Isn't it time to recognize the elephant in the room

The opponent has, again, posted his argument in the form of a text block. It's difficult to tell when I'm reading his words, someone else's words or a headline. However, I will again attempt to comb through it to find the relevant responses so that I can respond appropriately. The CrusadesThe first point the opponent makes concerns my mention of "The Crusades", to which the opponent responds by essentially saying, "What happened long ago isn't relevant to what is happening today between Muslims and the American peole. " However, this simply isn't true. I brought up the Crusades to demonstrate that violence is not inherent in religion, but rather violence comes from interpretations of religion. In the Middle Ages, Christians interpretted their religion in such a way that they felt it allowed them committ great acts of violence against others. Contrary to this, many modern day Christians do not feel this way about the Bible. Similarly, many Muslims do not feel that their is a violent one and they do not act violently because of it. A select few Muslims do interpret their religious text this way, which leads them to committ acts of violence. The important point here is that the likelihood to committ violence has nothing to do with the religion itself, but rather the way the religion is interpretted. In referencing the actual text from the verses the opponent brought up, I demonstrated that there was nothing inherently violent about those verses. They simply said that Muslims have the right to defend themselves from tyranny and opression. As most any Muslim today and they will tell you the beliefs of ISIS and similar groups are a gross misinterpretation of the Koran. It's important to remember that, although the 9/11 attacks were undoubtedly devastating, they were carried out by a very small group of extremists. Political CorrectnessMy opponent responds to this point by repeating what I said and then following up with a definition of "political correctness". Again, the opponent has still not provided a link between a person being PC and that same person being more likely to blatantly ignore political facts/events/policies/etc. In fact, the observant reader might notice that the opponent has chosen to ignore all of the violence statistics I have thus far referenced. Since the opponent is implying he is not PC, are we to assume that people who aren't PC are more likely to ignore the reality of the situation? Probably not. The more realistic answer is that the tendency to ignore facts one doesn't wish to believe are true is the result of a stubborn refusal to become less ignorant. Political correctness likely plays little part in this decision to remain ignorant. "Terrorists are Muslim"Here the opponent repeats a previous claiming without addressing my statistics. I demonstrated quite clearly that only 6% of domestic terrorism in the U. S. sine 2002 has been committed by Muslims. This means 94% was committed by non-Muslims, clearly proving that all terrorists aren't Muslim. In fact, the vast majority of U. S. terror incidents are not done by Muslims, meaning Muslim terrorism is quite rare. The opponent completely ignores this and continues to assert that "all terrorists are Muslims". Prefer evidence over assertion. Is Islam inherently violent and "Trojan Horse", say what? The opponent has two points here. The first is an assertion that the Muslims entering this country are in some way a Trojan horse. This is not supported with evidence and is merely a narrative concocted in the opponent's mind. (Or more likely, someone else's mind. )I have already demonstrated that only 6% of domestic terror incidents involved Muslims. It should be noted that Muslims have been consistently entering the country for a very long time now -- that we aren't only just now considering "letting them in". Despite that immigration of Islam, we see that terror incidents involving them are very low indeed. This discredits the opponent's assertion that immigration of Muslims is in some way a radical terrorist Trojan horse. He reiterates a previous point, claiming that Islam must be violent because Muslims occasionally act violently. I have already thoroughly discussed this. There are occasions when people are violent and it seems independent of their belief system. Muslims have committed acts of terror, just as have Christians, Whites, Blacks, Latinos, Buddhists, Priests, etc. The sheer number of Muslims who don't commit violence and who don't believe in violence supports the idea that violence is external to Islam, rather than inherent. The opponent briefly points out that "true Christians" aren't violent because of a particular verse in Luke. Note that this is the No True Scotsman fallacy. The opponent's opinion that these Christians aren't "true" Christians is just that -- an opinion. And a wrong one at that, since anyone who claims to believe in the Bible and the Christian god, regardless of their interpretation of those two things, is a Christian. Similarly, it is quite probable that many Muslims would say that ISIS members aren't true Muslims. ConclusionThe opponent suggested that we must remove Muslims from the American public in order to "protect ourselves". The only evidence he provided was various incidents of terrorist attacks comitted by Muslims. I have presented evidence showing that domestic terror is rarely committed by Muslims and that the "terrorism threat" is much more likely to come from White extremists and Latino gangs. By my opponent's argument, it would be wise to lock up all White and Latino people as well. I have additionally demonstrated that violence is not the result of religion, but rather the people practicing that religion. The opponent's entire argument is the stereotypical, tea party type argument which seeks to make rash and illogical policy decisions based upon a misunderstanding of the current situation and a purposeful disregard for the facts. This type of rhetoric may well work on Fox News, but it simply does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to an intellectual forum of exchange like DDO.