The Instigator
Hillary4Prez
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
brontoraptor
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points

Should the U.S. adopt Donald Trump's Proposed Muslim Ban?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Hillary4Prez
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 493 times Debate No: 92597
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Hillary4Prez

Con

Here is the exact wording of Mr. Trump's proposal: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." Trump later said that he would make exceptions only for the Muslim mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and Muslim-American soldiers returning to the United States.

Now for arguments.

1. Constitutionality

In the First Amendment to the Constitution, the Framers wrote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This is a beautiful thing. Many of the Founders were devout Christians, but they all agreed to create a culture of acceptance and diversity rather than allow the government to restrict religion. This proposed policy is unconstitutional because of one of the Five Pillars of Islam--hajj. This tenet of the religion requires all able faithful to make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lives. If a Muslim family left the United States for Saudi Arabia in order to make said pilgrimage, they would not be allowed back in. Almost all Muslims will make this journey. By not admitting them back into the United States, this proposal is just a clever way to purge the United States of Islam. Thus, such a policy would violate the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause in the amendment by effectively not allowing American citizens to fully practice their right to religion. This proposal is a dire threat to our culture, our society, and the very fabric of our democracy. It is in direct violation of our American values and our duties as citizens of this country.

2. Effectiveness

To properly understand this proposed policy, we must first examine its goal. According to Mr. Trump, the goal is to prevent Muslim immigrants and Middle Eastern/North African refugees from entering the country. Why? The goal is to prevent terrorists somehow taking advantage of the system and coming into the country. So, of course we target Muslims because most terrorists are Muslim, right? Wrong. According to a FBI report, 94% of terror attacks in the United States since 1980 were committed by non-Muslims. This means that only 6% of terrorists are Muslims. So not only is this policy blatantly unconstitutional, it is also ridiculously ineffective.

3. Execution

If this policy were to be enacted, how would it be carried out? Just imagine a future where airport security and customs workers ruthlessly interrogate you on your religion. Since there is no way for people to accurately assess religion simply through questioning, all of America would be subject to rampant racial profiling and discrimination. Security workers would be forced to assume a person's religion based on the color of their skin or similar irrelevant details. Anyone who looked vaguely Middle Eastern--Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, whatever--would be left stranded in another country, unable to get back home. This is a danger to democracy and the very well-being of our society.

Looking forward to Pro's arguments!
brontoraptor

Pro

Con:

1st Amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Which applies to American citizens under the Constitution.

Jimmy Carter used an executive order in which Iranians were banned from entering the United States during the hostage crisis in the 1970's.


Here was a part of his speech on the matter.

-The events of the last few days have revealed a new and significant dimension in this matter. The militants controlling the Embassy have stated they are willing to turn the hostages over to the Government of Iran, but the Government has refused to take custody of the American hostages. This lays bare the full responsibility of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Revolutionary Council for the continued illegal and outrageous holding of the innocent hostages. The Iranian Government can no longer escape full responsibility by hiding behind the militants at the Embassy.

Focus on the last sentence.

"The Iranian Government can no longer escape full responsibility by hiding behind the militants at the Embassy."

That's what Islamic fundamentalists are doing. They are hiding behind the religious protection of Western societies, and it is a clever tactic. And...it's working. In only 16 years, Islamists have taken down the World Trade Centers, hit the Pentagon, caused a war in Syria killing hundreds of thousands, causing a European "Migrant Crisis", bombed a Belgium airport, bombed the London train system, caused a "rape jihad" throughout Europe, killed 130 in a bomb spree and mass shooting in Paris at the Bataclan Theatre, a mass shooting in San Bernardino, the Fort Hood shooting of American soldiers by an Islamist who said Islam allowed him no loyalty to the West, etc.

In 2015, 450 of 452 suicide bombers were Islamic. That's a clue. If 450 of 452 of rapists had rainbow wigs and wore 1970's shorty shorts, if you see someone matching that description, run!



*

Liberal society wants to adhere to the idea that all people are the same. What if they aren't?

In Sweden there are now 55 Islamic no go zones, meaning they police themselves by Sharia Law because the police are not crszy enough to go in. Thet are not just assimilating.


