Muslims should be allowed to serve in the US military

Response to #2 and Part C: You’re misunderstanding. This is a philosophical argument about “should” not “could”. Example “Should we prohibit the teaching of all religions?” Pro argument would be, “Yes, religion has been the major cause of bloodshed all over this planet. It only serves to promote hate of other people”. A counter would be,“No, religion serves to pull people together; no religion doesn’t mean no violence. Did you forget about all the good done by hundreds of religious charities around the world?” Rebuttals: You seem to think that I only see Islam as a threat. I recognize there are other threats. What I am saying is that out of the threats, ISLAM IS THE GREATEST. My argument is based on calculated risks and probabilities. We can’t eliminate all threats buy why shouldn’t we eliminate the greatest threat if we have the ablility? In his post-9/11 analysis, Dr. Dahl found that of the 109 failed attacks, 76 were inspired by radical Islamist beliefs. (3) Here’s a list of successful Islamic terror attacks in the US. (4) “This tells us that if we want to ban from the military people holding the religious beliefs of terrorists we would have to ban pretty much everybody.”No. The argument is banning the people that hold the same beliefs as our enemy for obvious conflicts of interest. “The US banning Islam... confirm the anti-US beliefs many Muslims feel.” Thanks for confirming that many Muslims are anti-American. “This is no way to go about mending relations with the Middle East.” This is largely irrelevant given the fact that they hate us BECAUSE WE ARE INFIDELS AND THEIR RELIGION COMMANDS THEM TO KILL US. They already are anti-US. Liberals in the US I see no point in this at all. You also gave no proof of how it would actually hinder the military from killing our enemies. “If the US wanted to destroy Islam...” Our country’s strategic failures are irrelevant in this debate. “Con's comparison of Muslims in the military... Islam is a religion, not an ideology.” You keep making this argument that Islam is not an ideology, when it is (6) It’s a political ideology with laws that govern every aspect of life. To not follow the laws is to not follow Islam. To not follow Islam is to not be a Muslim. Second, do our enemies not recite verses from the Quran and words of Muhammad as motivation for their actions? To deny this is to deny reality or you know it to be the truth and you're lying. (See video) It’s also important to note the killer was born in Britain. So I guess Western ideology didn’t trump Islam’s ideology according to those Muslims. Islam IS THE IDEOLOGY ADVOCATED BY OUR ENEMIES. Ideology: (5) 1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture. 2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system. Still think Islam is not an ideology? Have you heard of Sharia Law? It’s the law of Islam. If you are a Muslim you have to follow Sharia for it was revealed from Allah to Muhammad. It is complete and perfect according to Muslims. Here, read these two sources and tell me again Islam is not an ideology. (7,8) The Quran is bad You need to recognize the difference in what someone does that happens to be of a particular religion and what a religion actual instructs. There’s a difference. Show me one single verse where Jesus says to kill all non-believers. Jesus abrogated the O.T. and taught love. The concept of “hell” is unbiblical. (9, 10) Either way it is ruled as God’s judgment on non-believers is it not? So your argument of Christianity here is irrelevant. Then you argue that it doesn’t matter what a particular religion teaches? Seriously? Back to your definition of Muslim - “A Muslim is someone who follows the Islamic faith” Yes, and Islam DEMANDS a Muslim’s FULL ALLEGIANCE. Failure to do so is to not be a Muslim. You are now an “infidel” according to Muhammad. An example of a good Muslim (according to Islam itself) is Osama bin Laden. “4 cases are ultimately irrelevant..”Actually there were 7 cases in the link. Loss of conduct points here for either, A) lying B) misrepresentation of facts and not bothering to look at my sources. How can I possibly have an intellectually honest debate with someone who doesn’t even bother to inform their self? “doesn't justify banning Muslims from the military as a large chunk of Mosques do not feature any violent literature.” I guess you consider 19% a “large chunk” lol “Recall the violence in other Holy books” You gave 1 example from 1 source that commanded violence against a tribe of ancients that no longer exists. I like how you think whistleblower like Manning is as dangerous. How many Americans died from that? Zero? “There is a distinct difference between not letting into the military enemies of the United States and not letting in Muslims.”Again, our enemies are Muslims. We are not fighting a single nation but an ideology (Islam) History “The conflict we see today is not Islam vs. US, it's backlash to US intervention.” This is an outright lie as proven by my “bizarre” citation of African Pirates 200 years ago. Nice how you beat around the bush by not acknowledging that they were Muslim and motivated by the Quran and words of their prophet! You simply dismiss the 7th Century Muslim invasion. US intervention didn’t exist back then. I guess US intervention also established the Ottoman Empire, caused the deaths of nearly 2 million Armenian Christians. Yeah, these modern “radical” Muslims have Islam all wrong. “we need to disallow Christians from the armed forces due to the crusades and Native American genocide.” Irrelevant, we are at war with Muslims NOT CHRISTIANS. Christianity doesn’t advocate those things and the Crusades aren’t commanded by Jesus. Your answers beat around the bush nicely 1 Islam is an ideology 2 ditto ^ 3 A lie. There’s a clear conflict 4 Proves teaching of Jesus superior therefore followers more likely to do good than bad. 5 beating the bush, I told you to pick (loss of points) Conclusion 1 A Muslim is someone who follows Islam in entirety. To not follow is to not be Muslim. Cons point to not let in “extreme” and “anti-US” Muslims are simply REAL MUSLIMS. Ergo she is arguing my point that we not let in Muslims. 2 Of all the internal threats to our military, Islam is the greatest. We can’t eliminate all threats but why shouldn’t we eliminate the greatest threat if it were possible? 3 Obvious cited conflicts of interest if we allow Muslims in military 4 Islam is an ideology despite my opponent’s claim. Thus she proves her contention that ideology has a greater effect than country you live in. 5 Islamic terror has been around BEFORE US INTERVENTION New Questions: Answer all points 1 You said religious teachings don’t matter. Say I invented a religion that among its teachings advocated the killing of all Americans and not to take Jews and Christians as friends (Islam says the same thing)for they are the worst of creatures. Should someone part of my religion be allowed in the American military? Isn’t the fact that someone follows me enough of a psychological indicator to disallow American military service? Forget military, would you even associate with such a person? 2 Which person is more likely to be a terrorist, a professed Christian or Muslim? 3 Who said this “I would love to be martyred in God’s Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred”. "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform all that, then they save their lives and property from me”? Would you honestly trust you life to a person who’s leader said this? http://www.youtube.com...