The Instigator
A341
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mr.Chorlton
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

In Our Modern World Fundamentalist Christianity is More Dangerous Than Fundamentalist Islam

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Mr.Chorlton
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 724 times Debate No: 63182
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

A341

Pro

First round is for acceptance only.
Debate Round No. 1
A341

Pro

I should first point out that this debate has nothing to say about whether or not the claims of Jesus of Nazareth are correct or incorrect nor do I think the intentions of either fundamentalist Christians or fundamentalist Muslims are ill I just think they are misguided, often dangerously so.

Definitions:

Fundamentalist: "Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines, usually understood as a reaction to Modernist theology."

Christianity: "the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, or its beliefs and practices."

Islam: "the religion of the Muslims, a monotheistic faith regarded as revealed through Muhammad as the Prophet of god."

Dangerous: Dangerous will be decided by the potential for members of this belief system to kill or cause harm to others in the near future (say 2-3 decades).

Various Terrorist Groups

While Islam does seem to be winning in news coverage giving the illusion that there are no or very few Christian terrorist groups operating in the world this is simply not the case, here are a few:

Anti balaka
Lords resistance army (LRA)
Klu Klux Klan (KKK)
National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT)
Tigers Militia (of Lebanon)
Lebanese Front
Iron Guard
Lancieri
Army of God
Hutaree
The Covenant
The Sword
The Arm of the Lord
Defensive Action
The Freemen Community
National Liberation Army (Columbia)

But that aside the damage done by terrorist organisations will not be my main point in fact I think the real danger posed by Christianity comes from the United States.

Christian Voting Block In The US And The Damage It Causes

When you give a man with beliefs from the 4th century weapons from the 21st century what happens?

Eleven years ago in a so called crusade [1] coalition forces invaded Iraq. This has lead to over a decade of violence, hostility and instability as well as a substantial drop in the standard of living of the Iraqi people when compared to their neighbours [2]. Furthermore the collapse of Iraqi society after the invasion of 03 has lead to the rise of many terrorist organisations who have exploited the instability in Iraq (the ultimate form of this being the Islamic State).

Because these organisations are in almost all cases fundamentalist Islamic Islam is shown to be the problem. This is not the case. Political instability brings violence in almost all cases (with the possible exception of Belgium) this is the same regardless of wether or not this happens in a majority Christian nation [3] or an Islamic one [4]. We have to look at the root causes of the conflict and that is the election of a right wing war hawk (George Bush) who was majority supported by fundamentalist Christians (even in his later days) [5] [6].

The real problem is that extreme Christians make up a significant enough portion of the vote in the US that they can influence the elections significantly. Unfortunately they tend to vote for the most warlike candidates they can find.

Conclusion

While fundamentalist Islam is dangerous and is rightly considered so fundamentalist Christians have massive influence over the worlds largest war machine and are constantly attempting to use it, usually with devastating consequences that could never be achieved by the fundamentalist Muslims.

[1] https://www.youtube.com...... (ignore the laughter in the background, that just seems to be par for the course with Bush)

[2]http://en.wikipedia.org......

[3] http://www.nydailynews.com......

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org......

[5] http://www.christianitytoday.com......

[6] http://www.oakhill.ac.uk......
Mr.Chorlton

Con

YYW put this very nicely in the comments section.
"To affirm this requires a conscious choice to ignore reality."
Very well put. I am going to display throughout this debate why PRO's argument doesn't hold water and why the opposite of his motion is true.

Firstly I suggest that PRO doesn't insult the voters intelligence by suggesting that these "Christian terror group", he's chose to list, cause more danger and are a bigger threat to the modern world than Islamic Terror groups. I do thank PRO for pointing out that this will not be his main argument and even for telling us why. He said "The damage done by terrorist groups will not be my main point". The reason for this is because there is no comparison between Christian terror groups and Islamic Terror groups. It's like one person drinking a shot of whiskey and another drinking a bottle of whiskey, the amount drank is different and the effect is very different.
So although it is not his main argument I suggest he not make this argument at all as it is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Not only is Fundamentalist Islam a greater threat to the modern world but is a bigger danger to other Muslims. ISIS are currently Beheading [1], Crucifying [2], Stoning [3], Chopping children in half [4], performing mass executions [5] not only to Christians"in fact not even mostly to Christians but also and mostly to fellow Muslims.
This ISIS problem is not just a problem for Syria and Iraq, it is estimated that 1,500 British Muslims have been recruited by ISIS [6] and are currently abroad fighting for their cause. There are more from mainland Europe and some from North America too. This is sure to have repercussions for the western world when these people attempt to come back (and some will slip through the net), in fact the front page of one of Britain's top selling papers today reports that 100 terror plots are foiled every week in Britain. This news comes just weeks after Britain raised it"s terror alert to severe.
Let's not forget about Al-Qaida. I must mention the obvious which is the attacks on September 11th 2001 which claimed the lives of almost 3,000 innocent people including 31 Muslims (not including the hijackers). Between 2004 and 2008 Al-Qaida claimed responsibility for 313 attacks which claimed the lives of 3,010 innocent people, the vast majority of these victims were Muslims with just 12% of the fatalities being westerners. [7]
Women are oppressed something awful in countries with extreme Islamic views. Women are regularly beaten and even killed in so called "honor killings". These honor killings take place for various reasons which include being the VICTIM of rape. [8] There are other groups such as Al-Shabaab, Hamas, Boko Haram, which, if I go through all the havoc they've caused, will take a very long time to write and to read.