If Islam is a danger to democratic societies, is it not okay to say,"Hey, we don't take flight passengers from anywhere without approved identification for matters of national security?" And if the flight is from the Middle East, it will be under a "Code Orange" security verification.

The perpetraters are Muslims, thus common sense tells us to target Muslims. And this is not the fault of the West. It's the fault of Islam itself. It has to own its serious human rights violations and evolve towards democratic thinking, or be left out in the cold by its own doing. It has own its own beliefs and practices.

In Islamic countries Sharia Law is the law of the land per Islam. Sharia is completely inconsistant and incompatable with democracy. Thus the responsibility is on them, not us. It is their job to think in a democraatic dimension, or be excluded from democracy by default. Islam has nothing to do with democracy and per the Quran is commanded by "God" himself to kill us, espionage us, and conquer us even by methods like Takiya, Maruna, Tawriya, and Kitman, etc. Thus, we owe them nothing by default of their own ideology being a threat to national security and democracy.


Takiyya-

It is described as purposeful disassimalation. It is pretending to be peaceful to wait for reinforcements. It even goes to the extinct of pretending to be us or like us in order to destroy us. This was how the 9/11 hijackers went undetected. They went to bars and strip clubs which is forbidden in Islam, unless...you are trying to kill or destroy fitnah(unbelief in Islam). Lying is the fundamental construct of the religion towards the infidel. (That'd be us.)


By default they cancel out any sense of Liberal sympathy from the West. That is on THEM.

Have you forgotten? God, I hope not, or we WILL see it again...I watched it happen live. I puked twice. Here it is if you have the stones to watch it.

(Video)


*

Con:

-According to a FBI report, 94% of terror attacks in the United States since 1980 were committed by non-Muslims.

Non sequitor. Most Americans are not Muslims. It's like saying 100% of people giving birth are female.

*

How would it be carried out?

If you are from a list of Islamic nations, you can't come. Period. No European, Australian, North American, etc ID, no go. Our leaders can go to them, send an email, or call their leaders if they need to communicate. Is it perfect? Nope. But it is good.
Debate Round No. 1
Hillary4Prez

Con

Yes, the Constitution only applies to American citizens. This policy also applies to American citizens. Donald Trump has flip-flopped on this several times, but we now know that his proposed policy would apply to American Muslims because he had to make a specific exception for Muslim-American soldiers returning home.

You say that Jimmy Carter used an executive order to temporarily ban Iranians from entering the United States. You say that therefore, it was perfectly constitutional. Here's the thing, though: being Iranian isn't a religion. This whole argument is therefore completely and wholly irrelevant.

It appears that Carter was attempting to use this as a sort of punishment on the Iranian government. This is again not relevant because you don't use policies to punish religious groups. This would seem like common sense, but apparently not. You say that we should ban the entry (and reentry, as per the policy) of Muslims because of the actions of a small group of extremists. Funny. You might think that maybe trying to fight them in the Middle East might be more effective to counter Islamic extremists.

Next, you say that in 2015, 450 of 452 suicide bombers were Muslims. But you're misinterpreting the information. If 450 out of 452 rapists wore rainbow wigs and wore 1970's shorty shorts, and there were 1.6 billion of them, you wouldn't run. Because that would mean that there is a 0.00000028125% chance that they were a rapist. I don't know about you, but to me that seems to be a pretty small percentage. 1.6 billion is the number of Muslims in the world. So if you were to walk up to a random Muslim, there's a 0.00000028125% chance that they were a suicide bomber. So if I were to see a rainbow wig-wearing person or a Muslim, I would feel no need to run. I would also feel no need to ban them from entering the country.

Next you talk about Islamic no-go zones in Sweden. The source you cite is a blog and is by someone who appears to be vehemently anti-immigration and perhaps racist. He talks of the Swedish population becoming less and less white in an indisputively negative way. Hardly a reliable source. So I found a much more mainstream, fact-checked and reliable source to counter it. http://www.bloomberg.com... this article, it is pointed out that the man who originally coined the term, Daniel Pipes, later admitted that he was completely mistaken and that there were not any Islamic no-go zones currently in Europe. If you don't believe me, read the article.

