CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
What are you opinions on the recent Middle East protests?
Recently, a blatantly offensive, and quite frankly, shockingly bad, piece of media has gained viral attention around the world, due to its deptiction of the Islamic prophet Mohammed as a slovenly, abusive, drunkard (simply depicting the prophet is considered blasphemous in Islam).
This has caused thousands of people to protest around the Middle East. In Egypt, thousands rallied around the US embassy, where they vandalise it, and burnt the American flag there. In Libya, a peaceful protest was taking place, when a small group of terrorists attacked the embassy. They killed three security staff, and the US ambassador died from smoke inhalation. There have also been protests in Iran, Qatar, Yemen, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and probably others.
This has resulted in a large political fallout, both between the US and other nations, as well as within the US.
Presidental candidate Romney jumped onto a statement issued by the US Cario embassy (often percieved to be trying to defuse the situation, and prevent further violence), and rejected their apology for a constituents 'abuse' of free speech. This leads to a further debate - to what extent should individuals use their free speech, where it could insult others, even cause violence to others?
to what extent should individuals use their free speech, where it could insult others,
If people choose to be insulted and can't rise above, then that says more about them than the insulting party.
even cause violence to others?
It is not the insult that causes the violence, strange the way it's always one side that gets their panties in a bunch over "insult" when the opposite side are being lambasted from on high from every media source that is available.
If people choose to be insulted and can't rise above, then that says more about them than the insulting party.
But what does it say about someone if they say something, just to insult others? And if they are in full knowledge that the reaction of those insulted could be of potential harm to others? I don't see why both groups can't be in the wrong here.
The point is that if someone wants to incite violence over an image or utterance then they are the sort of people the world can do without.
Most people in the world wouldn't respond like this, and I can guarantee you, like in the scenario of the Danish cartoon that there's a bunch of retards exacerbating the situation to some political end.
The internet in Muslim Shariah countries is heavily censored if even available, the average Joe Muslim on the street wouldn't even have heard about the situation were it not for the work of zealots on the prowl for incendiary material.
The point is that if someone wants to incite violence over an image or utterance then they are the sort of people the world can do without.
Most people in the world wouldn't respond like this, and I can guarantee you, like in the scenario of the Danish cartoon that there's a bunch of retards exacerbating the situation to some political end.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I've never tried to forgive those protesting violently, and I won't. But that doesn't mean everyone else is innocent.
The internet in Muslim Shariah countries is heavily censored if even available, the average Joe Muslim on the street wouldn't even have heard about the situation were it not for the work of zealots on the prowl for incendiary material.
I live in a 'Muslim Shariah' country, and 'heavily censored' is pushing it (in terms of politics and current events, at least, pornography is heavily censored), and internet is available in all countries. There's an average income of 100K USD here, the 'average Joe Muslim' on the street is very much able to find out about these events.
There was a peaceful protest of about 2,000 outside the US consulate, by the way, people definitely did find out.
" But that doesn't mean everyone else is innocent."
Including those who offend/insult Christianity? It seems you are pro-Muslim here. But when it comes any other religion that isn't Muslim, then you are free to insult like there's no tomorrow. Kinda hypocritical if you ask me.
There is a huge difference between the film 'Innocence of Mohammed', and me saying that Christianity is false on a website.
For the record, I have never, ever told anyone that their religion is false, from any religion. Neither have I ever said anything to anyone, simply to insult their religion.
You know next to nothing about me, yet try and assert yourself as an absolute authority. You're growing into a good little Republican, son!
To say that they agree with science, then act like savages, yes, SAVAGES, as all people who seek war do is not logical or scientific.
It is primitive and I cannot respect the belief of someone like that.
Their religion has nothing scientific about it, they appear to only claim to support science because of their more mathematical past, and because they want to convert as many people as possible using any method they can.
Unless their religion changes to one of truth and peace, REAL truth and REAL peace, which I highly doubt will happen, they will likely continue to wish death upon others, and destroy things.