If you are a person who knows the reality of the danger posed by Islamic fundamentalism it seems quite absurd that PRO has chosen to blame the American public for his distorted view that fundamentalist Christians are more dangerous to the world. The reason?... For taking part in a democratic process to elect a leader.

Lastly I would like all of the voters to take a look at the references that PRO has given. Not a single one of them are even remotely related to the arguments that were given. They all seem to be home pages to websites 2 of which, at the moment, have stories about Islamic terror. These therefore should not be considered as references and points should be deducted.

1) http://udumakalu.wordpress.com...
2) http://weaselzippers.us...
3) http://www.ibtimes.co.uk...
4) http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com...
5) http://pamelageller.com...
6) http://www.newsweek.com...
7) http://www.spiegel.de...
8)http://www.meforum.org...
Debate Round No. 2
A341

Pro

While I agree with my opponent that Islamic terrorism is more of a problem than Christian terrorism Christian terrorism shouldn't be dismissed.

For instance the group anti-balaka has been accused of "ethnic cleansing" by amnesty international [1].

ISIS

While it is true that ISIS are the stuff of nightmares it is also true that the US essentially put them in power. We knew what would happen when America invaded Iraq [2] before we went in.

Those Killed By Islamic Fundamentalism

I would like Con to try to put a number (say to the nearest thousand) to this and try to justify it.

Can Democracy Get it Wrong

My opponant has stated words to the effect of "democracy can never make the wrong choice". Yes it can. In Germany the NATZI party was elected, in Russia Putin was elected democracy can get it wrong.

On My References

Sorry about that I'll post the correct ones in the comments section.

[1] http://www.amnesty.org...

[2] https://www.youtube.com...
Mr.Chorlton

Con

PRO"s opening statement for round 3 "I agree with my opponent that Islamic Terrorism is more of a problem than Christian terrorism." PRO should therefore drop this entire part of his argument because the motion he is arguing for is "In our modern world Fundamentalist Christianity is more dangerous than Fundamentalist Islam". If PRO openly admits this is not the case when it comes to terrorism then any terror related argument from PRO should be dismissed.

I also make another suggestion to my opponent. Instead of blaming America for ISIS, why not blame ISIS for ISIS. Even if you believe America created the conditions for ISIS to develop, you could also choose to blame Bashar al-Assad, I have to remind my opponent again that the debate he is arguing for is "In our modern world Fundamentalist Christianity is more dangerous than Fundamentalist Islam". America"s actions, weather you agree with them or not, were not motivated by Christianity. The actions of ISIS are motivated by Islam. Actions such as the murder of men, women and children in the most horrific fashion. Actions such as rape, such as mutilating body parts, forced conversion [1]. I would also like to point out that ISIS is not the only show in town. Hamas, Al-Qaida, Al Shabaab, Boko Haram all commit acts of terror in huge numbers. Are you going to blame America for those too? How about home grown terrorism? Increasingly, Muslims born in western countries are attacking those countries in the name of Islam. We"ve seen it in mainland Europe, the UK [2], USA [3] and there was even a terrorist attack today in Canada [4]

I need to draw attention to the fact my opponent misquoted me in his argument for round 3. At no point in this debate did I say Democracy can never make the wrong choice so why PRO is putting quotation marks around this statement I don"t know. I did not say anything like that and did not state words to the effect of that.
Democracy can get it wrong. The Muslim Brotherhood for example, who was elected to power in Egypt in 2012, who"s slogan is "God is our objective; the Qur'an is the Constitution; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; death for the sake of God is our wish." As of December 2013 the Egyptian interim government declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation. There are Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, who in 2002 won 52 seats in Pakistani parliament when they teamed up with another religious political party called, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal. JI want to make Pakistan an Islamic state and have it governed by Sharia law, it also has links to terror (Pakistan is a nuclear power). There is the Taliban who actually did govern Afghanistan by Sharia law which repressed an entire population, especially women, and has well known links to terror. I can continue with more but I think you get the point [5].
What I was trying to say was that Americans peacefully going to the polls to vote is not the same thing as actively terrorizing either individuals or populations. It's not in the same league, it's not even the same sport!