You say that Islam is a danger to democratic societies. If you're going to make ridiculous unfounded blanket claims such as these, I will proceed to disregard them until you find a logical proof that it is so. And I'm not talking about Islamic extremists. We can both agree that Islamic extremists are a danger to democratic societies, as are Jewish extremists, and Christian extremists, and really any kind of extremists. I'm talking about the majority of Muslims. Islam, just like all the major world religions, is a peaceful and benevolent religion. These extremists are simply misinterpreting it.

You seem to insist that the perpetrators are Muslims. Simply see the statistic I previously mentioned. The perpetrators are an extreme minority who misinterpret their religion. Thus, common sense does not instruct us to target Muslims. It tells us to target Islamic terrorists. Which is what the United States is currently doing.

I want to make perfectly clear that I am not proponing or endorsing Sharia Law. I agree that it is undemocratic. I would like to point out that neither is Christianity, at heart. In the age of European monarchy, many oppressive rulers were propped up by the concept of "divine right"--that the people must not challenge their rulings because they were chosen by God. Most religions are in this way inherently undemocratic. That the West has moved towards more democratic models has nothing to do with religion.

You say that Islam is a threat to Western democracies because it advocates the killing of infidels. I would like to point out that Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism also advocate violence against the infidel. The only major world religion that does not call for the killing of infidels is Buddhism. If you wish to fact-check these claims, see Deuteronomy 13 and 17 for Christianity and Judaism. For Hinduism see 9.13.9, 7.6.3, and 9.63.5 of the Rig Veda, one of the Vedas, the Hindu holy texts. So if you say that it would be logical to ban the entry of Muslims because of religious violence, you may as well ban Christians, Jews, and Hindus from entering the country as well. So using your logic, the only people that the United States should admit into the country are atheists and Buddhists. These are all ancient religions and so may have parts that are primitive in terms of action towards infidels. Most people will interpret the religion correctly and not follow the occasional clauses that call for religious violence. The ones who misunderstand the idea of their religion become extremists. However, the majority of people following a particular religion are peaceful. The majority of Christians are peaceful, but there are some people who will misinterpret it and seek violence against other religions (the Crusades were a good example of this.)

I cannot forget September 11 because I was born a few months afterwards and therefore there is nothing to forget. I have just as much conviction as anybody else that it cannot happen again. Because of this collective conviction, the United States has an extensive vetting process for allowing in refugees. The process is so rigorous that it takes two years to complete. A Muslim ban would be completely unnecessary because this intensive procedure would weed out any potential terrorists anyway.

Your solution for implementation is, frankly, ineffective at best. An extremist could simply get onto a plane leaving from a country that is not on the list. An Islamic State fighter, for example, could easily go into Turkey, for example, and get onto a plane there. This proposal for implementation is more full of loopholes than not. The only effective way to carry out such a policy would be to create a database of Muslims and then put them on a no-fly list. The creation of such a database is nearly impossible and would result in even more racial profiling and discrimination.
brontoraptor

Pro

Con:

"being Iranian isn't a religion. This whole argument is therefore completely and wholly irrelevant."

Yet it is an Islamic country using Islamic deception, to manipulate and get the upper hand on the West in Carter's situation, per our democratic, liberal mindset. They want to use freedom to destroy freedom.


*

Con:

"I want to make perfectly clear that I am not proponing or endorsing Sharia Law. I agree that it is undemocratic. I would like to point out that neither is Christianity, at heart."

This is a false dichotomy that omits all concepts of Christianity to falsely justify an ideological, non-Christian philosophy that is beligerant towards Christianity. Islm and Christianity are nothing alike.

Bill Maher (Liberal Atheist) on the isdue:

(Video)


John 8:36

So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

2 Corinthians 3:17

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

Galatians 2:4

Our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus...

Galatians 5:1

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery.

Romans 8:15

For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, ‘Abba! Father.

1 Peter 2:16-17

Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor your nation's leader.

