Is polyandry bad?

[Wallenburg]

No.

[Celritannia]

People can practice their religion, as long as religion and politics remains separate. After all, politicians have to deal with a wide range of people, so you cannot just pander to those of a similar religion.

Who said anything about pandering to a particular religious community? I just think politicians should try to do what is morally right, and many people understand morality on the basis of their religious faith.

Morality is subjective.
Which is why it is dangerous for politicians to use religion to be against something, like LGBTQ+ Marriage, or polyamory.

[Sundiata]

Secularism is not atheistic.
If a country was atheistic, it would not allow religion, would it?

Yes it would, depending upon the extent to which it is. Secularism, by definition, is opposed to the teachings of Catholicism.

Do you have any examples of a secular atheistic country?

Sure, Japan.

So you want to force people to obey one religion against their will, denying them rights to freedom?

No.

In political terms, secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries.[4]

In politics, integralism or integrism (French: intégrisme) is the principle that the Catholic faith should be the basis of public law and public policy within civil society, wherever the preponderance of Catholics within that society makes this possible.

[Kernen]

You're saying that the first amendment is fascistic?

The First Amendment, which only applies to the United States anyway, does not prescribe the separation of Church and state. Neither does it prohibit the influence of religion in public and civic life.

It merely prohibits the establishment of a national church, like the Anglicans in England, or the restriction of religions, such as the anti-Catholic penal laws. This is abundantly clear if you actually read its text.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Furthermore, the entire idea of “separation of Church and state” originates in a private letter of Thomas Jefferson, not in any document of legal significance.

The first amendment has been incorporated against states. Later cases expand the establishment clause to more than merely not creating a national church.

[Sundiata]

On those grounds I am morally opposed to polyamory of any sort.

[Celritannia]

Secularism is not atheistic.
If a country was atheistic, it would not allow religion, would it?

Yes it would, depending upon the extent to which it is. Secularism is opposed to the teachings of Catholicism.

Do you have any examples of a secular atheistic country?

Sure, Japan.

So you want to force people to obey one religion against their will, denying them rights to freedom?

No.

In political terms, secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries.[4]

In politics, integralism or integrism (French: intégrisme) is the principle that the Catholic faith should be the basis of public law and public policy within civil society, wherever the preponderance of Catholics within that society makes this possible.

Secularism is not opposed to people preaching any religion.
Secularism is against having religion influence politics.

Japan is still heavily Shinto based. So nice try, but no.

But you would want a country to be catholic, and have catholic teaching influence legislation and politics, ergo denying certain people freedom because of Catholic doctrine.

In political terms, secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries.[4]

In politics, integralism or integrism (French: intégrisme) is the principle that the Catholic faith should be the basis of public law and public policy within civil society, wherever the preponderance of Catholics within that society makes this possible.

[/quote]

So you do want Catholicism to deny people rights, via inegrism?

[Bienenhalde]

Who said anything about pandering to a particular religious community? I just think politicians should try to do what is morally right, and many people understand morality on the basis of their religious faith.

Morality is subjective.
Which is why it is dangerous for politicians to use religion to be against something, like LGBTQ+ Marriage, or polyamory.

And do you think an argument a person makes is somehow less valid because they are influenced by deeply held religious convictions?

[Celritannia]

Morality is subjective.
Which is why it is dangerous for politicians to use religion to be against something, like LGBTQ+ Marriage, or polyamory.

And do you think an argument a person makes is somehow less valid because they are influenced by deeply held religious convictions?

If they are denying basic rights for people, yes.

[Artemiseau]

I don't believe its bad if everybody is aware of it, and willing to be a simple partner among many. Its the Woman's decision to have multiple partners who all agree to it as well. What people have in relationships or in the bedroom shouldn't be any concern to others.

[Sundiata]

Secularism is not opposed to people preaching any religion.
Secularism is against having religion influence politics.

Which, by definition, is completely opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Japan is still heavily Shinto based. So nice try, but no.

Japan is still heavily shinto based with respect to its culture, not its secular laws. So nice try, but yes.

But you would want a country to be catholic, and have catholic teaching influence legislation and politics, ergo denying certain people freedom because of Catholic doctrine.

No, as denying people religious freedom would completely oppose the teachings of the Catholic Church.

[Kernen]

Secularism is not opposed to people preaching any religion.
Secularism is against having religion influence politics.Which, by definition, is completely opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Japan is still heavily shinto based with respect to its culture, not its secular laws. So nice try, but yes.