[1] http://shaunynews.com...
[2] http://www.dw.de...
[3] http://www.nytimes.com...
[4] http://news.sky.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
A341

Pro

PRO"s opening statement for round 3 "I agree with my opponent that Islamic Terrorism is more of a problem than Christian terrorism." PRO should therefore drop this entire part of his argument because the motion he is arguing for is "In our modern world Fundamentalist Christianity is more dangerous than Fundamentalist Islam". If PRO openly admits this is not the case when it comes to terrorism then any terror related argument from PRO should be dismissed."

Look I'm sure you can accept that all the damage done by Muslim extremists isn't all done in the form of terrorism (unless you have an unusually broad definition of the word terrorist). Most of the damage done by fundamentalist Christianity is done by governments.

In response to your point that we should blame ISIS for ISIS I half agree. I think we should condemn ISIS and Abu Al Baghdadi for their actions however I think we need to ask the question:

Would a group equivalent to ISIS exist without fundamentalist Islam?

And on the other hand:

Would the US have invaded Iraq and set off the chain of events that lead to the rise of ISIS have occurred without fundamentalist Christianity

I think the answer to the first one is yes. In scenarios where there is oppression by a religiously biased governments just after an invasion and the destabilization of the nation while there is a civil war going on next door a terrorist organisation will probably form.

In the answer to the second one is much more unclear and I reckon that without the influence of fundamentalist Christianity Iraq would not have been invaded. Without the voting block which has pushed people like George bush into office I think that Iraq would not have been invaded. If we didn't have people who thought that gogin ma gog would come out of Iraq [1] we would have a very different world.

"What I was trying to say was that Americans peacefully going to the polls to vote is not the same thing as actively terrorizing either individuals or populations. It's not in the same league, it's not even the same sport!"

I will give you it is different and not malicious but a vote (or in this context a powerful voting block) has a serious influence on geopolitics which should not be brushed aside. Remember this debate is about how dangerous fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity are not how morally ambiguous they are.

[1]http://www.patheos.com...
Mr.Chorlton

Con

“Look I'm sure you can accept that all the damage done by Muslim extremists isn't all done in the form of terrorism (unless you have an unusually broad definition of the word terrorist.)”

I thank PRO for starting round 4 by arguing for CON. He is right, Muslim extremism is not all in the form of terrorism; Muslim Fundamentalism is dangerous in many ways. As I said in round 3, the governments who enforce Sharia law cause immense damage to their own population, especially women, I’ll give you a handful of examples:

-A Sudanese woman who was sentenced to 100 lashes and death by hanging by the courts.
Her crime? Converting to Christianity to marry her husband (she was also pregnant). [1]

- A Sudanese woman who was fined 250 Sudanese pounds and sentenced to 40 lashes. [2]
Her crime? Wearing pants.

- A Pakistani Christian woman who was sentenced to death by the courts.
Her crime? Drinking water from a Muslim well and accused of insulting Muhammad. [3]

Of course it doesn’t have to be governments who do this because it is often the womans own father or husband who sentences these women in the name of honour (how killing your own daughter is honourable I don’t know). The code is simple: Any contact, even just communication between a man and a woman outside of customary wedlock is considered a breach of the honour of the woman's family, and gives it the right to seek bloody revenge.
None of this is considered terrorism but if you did “have an unusually broad definition of the word terrorist” then you could say that these governments terrorize their own people by having these types of laws which enforces corporal punishment for such matters. Laws which deny women education, the right to drive and deems them second class citizens. You could say family members terrorize each other , when you don’t have the right to choose who you’ll marry, what you can wear and who you may talk to. The fact of the matter is, in the world of Fundamentalist Islam, people terrorize each other.

Would a group equivalent to ISIS exist without Islam?
The answer is no, and here’s why:-

Though it is true that people eventually rise up against tyrannical governments, how they behave whilst doing so is very different when religion isn’t involved. As we have seen with the Arab spring many countries have (or attempted to) overthrown their governments. ISIS is the only one doing so in the name of creating a new caliphate and the treatment of the people is by far the worse. They are, as I’ve already said, killing men, women and children in the most barbaric ways and it is in the name of Islam. Other uprisings have been in the name of democracy and have very different results. Granted things are not ideal in these places but compare it to Syria and Iraq there is no comparison.



Would the US have invaded Iraq and set off the chain of events that lead to the rise of ISIS have occurred without fundamentalist Christianity?
I’m not sure that I understand the grammar of your question but I’ll try and answer it in two parts.