Matthew 5:44

But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

America was founded by Christians. So where do you think American democracy came from?

*

Con:

Most religions are in this way inherently undemocratic.

Atheism being no exception. Atheist leaders are resonsible for more deaths than all other religions combined. But Atheism and Christianity have no ideological reason to destroy America. Islam does.

*

Con:

"I would like to point out that Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism also advocate violence against the infidel."

Another false dichotomy.

Matthew 26:52

"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

Matthew 5:44

But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

*

Con:

"You say that Islam is a danger to democratic societies. If you're going to make ridiculous unfounded blanket claims such as these, I will proceed to disregard them until you find a logical proof that it is so."

Taqiya, kitman, tawriya, and maruna are Islamic commands to infiltrate us, lie to us, pretend to assimilate with us, outbreed us, etc to overcome us through stealth jihad.



*

Con:

I cannot forget September 11 because I was born a few months afterwards and therefore there is nothing to forget.

So you did not witness it live, having to watch people jumping from windows, burning alive at windows, or the towers both fall in real time. Watch the video provided, notice how it makes you feel, and imagine how much worse it would be if you witnessed it live. I witnessed the entire country mourn with tears at work, at home, and at school because of the traumatic effect of watching it all all happen live.

*

Con:

"A Muslim ban would be completely unnecessary because this intensive procedure would weed out any potential terrorists anyway."

Then why do we continue to get attacked...

And seeing our President was raised Muslim and is a Muslim sympathizer, why would we trust any such proccess under his power?

*

Your solution for implementation is, frankly, ineffective at best. An extremist could simply get onto a plane leaving from a country that is not on the list.

And if his ID states he is from say, Pakistan, he is done. No ID? No entry.

*

Con:

"The creation of such a database is nearly impossible and would result in even more racial profiling and discrimination."

Which is a bs liberal terminology. It says that you cannot profile, despite profiling being how you prevent attacks and can find suspects. If the man was an Arab in a green shirt, would you look at white women wearing pink shirts?
Debate Round No. 2
Hillary4Prez

Con

"...[Iran] is an Islamic country using Islamic deception, to manipulate and get the upper hand on the West in Carter's situation, per our democratic liberal mindset." Your depiction of Iran during the hostage crisis is inaccurate. The United States was deliberately interfering with their right to prosecute a war criminal and oppressor by granting said dictator asylum. Both countries are at fault here. We violated their rights and they violated ours. You say hostage-taking is "Islamic deception" even though many different societies all over the globe throughout history have taken hostages. The United States does it. Then you go on to cite a completely irrelevant article written by a far-right Texas free market ideologue who writes about Mexican immigrants coming into the country. Last I checked, Mexican immigrants had nothing to do with the Iran hostage crisis. Also, if you would read past the first few paragraphs, you would realize that his argument hurts you and helps me. He calls the idea that immigrants are damaging to the society a "fallacy" and says, "The consensus view of social scientists who study immigration is that immigration creates net gains for the world economy, the immigrants themselves, and native-born persons in destination countries...early evidence indicates that immigrants are more likely to enhance our economic institutions than they are to destroy them."

I fail to see how I create a false dichotomy. I am simply saying that religions are contradictory. For example, some of the founding tenets of Christianity are love your neighbor as yourself, forgive others their sins, etc. There are some who look past this, however, and see only the negative passages:

Deuteronomy 13:

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

You see that this is quite different from the aforementioned founding tenets and those wonderful Bible verses you cited. Religions are usually, if not always, contradictory, and so no one can follow the religion completely because it conflicts in places. I can safely say, for example, that you are not following all the orders of the Bible:

Leviticus 19.34

The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Since you are arguing against the arrival of Middle Eastern immigrants, you are violating this passage. You are not loving the alien as yourself. This, of course, does not mean that you are not a Christian. Similarly, one does not have to follow every passage in the Quran to be a Muslim. It's impossible because Islam is also contradictory. So just because someone is a Muslim does not mean they endorse or agree with Sharia law.

"America was founded by Christians. So where do you think American democracy came from?"

