Muhammad's Hypocrisy

Revelations of Convenience 

According to revelations Muhammad claimed to receive, a Muslim was "entitled" to four wives at a time, and no more.  Except Muhammad, of course, who had special dispensation from Allah to have as many as thirteen.  

To prevent jealousy (in his harem) he spent one night with each of them in turn.  One day it was his wife Hafsa's turn.  She was away visiting her father but then returned unexpectedly.  She was furious to find the Prophet in bed with Mary, the Coptic maid and concubine.  Hafsa reproached him bitterly, threatening to tell the other wives.  Muhammad promised to stay away from the hated Mary if she would keep quiet.  Hafsa, however, confided in Aisha, who also hated Mary.  [Vishal Mangalwadi, The Book That Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2011), p. 282.]

The scandal spread through the whole harem and Muhammad found himself ostracized.  But not to worry.

Tsunami Warning-Siren Sounds

And Why Not?

Well, that didn't take long.

Montana polygamist family applies for marriage license

MTN News

BILLINGS - Given the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, a Lockwood family is now looking to solidify rights of its own. . . . The polyamorous movement is a national push to allow marriage between multiple partners.  Nathan Collier and his two wives, Vicki and Christine, said Tuesday that they are simply looking for equality.  Nathan is legally married to Vicki, but also wants to legally wed Christine.

On Tuesday, Nathan and Christine traveled to the Yellowstone County Courthouse to see if they would be awarded the right to marry under the Marriage Equality Act.   Polygamy is illegal under Montana state law, and recognized as a misdemeanor offense.  "We just want to add legal legitimacy to an already happy, strong, loving family," said Nathan.

Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow

Some of That Magic Constitution Dust

Posted on Tuesday, December 17, 2013  

By Douglas Wilson

Blog and Mablog


A number of months ago, I debated Andrew Sullivan on the subject of same sex marriage, and one of the points I sought to make was a point that he just couldn’t get his head around.

To review, the point was this: a society that doesn’t know what marriage is in situation x cannot suddenly and miraculously come up with an understanding of what marriage is for situation y. Once same-sex mirage is established, or even semi-established, you can count on it, said I — polygamists will start lining up, and they will ask for a judge to sprinkle some of that magic constitution dust on their lusts too.

At the time, Sullivan was most indignant with my idea that the trajectory of marriage law in this country was going to blow right past the arbitrary and capricious restriction of two people per marriage. And since that federal judge in Utah struck down their anti-polygamy law as placing an undue burden on the horniness of the men of Utah, as if they didn’t have enough troubles, I have been waiting by the phone for Andrew Sullivan to call. Given his behavior in the debate, I must assume that this is because he is busy rallying all his same-sex homies, mobilizing them to fight for traditional marriage. You know, the kind with two and only two persons in it. The kind of marriage that we haters insist on.

The judge didn’t legalize legal polygamy quite yet, but he did strike down the illegalization of informal polygamy, and that huge moving sidewalk taking us all into the marital madhouse has lurched into motion again — not that it ever really stopped. But now that it is obviously moving again, that means we can turn our corporate attention once more to the pressing duty of accusing people of hate crimes whenever somebody asks “is this sidewalk moving?”

Gives us something to do.

Gentile Madness

Nothing is Sacred; Anything Goes

Let's consider the following piece from The Guardian, and make applications to and draw implications for New Zealand, and for the West as a whole.

Firstly, the link to the article (it is not unexpected, but jarringly unbelievable nonetheless):

'Why three in a bed isn't a crowd' - the polyamorous trio

Patrick Barkham
The Guardian, Saturday 20 April 2013

The first observation to make is, "Behold the madness of the Gentiles."  

Secondly, we assert that this madness is now implicitly endorsed and encouraged throughout virtually all the West.  This past week the New Zealand parliament overwhelmingly voted in favour of homosexual "marriage".  The predominant justification was that it was wrong to deny a couple's love for one another.  That love was not only genuine, but sacred.  It had to be sacralised in a "marriage" recognized in law, otherwise that love would be discriminated against and denied.  So ran the line.  The Gentiles and more than a few ignorant and poorly taught Christians in the parliament went along with the emotive pablum.

How would these parliamentarians respond to the three people profiled above, in their loving polyamorous relationship?  Note that the individuals in question want their relationship to be sacralised in marriage.  If any one of those ignorant parliamentarians were put to the question and asked, Why oughtn't these three peoples' relationship be recognised as marriage? the answer doubtless would come back, "Because marriage is a relationship between two people."  And were we to ask, "Why ought that be so?" they would have no answer.  They, if they were honest and rational and non-hypocritical, would have to concede that by their lights there can be no objection to the relationship of these three being recognised as marriage.  Any such objection would be discriminatory, prejudicial, and harmful. 

Thirdly, this madness is not just implicitly endorsed, it is where we are actively heading in the West.  The arguments have already been made, the principles already enunciated and agreed.  It's just that our pollies are either too dumb to see it or too sly to acknowledge it.  Most of them are not dumb.  It is far more likely that most of them are sly.  They self-consciously know where this is going to go and they relish it--relish the revolution, the madness, the nihilism of it all. They are amidst a "flood of debauchery".

When one of Britain's most celebrated newspapers carries an article profiling and implicitly promoting such madness the softening-up process is well underway.  "Expand your minds, people.  Push those tolerance barriers out a bit further.  Sure these people are not like you.  But they love each other.  They have rights.  They deserve their crack at self-fulfilment and happiness."

For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry.  With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you; but they will give account to him who is ready the judge the living and the dead.  (I Peter 4: 3-5)

Behold the madness of the Gentiles.  Behold first their surprise that Christians will not go along, then their malignity toward us.  But at such times the Lord is always near. 

Homosexual "Marriage"

The Light Can Shine More Brightly

Homosexual "marriage" is now on the cusp of becoming lawful--an institution recognized in secular law as a genuine bona fide marriage.  This outcome is not surprising.  It has both positive and negative aspects to it.

On the positive side, this piece of political theatre serves clearly to reflect the spiritual state of our society.  Not that we needed any revision.  All faithful Christians know that New Zealand was never a Christian country to begin with and it has long since committed itself to erasing adumbrations of the historical Christian faith.  In the names of modernity, progress, evolution, and freedom the vast majority of our Parliamentarians have decided that the testimony of Scripture on the matter of homosexuality and marriage is simply wrong, if not offensive.  No surprises there.

But it may be helpful to Christians who yet cling to the hope they can reason together with Unbelievers on some kind of common ground in order to get agreement and respect.

The World's Largest Daisy Chain 

Culture and Politics - Sex and Culture
Written by Douglas Wilson
Tuesday, 18 September 2012

There is an argument against homosexual marriage that I have offered from time to time which has been met with a strange sort of incredulity. It came up again the other night during the Q&A after my debate with Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, and so I thought I should jot down a few additional thoughts about it here.

There are two kinds of "beyond-two plurality" in marriage. One is old school -- polygamy -- and I have argued that it is not possible to argue for homosexual marriage without all those same arguments being available for use by the polygamists later on. As I said in the debate, if you leave the key under the mat, more people than just you can use it.