Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    07 Dec '17 01:33
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    "I would recommend the Karen Armstrong biography of Muhammad."
    --No1Marauder (to Sonhouse)

    "A useful introduction for Westerners to Islam is this book by a non-Muslim Western woman:
    _Islam: A Short History_ by Karen Armstrong"
    --Duchess64

    .
    Then explain how Muslim countries seem to all fall into being an Islam theocracy where women are reviled like the ban in Saudi keeping women from even driving by themselves.

    A country gets taken over by Isalm and all of a sudden Islam IS the government. And you support that it seems, don't attack those peaceful citizens after all it IS their country, yeah, NOW.
  2. 07 Dec '17 01:39 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    Then explain how Muslim countries seem to all fall into being an Islam theocracy where women are reviled like the ban in Saudi keeping women from even driving by themselves.

    A country gets taken over by Isalm and all of a sudden Islam IS the government. And you support that it seems, don't attack those peaceful citizens after all it IS their country, yeah, NOW.
    Sonhouse keeps reciting his favorite ignorant or bigoted Islamophobic falsehoods.
    IndonesiaPhil lives in the world's most populous predominantly Muslim society, and I expect
    that he has *not* experienced the terribly oppressive conditions that Sonhouse keeps
    presuming *must be universal* for predominantly Muslim societies.

    "Then explain how Muslim countries seem to all fall into being an Islam theocracy where
    women are reviled like the ban in Saudi keeping women from even driving by themselves."
    --Sonhouse

    FALSE. In fact, predominantly Muslim societies are quite diverse politically and culturally.
    I note with disdain that the Islamophobic troll Sonhouse has 'cherry picked' Saudi Arabia
    and the issue of women not being allowed to drive, even though for a long time Saudi Arabia
    was the ONLY Islamic society in which women were not allowed to drive. And even that's
    obsolete because Saudi Arabia has declared that its ban on women driving will be lifted.
    But the extremely dishonest troll Sonhouse still likes to pretend that this ban's permanent.

    The 'militant' atheist Sonhouse seems just as ignorant, misinformed, and bigoted as the
    Christian fundamentalist Whodey toward Islam and Muslims. Both are Islamophobic trolls.
  3. 07 Dec '17 01:45
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    Then explain how Muslim countries seem to all fall into being an Islam theocracy where women are reviled like the ban in Saudi keeping women from even driving by themselves.

    A country gets taken over by Isalm and all of a sudden Islam IS the government. And you support that it seems, don't attack those peaceful citizens after all it IS their country, yeah, NOW.
    Will the ignorant and gullible Sonhouse read any of the books by Karen Armstrong, which
    were recommended by me and No1Marauder? Or find it easier just to continue his ranting?
  4. 07 Dec '17 10:47
    Originally posted by @great-king-rat
    Blahblahblah...

    Dodgess64 is performing a trick much used by sonship over at Spirituality. Rambling endlessly hoping the volume of text will hide the fact she's not saying anything at all.

    You quoted my post to sonhouse and claimed "some Dutch writers here apparently like to pretend that the Dutch never have been racist".

    Facts:

    - The cl ...[text shortened]... n particular me, are to some degree accused.

    How about a sincere apology? You got one in you?
    Bump for Dodgess64.
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    07 Dec '17 12:56 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    Will the ignorant and gullible Sonhouse read any of the books by Karen Armstrong, which
    were recommended by me and No1Marauder? Or find it easier just to continue his ranting?
    http://www.islamicity.org/3827/review-muhammad-prophet-for-our-time-by-karen-armstrong/

    This islamic site says she got some things right and other things wrong but Muhammad (peace be with him) is the man of peace.

    The thing is, of all the religions of the world, you don't see Hindu's fighting all over the globe or Buddhists or Bahai's, you see Christians and Muslims at each others throats for centuries and the so-called religion of peace has perpetrated massacres of their own just as you would castigate christians for the same as if there never have been Muslim led massacres. Like it Palestine in the 19th century, whole christian villages and Jewish villages wiped out but that's ok, right, boys will be boys.

    It's NEVER the religion, ALWAYS just bad people.

    I guess the report of this minor battle means nothing:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmouk
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    07 Dec '17 13:19
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    So one feature of this reviled tax plan is allowing churches to openly support political candidates.

    Funny, I thought there was the concept of separation of church and state.

    Boy was I wrong.

    This is not the US I knew.
    You greatly misunderstand the concept of separation of church and state. The phrase (which is not actually in the Constitution anyway, but in a Thomas Jefferson private letter) refers to the government not being run by religion or according to religion. It does nothing to prohibit or even discourage religious people or institutions from being involved in the political arena or push a political agenda.

