five years I’ve been here, I think you can count on your hand how many incidents there have been from the extreme right,” he said. “In my personal experience, it’s 99 percent Muslims.”

From the Telegraph: Jews leave Swedish city after sharp rise in anti-Semitic hate crimes.

Malmo's Jews, however, do not just point the finger at bigoted Muslims and their fellow racists in the country's Neo-Nazi fringe. They also accuse Ilmar Reepalu, the Left-wing mayor who has been in power for 15 years, of failing to protect them.
Mr Reepalu, who is blamed for lax policing, is at the centre of a growing controversy for saying that what the Jews perceive as naked anti-Semitism is in fact just a sad, but understandable consequence of Israeli policy in the Middle East.
While his views are far from unusual on the European liberal-left, which is often accused of a pro-Palestinian bias,

He also drew criticism for blaming Malmo Jews for not distancing themselves from the Israeli campaign in Gaza.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Considering that the Hamas Charter (or Covenant) calls for the killing of Jews, anyone who sympathises with them is either a murderous anti-semite or just extremely naieve..

....which - even if true - still doesn't make them islamised.

SeanW wrote: »

The Mayor of Malmo, Sweden also, like much of the European left who blames the massive increase in Anti-Semitism in Europe on the actions of Israel. ...............

Not seeing how that makes him "Islamised". I'm begiining to suspect that "Islamised left" is a term like "PC left" - a term used to label anyone who disagrees, rather than one with a meaning in the real world.

People who like to think in simplistic terms equate Israel with all Jews and presume that being Jewish automatically means support for that state. As a result when Israel does something, they react against the Jewish population, even though the majority have no involvement with the Israeli state. In the exact same fashion, when 19 Muslims, mostly of one nationality and of extremist bent, attacked various American locations, there was a reaction against Muslims in general, even though the vast majorityhad no involvement.

It's the product of ignorance, generalisations, half truths and myths in both cases, SeanW, spread around by people who have no interest in the truth, because what they think they know suits them just fine.