This is a logical fallacy. Just because two things are true does not imply causation or even correlation. I could say that America was founded by white men who owned slaves, which was true, and thus anyone who was not a white slave-owning man was against democracy. So where do I think American democracy came from, you ask? I think that it came from wanting to escape the oppression of a totalitarian government created and perpetuated by Christianity. If the notion of the divine right of monarchs had not been thought of, the monarchy would have fallen much earlier. Because the English people believed that the king had been chosen by God, they dared not question him (even though the king at the time was extremely mentally ill; so much so that his son had to step in as regent for part of his reign).

Next you tell me that atheist leaders can also be undemocratic. Of course this is true, but there is no holy book of atheism. There is no concept of divine right in an atheist society. So although atheist leaders can also be totalitarian, it is not because of their religion, or lack thereof, it is because of other contributing factors.

Oh, dear, you're claiming that I've created another false dichotomy. Just see the arguments above about inconsistency and contradiction in religion. These Bible verses you cite show me that Christianity is a peaceful religion. So is Islam and Judaism. There are some parts of Christianity that conflict with these peaceful verses. There are some parts of Islam that contradict with the predominantly peaceful nature of said religion, but most Muslims, as with Christianity, will focus rather on the overarching peaceful connotations of their religion. So by citing these Islamic commands, you have still not proven the truth of your outlandish claim, because you have not proved that a majority of Muslims practice or endorse these commands. I will continue to disregard your previous statement.

Next you say Obama was raised Muslim. It is a well-known fact that Obama is a Protestant Christian. I ask that you try to keep this debate out of the realm of conspiracy theories, please.

What do you mean by a Muslim sympathizer? I hope you don't mean that he sympathizes with extremists. If you mean that he is dedicated to religious rights and equality for all religions, then by all means, call me a Muslim sympathizer too.

About the implementation: This would result in rapid deterioration of relations with our allies in the Middle East. People of other religions would be banned as well. Millions of Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, and Jews would also be banned simply for living in the wrong country. If this proposed policy isn't inequality at its worst and most detrimental, I don't know what is.

brontoraptor

Pro

Con:

"We violated their rights and they violated ours."

So we know they are fully capable of disreguarding our rights.

*

Con:

"You say hostage-taking is "Islamic deception" even though many different societies all over the globe throughout history have taken hostages."

Yep. That's how it works. They took our hostages recently and that was the excuse for our anti-colonialist President to lift $150 billion in sanctions off of them, which they will use to create tactical nucleur weapons according to themselves.

Obama's America 2016 was made in 2012. It predicted most everything that Obama has done. Dinesh Dsouza, the author of the movie was targeted and thrown in prison by the Obama administration.

(Part of video as reference provided below)


*

Con:

"I think that it came from wanting to escape the oppression of a totalitarian government created and perpetuated by Christianity."

The original fleeing group were Christian quakers escaping religious persecution by a European nation that at the time was an absolute monarchy. We'd call that a 2nd world dictatorship today. The entire world had slaves at this point in history. It doesn't make it Biblical or consistant with the teachings of Christ. The modern Christian world was the first to abolish it and the first to give equality to women. Secularism was practically nonexistant at this time in history.

Martin Luther King pleaded and demanded equality for African Americans. Guess who he appealed to. The heart of Christianity.

-"Martin Luther King, Jr. was an American Baptist minister, activist, humanitarian, and leader in the African-American Civil Rights Movement. He is best known for his role in the advancement of civil rights using nonviolent civil disobedience based on his Christian beliefs."

MLK, I have seen the Mountaintop

(Video as reference)


Abraham Lincoln, President of US during the American civil war. Lincoln made the famous Emancipation Proclamation – declaring “that all persons held as slaves” within the rebellious states “are, and henceforward shall be free.”

-"He preserved the Union, and abolished slavery. Thomas and Nancy Lincoln, his parents raised Abe as members of a Baptist church, which had restrictive moral standards and opposed alcohol, and slavery.

www.biographyonline.net/people/famous/human-rights.html

Thomas Jefferson, President of US. Principle author of Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ”

-"The religious views of Thomas Jefferson diverged widely from the orthodox Christianity of his era. He considered the teachings of Jesus as having "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."


