Ban Islam

I was glad to debate in a manner that wasn't repulsively rude, and I can assume that the DDO will feel the same way as well. I ask, in fairness, that my opponent does not make any new arguments in their next round. I would first like to start by rebutting some items listed by my opponent in respective order, and then I would like to get to the crux of this debate, also stating why I believe I have won. I will now begin. First of all, my opponent has agreed to my statement that a universal facet of democracy and freedom is the freedom of religion, and therefore wants to ban Islam. Either by that logic, my opponent thinks Islam should be freely practiced in the West, or that he/she does not believe in the freedom of religion. This is a non-sequitur, and my opponent has only tried to justify this logical fallacy by making arguments for why the teachings of the Qur'an does not seem fit to serve as a form of government for western democracies, which is worthy of a whole different debate. Secondly, my opponent has cherrypicked verses from Islamic text and Hadith without any context and used them as points for why Islam isn't tolerant of other religions. I am only making the "contextualize it" argument because my opponent did so later in his/her argument, therefore the ice has been broken. These points, in reference to above, do not serve as for reasons why Islam in itself needs to be banned, because my opponent has tied added the connotation of these verses as part of the non-sequitur argument. Assuming my opponent tries to reverse this in his/her final round, I will say that this has NO context provided whatsoever. I will reference the issue of context further in this round. In response to my opponent's question, "if Islam became the majority religion of the United States, will democracy and freedom function the same way as it is today? " My answer is yes. The Qur'an states that one should be loyal to his/her nation. And the constitution is the law of the land here in the United States, therefore, Muslims should follow the laws of the nation they live in. Proof exists in the amounts of Muslims who serve in the military, who put their lives on the line to preserve democracy and freedom, and I will not stand for such a libelous question. Also, my opponent said that I "cannot compare" the Crusades to extremism committed by Muslims because "The difference between Muslim and Christian violence is that Muslims are simply following the commands of Allah when they kill for Islam while Christians are going against the teachings of Christ when they kill in His name. " I agree with the fact that one cannot cherrypick evidence as a basis for undermining a faith, however, I did this to make a point that religion cannot be judged on those who use "evidence" without context, as my opponent has done. So, if my opponent still believes that the Bible MUST be contextualized while the Qur'an cannot, I must state that the line from Deuteronomy still stands. I hate to engage in such libel, but a double standard cannot be in place when discussing the freedom of religion. My opponent then quoted absolutely beautiful verses from the Bible that promote peace, justice, and mercy. And I would like to state that the Qur'an has just as mercifully crafted ones as well, so I do not believe that cherrypicking is a useful source of point of information in debate. My opponent then stated that In comparison to Islam and Muhammed, The Bible and Jesus were much better moral characters because they did show compassion, peace, love , and tolerance. In response to this unfair statement, I provide this part of what I believe is Eziekiel, "1. They are ordered to destroy all, (1. ) Without exception. They must go through the city, and smite; they must slay utterly, slay to destruction, give them their death's wound. They must make no distinction of age or sex, but cut off old and young; neither the beauty of the virgins, nor the innocency of the babes, shall secure them. " Now, I understand that my opponent will say that context is necessary, however, my opponent's arguments about context give a double standard. I IN NO WAY, wish to undermine the OT by quoting this, but I am only doing so in response. Finally, my opponent has said that the decision to ban Islam is not mine, or my opponent's, and he/she would only simply be in favor of it if it was formally proposed. He/she then went on to say that high-Muslim population are directly correlated to terrorism, therefore Islam needs to be banned. However, my opponent has made no remarks about disenfranchisement and isolation that Muslims experience in society. I am not naive, I know that extremism exists, however all aspects need to be considered when mentioning "statistics. " Also, by the same logic, would African Americans be "banned" from society because violence is prevalent in areas where there more African Americans present. Maybe my opponent will say that this is different, since race and religion are different, however the point that he/she made was that areas in high MUSLIM populations are more dangerous. Thank you. Now I will get to the crux of this debate. We are here debating a ban of Islam, a religion followed by almost 2 Billion people. We set a precedent, in doing so, of disavowing the main facet of democracy, the freedom of religion. Please note, that my opponent still approves of this ban, WHILE supporting this freedom. While I understand that that we both literally cannot actually institute this proposal, we are debating as though we can. I am asking to the voters, a ban on Islam is catastrophic for the whole idea of democracy, and we cannot accept this proposal. I thank my opponent, and the voters for this debate. I also ask that my opponent makes no new points, out of fairness.