And no, I'm not some sort of Hitler. I am speaking only of their religion, not the people.
I agree with what you're saying here, but I'm just wondering, do you really think these people are representational of Islam? While the Qu'ran does preach violence in some situations, a proper follower would not have done what was done recently.
Criticize individuals from this, but remember that it was not the Muslim acting here, it was the individual.
The average citizen in a country of any kind is probably NOT going to kill other people because of a movie.
However, seeing a secular world, where religion is only kept personal and does not enter into politics or the rest of society would please me greatly.
As long as there is religion, which on this website at least has been proven to be unjustified to believe in, is still active enough to encourage riots to destroy things and kill people, I will stand against their religion as a whole, simply because a world with less religion would be a better world for the most part.
You must remember, I debate people of any religion that causes oppression or violence, and because Islam is a religion that does that, I will stand against it, and when it is in the news for influencing individuals to kill and hurt others, I will certainly take the most offensive measures I can against it.
That's like saying you can't judge the Oakland A's (a baseball team [baseball is an American sport where you stand around tossing a small white ball to one another and every once in a while one guy sprints a few yards and slides around in the dirt]) by it's players. Of course the point of the A's is to win baseball games, but if they didn't, if they failed because their players did a bad job, you wouldn't say "oh the point of the team is to win, so it doesn't matter that the players lost, they should still be winners." No. You have to judge a team by its players, and you have to judge a religion by its followers. If some extremist blows himself up in the name of Islam, motivated by what he believes about reality and the afterlife, Islam has to take a hit for that; it has to take some responsibility. It's not enough to say they were not being true Muslims; they think they were. Hell, they think they are they truest Muslims, and the peaceful ones are not. And because religious dogma is so vague and ambiguous, they're right. Well, just as right as the peaceful ones. Point is, you can't alleviate all responsibility of religious actions done in the name of religion just because the person doing them doesn't abide by someones elses opinion of what it means to be a true Muslim. Did they believe if Mohammad? Do they read or take from the Qu'ran? That's a Muslim, right there. Just because they did some disgusting and hateful shit you can't try to classify them as a non-Muslim based on the subjective specifics and semantics of being a Muslim.
We've already had this discussion, and neither of us are going to change our opinions, we know ourselves too well for that.
I believe that religion is nothing more than something people try and follow - what people do with that are their own positives and downfalls. Any belief system is simply a collection of views, are they not? I don't see why you should change how you view the beliefs of 99% of Muslims (or anyone) because of the actions of a small minority of those claiming the same views.
Essentially, no individual, or collective group of people, define a religion. A religion is nothing more than a religious text, essentially.
First of all, anyone criticizing this religion can be expected to be threatened with physical violence - often finding themselves victims of it. If 1% of the Muslim world is responsible for this, it's clearly a very busy 1%. Very busy, indeed, when you consider that something like a piece of trash youtube video can incite violent mobs to kill, vandalize, and rape across a dozen Islamic countries.
A recent survey in Britain found that a third of Muslims students support killing in the name of Islam, and almost half want to live under a system of religious law that discriminates against women, homosexuals, and non-Muslims. Is this the "small minority" you're talking about?
I agree that religion is a very personal and subjective thing to experience, but this doesn't mean that you can't associate people who read the Qu'ran and follow the prophet Mohammad and call themselves "Muslim," with other people who read the Qu'ran and follow the prophet Mohammad and call themselves "Muslim."
Middle esterners (issrailies excluded) have proven time and time agen that they are nothing but violent ungreatfull saveges and are unworthy of our aid I say we only help issrailies all els cas just stew in there own hattred and filth screw thos saveges
Oh please, as if every religion and country does not have its own respective extremists and reactionaries. If I may say so, your own view does not seem very open minded, loving, or tolerant.