Susan B. Anthony. American suffragist and campaigner for women’s equal rights.

-"Susan B. Anthony was an American social reformer and feminist who played a pivotal role in the women's suffrage movement. Born into a Quaker family committed to social equality, she collected anti-slavery petitions at the age of 17. In 1856, she became the New York state agent for the American Anti-Slavery Society."

*

Con:

"There is no concept of divine right in an atheist society."

Exactly. And there is no divine right in Islam. Democracy is meaningless to Islam. Islam is nondemocratic and per the Quran is commanded to conquer the entire world by force through stealth jihad. Christianity nor Secularism have any theological command to conquer Earth by force.

Walid Shoebat, ex Muslim-

"Although the word Jihad standing by itself means “struggle,” what Westerners need to focus on when reading the Hadith regarding Mohammed’s Jihad is similar to the focus needed when reading Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler."

*

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, ex Muslim

1)"By declaring our Prophet infallible and not permitting ourselves to question him, we Muslims had set up a static tyranny. The Prophet Muhammad attempted to legislate every aspect of life. By adhering to his rules of what is permitted and what is forbidden, we Muslims supressed the freedom to think for ourselves and to act as we chose. We froze the moral outlook of billions of people into the mind-set of the Arab desert in the seventh century. We were not just servants of Allah, we were slaves."

2)"In the real world, equal respect for all cultures doesn't translate into a rich mosaic of colorful and proud peoples interacting peacefully while maintaining a delightful diversity of food and craftwork. It translates into closed pockets of oppression, ignorance, and abuse."

Debate Round No. 3
Hillary4Prez

Con

Yes, we know the Iranians are fully capable of disreguarding our rights. But here's the thing--It has nothing to do with Islam! We violated their rights as well! So if you must insist that the hostage taking by the Iranians had something to do with Islam, it logically follows that the United States granting asylum to war criminals has something to do with Christianity. From that, it would logically follow that Christianity is not a perfectly altruistic religion. But because of your stubborn insistence on the belief that Christianity is the only perfect and pure society, we must conclude that Christianity had nothing to do with the harboring of war criminals. This would, of course, mean that Islam had nothing to do with the Iranians taking hostages.

Next you talk about the Iranian nuclear deal and how it had something to do with the hostage-taking (I presume you mean on the boat that drifted into Iran's territorial waters). Let's inject some reality into this debate--the nuclear agreement was reachedbefore the incident with the boat. Unless the Obama administration has somehow discovered a way to hijack the space-time continuum and destroy the laws of physics, these things had no correlation.

Now for another reality check: "Dinesh Dsouza, the author of the movie was targeted and thrown in prison by the Obama administration." This is just a plain lie. There's no other way around it. According to Wikipedia, "In January 2014, D'Souza was indicted on charges of making illegal campaign contributions to a 2012 United States Senate campaign, a felony under U.S. law. On May 20, 2014, D'Souza pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to a charge of using 'straw donors' to make illegal political campaign donations." He was neither targeted nor imprisoned by the Obama administration. He broke the law and suffered the consequences just like anyone else. Suggesting that the office of the president is abusing its power to take down political critics is unfounded, ridiculous, and just plain untrue. I ask you for a second time: Can we please keep this debate out of the realm of conspiracy theories?

I understand that the original fleeing group were people who were being persecuted in England for their religion. By the way, though, they were Puritans, not Quakers; the Quakers eventually started another colony in Pennsylvania because they felt that the Puritan colonies were too tyrannical. I notice that you neglect to say that this second world dictatorship was devoutly Christian.

You misinterpret my argument about slaves. I'm not saying that Christianity and slave owners are somehow inextricably entwined, I'm simply saying that your argument about western democracies having something to do with Christianity is a fallacy. Connected to this, you talk about various fights for equality and Christianity's role in them. I understand perfectly that modern Christianity plays a strong role in equality. I never said that it didn't.