    Religious people and groups have every bit as much right to participate in the political process as non-religious people do.
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    07 Dec '17 16:01
    Originally posted by @sh76
    You greatly misunderstand the concept of separation of church and state. The phrase (which is not actually in the Constitution anyway, but in a Thomas Jefferson private letter) refers to the government not being run by religion or according to religion. It does nothing to prohibit or even discourage religious people or institutions from being involved in the p ...[text shortened]... have every bit as much right to participate in the political process as non-religious people do.
    Sure, NOW. Trump also changed things so corporations can contribute infinite amount of money to the hack of their choice. So this is a good thing? I wonder how many more states will now push to have evolution removed from the science curriculum? And replaced with creationism, much to Ken Ham's delight....
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    07 Dec '17 17:41
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    Sure, NOW. Trump also changed things so corporations can contribute infinite amount of money to the hack of their choice. So this is a good thing? I wonder how many more states will now push to have evolution removed from the science curriculum? And replaced with creationism, much to Ken Ham's delight....
    Trump didn't do that. The Supreme Court did, in Citizens United.
  9. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    07 Dec '17 18:23
    Originally posted by @sh76
    Trump didn't do that. The Supreme Court did, in Citizens United.
    And what way does the one he popped in lean?
  10. 07 Dec '17 20:21
    Originally posted by @sh76
    You greatly misunderstand the concept of separation of church and state. The phrase (which is not actually in the Constitution anyway, but in a Thomas Jefferson private letter) refers to the government not being run by religion or according to religion. It does nothing to prohibit or even discourage religious people or institutions from being involved in the p ...[text shortened]... have every bit as much right to participate in the political process as non-religious people do.
    "You [Sonhouse] greatly misunderstand the concept of separation of church and state."
    --Sh76 (to Sonhouse)

    Sonhouse, who's among the most gullible and close-minded writers at RHP, 'greatly
    misunderstands' many things, but he's far too arrogant to accept any correction from me.
    Perhaps, as a white man, Sonhouse, will listen to what another white man tells him.
  11. 07 Dec '17 20:24
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    http://www.islamicity.org/3827/review-muhammad-prophet-for-our-time-by-karen-armstrong/

    This islamic site says she got some things right and other things wrong but Muhammad (peace be with him) is the man of peace.

    The thing is, of all the religions of the world, you don't see Hindu's fighting all over the globe or Buddhists or Bahai's, you see Christ ...[text shortened]... he report of this minor battle means nothing:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmouk
    It's clear enough that the willfully ignorant Sonhouse's addicted to his favorite Islamophobic
    propaganda and refuses to consider any reputable (non-Muslim) writers who dispute it.
    So, to the easy applause of the many other Islamophobic trolls here, Sonhouse may be
    expected to keep spewing his obsessive hatred of Islam and Muslims in general.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    Caustic/Disagreeable
    08 Dec '17 00:46
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    http://www.islamicity.org/3827/review-muhammad-prophet-for-our-time-by-karen-armstrong/

    This islamic site says she got some things right and other things wrong but Muhammad (peace be with him) is the man of peace.

    The thing is, of all the religions of the world, you don't see Hindu's fighting all over the globe or Buddhists or Bahai's, you see Christ ...[text shortened]... he report of this minor battle means nothing:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmouk
    What exactly does your reference to the Battle of Yarmouk prove? That various powers were struggling to control territory in the Middle East in the 600s? They had been doing that for thousands of years, long before Islam even appeared. The situation was little different in Europe.

    So what exactly is your point?
  13. 08 Dec '17 01:08 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @no1marauder to Sonhouse
    What exactly does your reference to the Battle of Yarmouk prove? That various powers were struggling to control territory in the Middle East in the 600s? They had been doing that for thousands of years, long before Islam even appeared. The situation was little different in Europe.

    So what exactly is your point?
    Knowing that Sonhouse's extremely ignorant and misinformed about history and too arrogant
    to learn anything from reputable scholarly sources, I suspect that Sonhouse loves to throw
    up random bits (anything loosely involving Muslims and violence) and hope that they stick
    as much with some extremely gullible readers as they do in his own deluded mind.

    When Sonhouse trots out stuff like this:
    "I guess the report of this minor battle means nothing"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmouk

    I tend to ignore it because (like No1Marauder) I have no idea of its relevance to any rational argument.
    When I ignore it as irrelevant, however, Sonhouse (and his Islamophobic troll allies)
    like to act as though they must have won a great victory in 'debating' me about history.

    I doubt that Sonhouse really has a coherent position. Sonhouse seems to have eagerly
    absorbed an amorphous mass of anti-Muslim bigotry and is posting based upon instinct.
    Sonhouse 'knows' that Islam is evil and Muslims are very bad and/or dangerous. so
    his posts reflect a kind of unreasoning fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims.
  14. 08 Dec '17 23:49 / 1 edit
    I recommend this recent book on the early history of Islam:
    _The Crucible of Islam_ by G.W. Bowerstock (2017, Harvard University Press)

    (Let the 'thumbs down' bloom from the trolls who never have or will read it!)
  15. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    09 Dec '17 00:56
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    I recommend this recent book on the early history of Islam:
    _The Crucible of Islam_ by G.W. Bowerstock (2017, Harvard University Press)

    (Let the 'thumbs down' bloom from the trolls who never have or will read it!)
    I had to thumb up out of spite Maybe the wars were not as bad as I supposed but I still do not consider them to be the religion of peace, unless all 8 billion of us are Muslim, and even then some would not consider other Muslim groups to be Muslim ENOUGH.