He's an idiot, but he has a point. There have been plenty of offensive videos made about Christianity, but you don't see a multitude of Christian nations responding to this with violence, vandalism, and terrorism. So there might be other extremists and reactionaries in other countries, but clearly they all have thicker skin and slower tempers than the Muslim extremists.
True that! When South Park made fun of Mohammad, the Muslims said that any of their followers could kill the writers of South Park. Yet South Park has made fun of Jesus many times and the Christians don't get all violent about it.
The problem with your analysis, however, is that you ignore the respective circumstances surrounding those examples. When there is an offensive statement made about Christianity by Muslims, there is not the accompanying history of oppression, manipulation, and abuse that is the hallmark of U.S. involvement in predominantly Islamic countries. Offensive statements about Islam by Christians (and particularly American Christians, or even just Americans) are not just offensive on a religious level, but are connected to a deep and negative history (e.g. wars, puppet dictators, etc.).
Comparatively, when something offensive to Christianity from an Islamic nation emerges it has less association. Sure, there have been recent terrorist attacks and I would not deny that those have been both tragic and impactful on the collective western psyche; however, the length of history and extensiveness of the engagement is significantly less in this direction than from Christian nations to Islamic ones.
Furthermore, even if you can successfully argue that there are more extremists or a greater proclivity for extremism among Muslims than Christians there is a certain degree to which western society is responsible for fostering that insofar as we played an integral role in shaping politics and political/social history within the Middle-East.
I know that there is a sub-sect of liberal appeasers that like to blame the west (especially America) for all the worlds problems (especially those in the Middle East). It's hard to argue with this mentality, as it's oftentimes based more off of an irrational distaste of the country and culture you live in than any sense of responsibility. After all, you wouldn't blame Japan for forcing America into bombing Japan with nukes. America has to take responsibility for its own actions in this regard, even though there were influencing circumstances that surrounded their decision.
Also, if the hateful propaganda and hateful follow-through in the form of vandalism, violence, rape, and mass exodus that Muslims are so fond of is something that the US has earned through its actions, what have women, Jews, and homosexuals done to deserve equal (if worse) treatment? If this is a justified response and not just a stereotypical Muslim tactic, why do they use these tactics the same way on those who do no deserve it, on those who do not have forefathers that might have oppressed Muslims?
And speaking of a "negative history," Christians are being handed more and more reasons to justifiably dispose the Islamic world in recent years. We're not talking about the actions of Muslim government officials 70, 60, 50 years ago, like they are with the US, we're talking this is happening right now. Ever since the unprovoked terrorist attacks, and especially since the "Arab Spring," which has marked the beginning of a winter of persecution, forced exodus, violence, rape, and genocide for Christians in the Middle East. Christians have every right, if not more right, to verbally abuse the Muslims world as much as the Muslims world abuses them, more, perhaps, because their abuse would be based off current events and not history. But, really, neither of these groups has the right to react violently for any reason. Christians are abiding by this. Muslims across several countries and denominations are not.
Furthermore, even if you can successfully argue that there are more extremists or a greater proclivity for extremism among Muslims than Christians there is a certain degree to which western society is responsible for fostering that insofar as we played an integral role in shaping politics and political/social history within the Middle-East.
And many western politicians agree with you, which might be why guys like Obama can visit Muslim countries where they are literally slaughtering Christians while he is there and he can compliment them on advancing their social progress, and on national peace, and democracy, and blah, blah, blah. This might be why we have Sharia counts operating in the western world, even through they oppose everything we stand for in the western world. Or why the western world endorses Muslim activity like polygamy and genital mutilation - for Muslims only - even though it's against our laws; we feel bad.
I don't know. However, if you raise a bad dog, and it bites you, are you supposed to let it sit there tearing your throat our and say, "well, I guess this is my fault, I guess this is my responsibility, I guess I deserve this," or are you going to fight back and whip the bitch into proper behavior? We might have had a hand in raising the Middle East into the violent, temper-tantrum-throwing child that it is, but that doesn't mean that excuses the behavior, or that we should ignore it, particularly when the price of ignoring it is death and terror.