"Exactly. And there is no divine right in Islam. Democracy is meaningless to Islam. Islam is nondemocratic and per the Quran is commanded to conquer the entire world by force through stealth jihad." You seem to misunderstand the concept of "divine right." Here is its definition: "Political doctrine in defense of monarchical absolutism, which asserted that kings derived their authority from God and could not therefore be held accountable for their actions by any earthly authority such as a parliament. Originating in Europe, the divine-right theory can be traced to the medieval conception of God’s award of temporal power to the political ruler, paralleling the award of spiritual power to the church." (http://www.britannica.com...) There is divine right inherent in Islam. There is divine right inherent in Christianity and every other major religion except for Buddhism, as Buddhism does not worship a god in the sense of a divine creator. Divine right is bad for democracy. Any dictatorship or absolutist monarchy in a religious country is created by divine right. If the king were to order all of Parliament executed (an extreme example, but it illustrates very well the idea of divine right) then the people would say that although it seemed atrocious, there must have been some worthy ulterior motive because God chose that particular person to be King. Thus, all theistic religions have the potential to create and perpetuate undemocratic societies.

We must remember what the original idea of this debate was. If we recall that the debate is about Donald Trump's Muslim ban policy, we would both be debating not about the practices of Islam as outlined in the Quran, but rather about the current state of the Muslim community. How are these different, you ask? Assume for a moment that I knew nothing about Christianity. If somebody were to hand me a Bible and instruct me to read it, as I read, in parts I would be thinking, "What a brutish, terrible, nasty religion!" Some parts of the book (usually the Old Testament) describe a god who is easily angered, kills simply to make a point to humanity, and orders his followers to burn and pillage whole cities even if there are only a few infidels in them. Would I even consider becoming a Christian? No. However, if I were to walk into any mainstream, modern church, I would see a community of loving, selfless people who seek to help and not harm. In some cases, this is different from the teachings of the Bible. This discrepancy is due to a movement that began in the late 19th century called theological liberalism. This philosophy embraced the discoveries of Enlightenment scientists rather than sticking to fundamentalist views of creation, and rejected some of the more extreme parts of the Bible in favor of a more loving and peaceful doctrine.

A similar movement has taken place in Islam. Liberal Islam or progressive Islam are theological movements that reject Sharia and all of the more violent parts of the Quran. These movements have been championed by Islamic thinkers like Sayyid al-Qimni, Irshad Manji, and Muhummad Ali. This movement, not the violent parts of Islam in the Quran, is what makes up the modern Muslim community. So by enacting this policy, you would be banning millions of loving, kind people who value human rights and democracy just as much as you and me--perhaps more, because many of these refugees have experienced firsthand the terrible dictatorships of people like Bashar al-Assad. These are the people you would be keeping out of a life of prosperity and hope. These loving, kind people are the ones you are condemning instead to a life of starvation, warfare, and poverty. There is an article by Nicholas Kristof, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, talking about this exact subject. I strongly urge you and voters to read it.

http://www.nytimes.com...

Here's a particularly striking passages from this article:

"Refugee vetting has an excellent record. Of 785,000 refugees admitted to the United States since 9/11, just three have been arrested for terrorism-related charges, according to the Migration Policy Institute in Washington." So by allowing in 785,000 refugees, not one person has been killed because of it. Another thing--this means that with the current rigorous refugee vetting process, only 0.00001% have been terrorists. Our vetting process is exceedingly robust and will weed out any potential terrorists anyway. This is why a Muslim ban is unnecessary. Are you willing to leave behind 785,000 people--real human beings--just to keep out three bad ones? Think about it for a moment. These are real, normal people we're talking about. You, out of overgrown fear and paranoia, are making a conscious decision to keep normal, peaceful people from enjoying the same shot at opportunity and safety that you and I take for granted.

Thank you for a great debate!

brontoraptor

Pro

Con:

"You, out of overgrown fear and paranoia, are making a conscious decision to keep normal, peaceful people from enjoying the same shot at opportunity and safety that you and I take for granted."

Paranoia means you theorize a false threat. I was raised in Islam. The threat is higher than Americans can even dream.

Con:

"But here's the thing--It has nothing to do with Islam!"

<Quran 4:101>

"Unbelievers are open enemies to you."

