Atheist Alexander Aan jailed today in Indonesia

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 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 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!

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.

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.

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 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
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 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?

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.

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.