No, as denying people religious freedom would completely oppose the teachings of the Catholic Church.

So is it religious freedom so long as you believe in catholic doctrine, or religious freedom so long as your practices don't deviate from catholic practice?

[Bienenhalde]

And do you think an argument a person makes is somehow less valid because they are influenced by deeply held religious convictions?

If they are denying basic rights for people, yes.

And what if they deny basic rights because they are an atheistic nihilist and don't think rights are real, and besides denying rights happens to benefit that politician in some way?

[Celritannia]

Secularism is not opposed to people preaching any religion.
Secularism is against having religion influence politics.

Which, by definition, is completely opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Japan is still heavily Shinto based. So nice try, but no.

Japan is still heavily shinto based with respect to its culture, not its secular laws. So nice try, but yes.

But you would want a country to be catholic, and have catholic teaching influence legislation and politics, ergo denying certain people freedom because of Catholic doctrine.

No, as denying people religious freedom would completely oppose the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Again, why should one religion determine the right of an entire population who everyone won't be Catholic?

And Japan's secular laws are much like the UK which still holds the Church of England as it's state religion.
You cannot expect a country like Japan, who has limited influence with Christianity to suddenly want to be culturally conquered by Catholicism.
So please try again.

But you want the Catholic Church to be the only religion to determine what social rights people can have, including denying people the right to marrying who ever they want.

[Punished UMN]

Yes, but so is polygyny, and not for the reasons you seem to think.

[Sundiata]

So you do want Catholicism to deny people rights, via inegrism?

I want Catholicism to preserve people's rights via Integralism.

[Stylan]

Eh, I don't care what you do in your personal life. Not for me though.

[Kernen]

So you do want Catholicism to deny people rights, via inegrism?

I want Catholicism to preserve people's rights via Integralism.

...provided those rights are exclusive to catholic doctrine.

[Celritannia]

If they are denying basic rights for people, yes.

And what if they deny basic rights because they are an atheistic nihilist and don't think rights are real, and besides denying rights happens to benefit that politician in some way?

It's the same same principle.
Rights should be something that are universal, and not determined by a religion, or lack thereof.

Although, baring say the PRC, or Cuba, there are not many atheist politicians who deny rights for people.

[Celritannia]

So you do want Catholicism to deny people rights, via inegrism?

I want Catholicism to preserve people's rights via Integralism.

Which means denying people rights unless they follow Catholicism.

[Nejii]

From a non-religious or religious interpretation, I don't agree with polyandry.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

I want Catholicism to preserve people's rights via Integralism.

...provided those rights are exclusive to catholic doctrine.

When did he say he would force people to be Catholic?
If I want to marry a non-Catholic girl (E.g. if I admire her loyalty and virginity whilst she admires my chivalry both in terms of good treatment of women and martial valour) is that allowed in your state.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Guys I will make a thread debating Catholic theocracy later (after the one debating polygyny) for now we are debating polyandry like the title says.

[Celritannia]

...provided those rights are exclusive to catholic doctrine.

When did he say he would force people to be Catholic?

When he said society should follow Integralism.

[Punished UMN]

So you do want Catholicism to deny people rights, via inegrism?

I want Catholicism to preserve people's rights via Integralism.

The problem with integralism is that a one-size-fits-all religious doctrine of the state undermines the desire or incentive for people of other religions (or of no religion) to respect the state. Something like Laicite is the same principle applied with lack of religion, that the state doesn't respect religion in its policy-making, whereas integralism only respects Roman Catholicism in its policy-making. Secularism tries to mitigate the problem by not having as much religious influence in politics, but also trying to preserve special rights for religious groups so that the state doesn't force them to violate deeply held beliefs for largely petty reasons, I don't think that's a perfect solution, but it is probably better than the former two in terms of how their followers want to implement them. You could also have a Millet system where different groups have different laws, but this can undermine the unity of the state by encouraging religious separatism. However, to get back to the original point, integralism can work in a catholic supermajority nation, but it cannot work outside of them because it has zero way to convince anyone who is not Catholic to follow it, and that many political Catholics think it is a credible ideology shows that there is a sort of Catholic assumption that everyone would agree with Catholicism as long as they understood its dogmas, but that is not true.

[Celritannia]

Guys I will make a thread debating Catholic theocracy later (after the one debating polygyny) for now we are debating polyandry like the title says.

And we are arguing that Catholic Doctrine has no right to ban polyandry (and polyamory as a whole) within a secular state.