The debate "We should put a temporary ban on Muslims" was started by
May 13, 2016, 4:53 pm.
19 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 34 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
dalton7532 posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 5 arguments, Nemiroff posted 5 arguments, RyanWakefield posted 1 argument, JakobBoghora posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
rob5998, ototoxic, Claystation, carocupit, Bodaciouslady16, xaveragexjoesx, NotoriousBishop, Vayney333 and 11 visitors agree.
historybuff, Nemiroff, paradox, enro, RyanWakefield, mohasan, Anjali, openparachute, codyray16, moneybagboyz123, prem, JakobBoghora, Pablerasdh, StubSloth, Zuhayr, MathDebating01 and 18 visitors disagree.
Dude muslims are not jews. They will team up and resist.
Banning Muslims, no, but yes to regional bans. Its not the first time it has happened, and in this case it would be wise since there is no vetting possible.
dalton, all your doing is confirming isis's story. by trying to eliminate a very minor risk, you are strengthening the enemy and creating a far greater threat in a year or two.
and as I said, Europe cannot vet the refugees, they are all already on its shores. if there are any terrorists amongst them they will not sit there and wait a year hoping they wont get discovered when they can easily attack any European target now. the refugees that are accepted by the US after a year of vetting will not be terrorists.
common sense says that banning them will only fuel more radicalization. telling everyone Muslim that they are not welcome. telling them the west will not accept only pushes more people into the arms of those who will accept them, ISIS.
-We can not let people continue to die because the ignorance of others. The France terrorist came in through the refugee population. The California terrorist were radicalized by a foreign muslim. We have a serious problem and that is normal Muslims becoming radicalized. We should not risk the safety of American Muslims for the expense of foriegner's happiness. It is common sense.
I don't think I took what you said out of context.
how can you enforce a ban on a faith or belief? can't they just say they are atheist? a religion is not a physical description like a race can be. So do you mean banning Arabs?
you can just as easily say that all terrorists are human so you should ban all humans from entering the country. that is the kind of logic you are using. you want to ban an extremely large group because of the beliefs of a small fraction of that group. it is rediculous and it is dangerous.
you might not see it as looking down on Muslims, but I can guarantee you they will see it that way. and they have every reason to. you are discriminating against people (barring them entry is discriminatory) based solely on their faith. they have done nothing wrong. the majority of the people of their faith have done nothing wrong. but they are being punished none the less. that will only create more hate and inspire more terrorists. you are only making the problem worse.
-Everybody is taking what I said out of context. All muslims are not terrorist, but all radical islamic terrorist were muslim. That is a fact. Muslims turning radical is a big issue, especially in foriegn nations. We are not talking about treating muslims any different in America. We are talking about a halt of foriegn Muslims entering the nation. We are not looking down on Muslims any way or on Islam. We are looking at radicalization and it is most common with Islam. France was letting in all these muslims at a bad time, and then boom. Same goea with Brussels, then boom. Boston marathon, boom.
This is not a war against a religion, as soon as you make it one, you are surrendering every young Muslim to radicalisation. If you can let a small minority of a group influence your entire opinion on that group, you must be incredibly narrow minded. If you actually know any Muslims personally, you'd understand clearly that terrorist groups don't speak for islam.
I'm a little confused as to how you ban a religion.
maybe yall are confusing Muslims and Arabs. Arab is a genetic group that can be identified in ways. a Muslim can just claim to not be a Muslim or have converted to Christianity, or just atheist. I don't think terrorists have something against lying to infidels. There will be no way to identify a Muslim unless they choose to make it obvious. this is just silly.
abortion clinic attacks were all motivated by religion, and none of the attacks you listed in the United states was done by immigrants. all were by citizens.
his point was that the large majority of them were citizens of those countries. banning Muslims coming in does nothing to stop citizens. in fact it only makes it more likely to create more home grown terrorists since they are far more likely to see the US as hostile to them. largely because banning Muslims from the country is a hostile act and they would be justified in seeing the US government as their enemy.
-Church shooting was out of racism, not religion. We had a terrorist attack on Brussels, 911, hospital, San Bernidino, and the list goes on. They all did it because "Allah" told them too. They all say praise Allah after. We have a problem, it is normal muslims becoming radical and killing people. We are not having a widespread problem with radical Christains. Thank you.
"-We have a serious problem. The problem is foriegn Muslims becoming radicalized and attacking the US and western civilization."
aside from 911 (which was 1 incident)
all Islamic terrorists have been radicalized US naturally born citizens. None of them were migrants or refugees. and most acts of terror in the US have nothing to do with Islam but our own politics.
"-We do not have a problem with radical Christains. We have a problem with radical Islam! Therefore, your argument is invalid."
the abortion clinic attacks and black church shooter would beg to differ. far more deaths and more attacks then Muslim terrorism to be honest.
-I never said Islam is bad nor should it be banned in the US.
-We have a serious problem. The problem is foriegn Muslims becoming radicalized and attacking the US and western civilization.
-Muslims in the US wil not and should not be treated any different than anyone else. We do not want radical Islamic terrorist harming anyone in the US, including muslims.
-We do not have a problem with radical Christains. We have a problem with radical Islam! Therefore, your argument is invalid.
you realize you said all Muslim terrorists are Muslim right? all Christian terrorists are Christians. that doesn't mean we can ban Christians from the country either.
banning all Muslims from the country doesn't protect Muslims, it just discriminates against them. you are telling then there is something wrong with their faith. you are telling them they are not free to believe in the religion of the forefathers. what would you do if someone told you that Christianity was bad and should be banned? I'm guessing you would not be very accepting of that.
the Constitution says that you can bear arms. it doesn't say what kind of arms or how many. the parts about religious discrimination are incredibly clear. I don't want to ban all guns, but no private citizen needs to own an assault rifle. and there is nothing in the Constitution that protects a right to an assault rifle.
-Not all muslims are radical Islamic terrorist, but all radical Islamic terrorist were Muslim. Muslims will still practice their religion in America and they won't be treated any different. This is to protect them from radicals too.
-You bring up the constitution now, but what about when it comes to guns? Does that argument just disappear?
of course not. your country was founded on religious freedom. banning a religion violates your Constitution and spits on your founding fathers.