The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

"Should Islam (or any religion) be BANNED?"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 536 times Debate No: 95966
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Islam, like all worldviews, including atheism, is a product of history and culture. The west demonizes Islam the same way it demonized communism during the red scare, and I'd go further but Godwin's law...

People say Islam is not a 'religion of peace' because it promotes war and the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was actually *gasp* a ...


Well. I certainly hate child rapists. Then again, great men such as Gandhi, Columbus, Michael Jackson, and our dear grandfather of over 50% of the world's population Genghis Khan, (we love you grandpa) have ALL been called child rapists. Most of the greek gods were rapists, how old exactly was Mary, mother of Jesus? 14? But Christians certainly don't consider God to be a 'Child Rapists.'

people are moral agents, vi_spex., Still. there is so much we cannot choose; how smart we are, what word-view was pushed on us by religious parents, (or an atheist academic and scientific elite)

Before you say we should "Ban Islam" or any religion for that matter, which is blatant ethnocentrism,, consider cultural relativism, and why people act the way they do?

I don't think you are evil, vi_spex... and I respect your opinion... I am curious however, how did you come to have your beliefs? Was it a particular book, relative, friend, or series of classes? Was it a traumatic life event such as rape or death? Epistemologicaly how did you come to believe what you believe.

The History of the U.S. is deeply rooted in enlightenment principles and humanism that 'came from' (so to speak) protestant Christianity, and so our nation's ideology carries with it pseudo-christian moralist baggage. The current dominant ideology stems from liberalism, a sophistic ( philosophy that champions moral relativism and moral agency, also enlightenment principles.

Iv'e been reading Soren Kierkegaard, and it's quite interesting. It is easy to fall into lockstep with the dominant Ideology of the time, and align oneself with the prevailing volksgeist, (especially if it is quite persuasive!) A belief that is held because it is commonly held by one's culture is not Islam, neither is it Atheism, nor Christianity, or anything really but secular 'Paganism'! Most atrocities in the past have been committed when the dominant ideology commands undue obedience from it's constituents, and it is AUTHORITY that is suspect, religious or otherwise. It has little to do with the tenants of the religion or worldview itself, simply how its used as a tool to manipulate the masses.

So much of what we believe is a result of where and when we live... Imagine if you were born into a Hindu, or Muslim family... you would likely remain loyal to that worldview. Likewise, imagine you were a Roman, raised Pagan, and Christianity was now becoming the Dominant Ideology instead of a persecuted minority. Soon, you would put on a "Christian Hat", stop burning Christians, and start burning witches!

Dogma is Dogma is Dogma, no matter whom is pressing their worldview onto whom. Those with power tend to prey upon the most vulnerable members of society. People say "Take the Red Pill," but, that still involves accepting a belief system that is not really yours, and learning to believe things that are tainted with cultural baggage.


Charles Manson created his own religion founded on worshiping Satan and human sacrifice, when the Fed's found out about his cult, they arrested him and all his followers, and I will bet you that if a new cult arose calling themselves Mansonites and professing these same ideologies, we would most likely haul them off to Guantanamo on suspected terrorism.
Debate Round No. 1


Did you know that Charles Manson was actually a Mason? (a member of the free masons) He only added an n because he was also a member of the knights who say 'Ni!' and he wanted pay respect to both. The U.S. government went after him because the U.S. government is controlled by the more powerful rival group, the Illuminati.

The original founding fathers of the U.S. were nearly all Free Masons, (all except George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and James Monroe, that is a myth) They promoted humanist enlightenment ideals such as race based chattel slavery and extermination of the indigenous tribes. They established the United States in order to enhance their control of the oligarchy, masquerading as a federal republic.

Their secretive adversary, the Illuminati, was more business-like, and less into things like wild sex parties while reading the Jefferson Bible, and more into amassing power. Around the time of the industrial revolution, there was a change in power dynamics, and the Free Mason society was forced to relinquish their territory to the north, as the Illuminati gained control of the cutthroat capitalist carpetbaggers, and the muckraking union leaders. The Free Mason Society members migrated to the south, and soon became embroiled in secessionist politics.

One branch of the Free Masons, the Knights of the White Carnation, were very influential in pre-confederate and confederate southern politics, and were instrumental in creating the political climate that resulted in the Civil War.

In the Union north, the Civil War of the U.S. was orchestrated by the Illuminati in order to keep the Mason"Dixon line.

(to keep the Mason d*cks in line! :D)


My opponent hasn't responded to my argument, therefor he forfeits and I win by default.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: FurryDragon// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con side was at minimum, talking about the topic. Pro side, was completely offtopic.

[*Reason for removal*] Even in cases where one side is clearly off topic, the voter must still establish that the other side's arguments were both on topic and successful at affirming/negating the given topic. Merely stating that one side talked about the topic is not enough reason to award argument points.
Posted by FiliusExNihil 1 year ago
My opponent has no argument, therefore he forfeits and I win by default.
Posted by FiliusExNihil 1 year ago
"Where is this ban? Cause the constitution doesn't allow that in the US."
Good! see? exactly my point. Vote now, my friend :)
Posted by Overnight 1 year ago
Where is this ban? Cause the constitution doesn't allow that in the US.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Theguy1789 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped all his points in r2