<Quran 49:10>

"Believers are but a single brotherhood."

Quran

2:191-193 Fight and kill unbelievers until “religion is Allah’s,” i.e. Islamic law rules all societies

“And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.”

Quran

3:28 Don’t take unbelievers as friends and allies, unless it is for “fear of them,” i.e. deceptively for protection of oneself or of Islam

“Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends, rather than the believers — for whoso does that belongs not to Allah in anything — unless you have a fear of them. Allah warns you that You beware of Him, and unto Allah is the homecoming.”

Quran

3:151 Allah will cast terror into the unbelievers’ hearts

“We will cast into the hearts of the unbelievers terror, for that they have associated with Allah that for which He sent down never authority; their lodging shall be the Fire; evil is the lodging of the evildoers.”

Quran

5:33 Crucify or amputate the hands and feet of those who make war against Allah and Muhammad

“This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement.”

8:12 Allah will terrorize unbelievers; Muslims should behead them

“When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, ‘I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers’ hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!’”

Quran

8:39 Fight unbelievers until Islam reigns supreme.

“Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s entirely; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do.”

Quran

8:60 Make war against enemies of Allah

“Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.”

Quran

9:5 Slay the idolaters

“Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.”

Quran

9:73 Be harsh with unbelievers

“O Prophet, struggle with the unbelievers and hypocrites, and be thou harsh with them; their refuge is Gehenna — an evil homecoming!”

Quran

9:111 Paradise guaranteed to those who kill and are killed for Allah

“Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon Allah in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.”

Quran

9:123 Fight the unbelievers, be harsh with them

“O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing.”

Quran

47:4 Behead and slaughter the unbelievers; take others captive

“When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if Allah had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will not send their works astray.”

Quran

48:29 Be merciful to believers, not unbelievers

“Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are hard against the unbelievers, merciful one to another.”
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by brontoraptor 11 months ago
brontoraptor
@bhakun

So terrorists have Constitutional rights? I must have Iranian rights and Chinese rights by default ....
Posted by Sciguy 11 months ago
Sciguy
Notice here, that out Pro has more justifiable sources than Con. Whereas Con mocks Pro for his "racist" sources, Pro has .org and Con has .com.
Posted by bhakun 11 months ago
bhakun
"The Constitution only applies to American citizens" Thats so wrong
Posted by Sciguy 11 months ago
Sciguy
Why would you support Hillary? She is a liar, a cheat, a racist, and a downleft scoundrel!

Do you not know that she has broken the law with her private Email address, supported segregation there by being a Goldwater Girl, and has called blacks "super predators" when supporting her husbands bill in 1994, and has supported the economy breaking Free Trade Act.

However, when speaking about an opinion on banning Muslims from ENTERING the United States- as proposed by Donald Trump- I am all for it. I support it because we do not know if any of these people migrating from the Middle East are Terrorists, economic migrants, or migrants in general. These people, rather, monsters have ruined Germany in part by Angela Merkel and have put Europe to its knees.

"Thus, such a policy would violate the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause in the amendment by effectively not allowing American citizens to fully practice their right to religion. " How so? He is not saying that people are not allowed to be Muslim. He is not saying they will never practice Islam again. No, he is not even saying to kill them. He is however saying that we should no longer allow them into the United States until we know who the threat is, how to eliminate it, and where to do it.

So, we could just have greater background checks and go even further into their lives when they come to the United States, but wait, the liberal left doesn't want that either because it's "dehumanizing" and would not be done to our own citizens.

Otherwise, your argument is solid!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TheWorldIsComplicated 11 months ago
TheWorldIsComplicated
Hillary4PrezbrontoraptorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe that Con provided valid reasons. Pro did a good job too, but I think that Con made his point and executed it well.
Vote Placed by parkerwil 11 months ago
parkerwil
Hillary4PrezbrontoraptorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Very close debate. I decided Pro won due to his arguments and facts he brought fourth. As well as Con taking scripture a bit out of context to try to make a point. The only reason I will give Pro 'reliable sources' is due to him using more scriptures in context. I will give Con spelling and grammar due to fewer mistakes.