Free speech is a Constitutionally guaranteed right, but all rights incur a certain responsibility. You can say what you want freely, but to use that freedom irresponsibly is an abuse of a privilege not enjoyed by many in the world. It disgusts me to see the freedom of speech abused in such a senseless fashion, where the intent of the speaker is not so much expression but the explicit degeneration of another individual or group of people. At the same time, I would not legally opt to restrict the freedom of speech on that grounds because such a law would be extremely subjective and open to abuse; the risks outweigh the benefits. That being said, individuals should get over their ignorance and prejudice, or at least keep it themselves. Vitriol serves no purpose other than the self-validation of insecure bigotry.
As far as the violent protestors, I consider that also to be an insult to activism. To be so provoked by the bigotry of a couple of people that you murder other people who are totally unconnected to the statements by those couple of bigots is not only illogical but ineffective. You accomplish nothing other than pissing other people off and escalating the violence. To be fair, this could also be seen as merely a tipping point following a long history of negative interventions by the U.S. in foreign affairs. However, it also trivializes your own stance which could be quite valid by defining it in association with a rather trivial and juvenile incident.
My take on it is that the Middle East will not have us around much longer to kick around.
China and Russia have been making treaties to bypass the dollar for global oil customers. They began selling oil using their own currency. Any nation in the world that wishes from this point on, to buy, sell, or trade crude oil, can do so using the Chinese currency, not the American dollar.
That is is going to affect your life, your family, and your dinner table more than you can possibly imagine. So much so that we may need military rule to hold it all together.
So..., I guess that once we go away, the Middle East will have to deal with the Russians and the Chinese. I'd like to see how that works out for them :)
The video was offensive,true, but you can't blame the video or it's creators for the violance that followed. There was once a artist who created something called "Christ in piss" which was the picture of the cruxifix in a bucket of urine. This greatly offend pretty much every christian person around the world, but there was no killings or raids because of it. Relgious offense is no excuse for the crimes that were committed, and it only hurts the image of the islamic culture, which is unfortunate because not every muslim is like these fanatics.
If more than 90% of the total terrorist group in the world are from a single religion, we must think over it n stop acting like that we r not racist or very nice n should clear ask that religion to check what's wrong with you guys there is something seriously wrong written or understood by u guys that's creating the whole problem
No, I'm using it to show that the perception of 'all terrorists are muslims' is based off of ignorance. They may have been responsible for a lot, but 90% is pushing it too far.
The fact that I chose US/Christian is because I am guessing that's what the person is. There are more instances of terrorism in Africa, if I simply wanted the largest numbers.
So no, this argument is not self defeating, although the links are justifications of certain beliefs which I hold.
... I'm using it to show that the perception of 'all terrorists are muslims' is based off of ignorance. They may have been responsible for a lot, but 90% is pushing it too far.
Ha Ha Ha! Sorry man, I posted that at like, 11 PM. I must have missed that. True, these are terrorist acts; but may I ask could these be terrorist organizations using the name of Christianity, and not actually being Christian? The Bible does not condone or justify any of these atrocities. To say that they are actually Christian, in my opinion, would be incorrect since they do not follow the teachings of the Bible. Whereas the Quran explicitly states that the Muslims are in a state of holy war.
A Jihad is not a perpetual state of Islam, but, as you said, a holy war against those who wish to destroy Islam, which we have not experienced in modern history. Islamic terrorists are just as much a part of Islam as Christian terrorists are a part of Christianity.
"Islamic terrorists are just as much a part of Islam as Christian terrorists are a part of Christianity."
True, but here's my question.
The Bible does not say to kill anyone or commit any acts of terrorism for any reason whatsoever. The Quran explicitly states to kill and terrorize. So, since Christian terrorists are directly violating the Bible, should they literally be classified as Christian? I know they claim the name of Christian, but that doesn't actually make them Christian.
For example, I could change my profile to say I'm a Democrat. But if I don't follow the policy of the Democrat party; I'm not actually a Democrat.
1. You do realize that Muslims aren't a race of people, right? Muslim is the term given to the followers of Islam (a religion). So no, we aren't racist for discriminating against them.
2. What in the world are you trying to say? Here is the best I could do:
More than 90% of the total terrorist group in the world is from a single religion. We must think over it and stop acting like we are not racist, or clear up any ambiguity with that religion and ask, "What's wrong with you guys?" Because there is seriously something wrong, either written or understood, by you guys that's creating the whole problem.
I mean seriously, did you flunk out of first grade? Do you even know what you are talking about? I doubt it. You can't even type what you are trying to say.
"Did you really think I was so stupid that I wouldn't recognize a run-on sentence?"
Here's something interesting. According to CNN, the "movie trailer" was actually a short film made by Al Qaeda in order to stir up anti-American hatred. LOL BenWalters can't even get it right he is so blinded by religious prejudice.
First of all, I will ask for a source for that claim. Looking on CNN, I can find this article, which talks about the origins of the film. Now where does it attribute this the al Qaeda. Secondly, I found another article which said that the attacks in Libya were done by members of al Qaeda.
Secondly, I would contest that a single article on CNN is far from conclusive proof on such a provocative and emotional issue. The truth will take a long time to fully emerge, yet what you are saying seems unlikely, from what I have read.
Finally, why the fuck do I have religious prejudice? You are making yourself look like an idiot, please make some intelligent, and well thought out comments, and we can talk like grown ups.
"First of all, I will ask for a source for that claim. Looking on CNN, I can find this article, which talks about the origins of the film. Now where does it attribute this the al Qaeda. Secondly, I found another article which said that the attacks in Libya were done by members of al Qaeda."
Here is where I found the claim. True it isn't probably a reliable source, but I just wanted to see the trailer not learn it's origins. I probably should have done better research.
"Finally, why the f@#k do I have religious prejudice?"
Here, this debate; it seems like you have a personal bias towards Muslims. Sorry for coming on a little strong there, but for reasons I don't want to make public, I got some beef with Muslims. So I apologize for overreacting.
Here is where I found the claim. True it isn't probably a reliable source, but I just wanted to see the trailer not learn it's origins. I probably should have done better research.
Well thank you for being mature about that. But yeah, I don't think a) it's anything more than conjecture & b) that CNN ever claimed that, so it's already shown to be incorrect.
Here, this debate; it seems like you have a personal bias towards Muslims.
I don't see why that implies that I have a bias towards them. I told you to look at a list of Islamic countries, discussed ideas on why they are often unstable, some geological facts, some basic truths about Islam, then a comparison of the Republican party, compared to the Qatari government. That seems much more like understanding than bias to me.
Sorry for coming on a little strong there, but for reasons I don't want to make public, I got some beef with Muslims. So I apologize for overreacting.
Again, thank you for being mature. And I have problems with Muslims too (I shouldn't even be able to watch porn here ...) but I have a feeling that you have issues with individuals, rather than the religion as a whole. Be careful about how your views are affected, and I hope that your problems were only temporary.
LOL. Don't thank me. Thank a combination of Markml0528 and Srom. I've been learning to be more mature/honest in my responses. Markml0528 especially has been teaching me a lot. ;)
Yet more killing and malice of innocent people because of religion. Whats even more all religion, it seems to me, teaches peace and is against the killing of innocent people, yet these extremist ignore all that and defend their god by doing so. Don't get me wrong to insult ones faith is wrong, insensitive and ignorant, but to demand to ignore our freedom of speech or blood will be shed is straight up arrogance and sinful pride. I am sure that no matter what god one believes in, the bombing of embassies and the killing of human beings for what reason holds no place in his or her god's heart.