Your implied belief that the US invasion of Iraq set off the chain of events that led to ISIS.
This is a much more complex issue than it seems at first glance but I’ll try and simplify it the best I can. ISIS in a way started with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who had met Osama Bin Laden and set up a terror training camp as early as 1999. He went to Iraq in 2001 and at the time of the invasion in 2003 he set up, what was then called, Jama’at al-Tawhid w’al-Jihad which targeted mostly other Muslims (mainly Shiites) and was made up of mostly none Iraqi’s. Sound familiar? Zarqawi eventually died and was succeeded by Baghdadi who continued the suicide bombing campaign even after the American withdrawal.
During the uprising in Syria against the al-Assad regime, Baghdadi decided to expand his targeting of the Shiite population in Syria. Bashar al-Assad and his government are Shiites. [4]
So who is responsible for ISIS? A combination between the invasion of Iraq, the hatred of the Shiites, the Syrian uprising, Bashar al-Assad’s answer to the uprising by using chemical weapons against Sunni villages.

Your implied belief that the “Christian voting block” bares the responsibility for the war in Iraq
Firstly I’d like to remind PRO that Fundamentalist Islam was a threat before Iraq was invaded. The events on 911 killed almost 3000 people and it was not the first time the world trade centre was targeted by Al-Qaida.
Secondly I like to remind PRO that the “Christian voting block” did not decide to invade Iraq, the Bush administration did. There are many theories to why Iraq was invaded.
There is the official line that they believed Saddam Hussein to have weapons of mass destruction.
Some believe US oil interests are the reason.
Maybe America wanted to show willingness to use force after 911.
Some even believe that it was to have a base in the region.
None of the above have any Christian motivations behind them. Your theory that the whole Iraq war was because George Bush wanted a Christian/Muslim war is beyond a fringe theory and you’ve based it all off some vague reference to “gogin magog” (I assume you meant gog and magog).
Thirdly I’d like to remind PRO that the Republicans have not been in power in the USA for nearly 6 years. Your argument is, in the Modern World these Christian voters are more dangerous than all the Islamic Threats in the world because of their ability to vote for right wing republicans. The republicans are increasingly unlikely to come back into power anytime soon unless they change. The reason is that the USA is changing.[5] With the growing Hispanic population in America the Democratic vote is also growing, the youth vote is mainly a Democratic vote also and with the Republican vote dying off and a Democratic vote getting larger the situation will become very one sided (unless of course, the Republicans change).

I don’t buy for one second that peaceful voters are a bigger danger than violent extremists. Hypothetically however, if they were so dangerous (which they’re not), in our modern world their influence is getting smaller whilst Islamic extremism is getting worse.

I'm very interested now to hear PRO's conclusion now that his sole remaining argument is shown to have massive errors in calculation.

1] http://uk.reuters.com...
2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
4] http://www.theatlantic.com...
5] http://www.nationaljournal.com...
Debate Round No. 4
A341

Pro

A341 forfeited this round.
Mr.Chorlton

Con

Final Thought

At the end of my argument for round 4 I challenged PRO to make a convincing conclusion now that his sole remaining argument has been shown to have no substance to it. PRO was unable to meet that challenge and forfeited round 5.
My thoughts about the debate are that PRO’s arguments have less to do with Christianity and more to do with harbouring some kind of Anti-American feeling. Some of you voters may also have an Anti-American feeling but I’d like to remind you that this is not what the debate is about. I do not harbour any Anti-American sentiment and feel I should remind PRO of America’s involvement in the Balkans war, which I remember very well, where the Muslim population were saved from genocide.

Conclusion
I would like to thank my opponent for starting the debate and allowing me to do more reading on the subject than I may otherwise have done. It was fun and thought provoking. I will now go through, stage by stage, why I think I should win this debate.

References

In round 2 PRO used references that did not support the arguments made. The references he used were the home pages for websites where some of them advertised articles supporting CON. I feel PRO shot himself in the foot on this one as well as not using many references throughout the rest of the debate and therefore I should collect the points here.

Conduct

The use of false references is particularly bad conduct. It could be seen either as an honest mistake or an attempt to pull a fast one. PRO also forfeited round 5, which is never seen in a good light on DDO.

Arguments

As I said in the above, the forfeit of round 5 came right after I debunked PRO’s sole remaining argument. Stage by stage throughout this debate I took apart my opponents arguments as well as making strong cases for my arguments. My arguments were stronger, more factual and supported by references. PRO, instead of disproving my arguments, actually agreed with most of them. Throughout the debate the case for CON got stronger and stronger whilst the case for PRO got weaker and weaker and so therefore I should pick up the points here.

Spelling and Grammar
Here are some examples from PRO:-

My opponant has stated words to the effect of "democracy can never make the wrong choice". (quotation marks when it wasn’t a quote)

In Germany the NATZI party was elected. (is spelled Nazi)

Would the US have invaded Iraq and set off the chain of events that lead to the rise of ISIS have occurred without fundamentalist Christianity (This question makes more sense without the words “have occurred”)

I think I should pick up the points here also.

To the Voters

I think I have adequately displayed here in round 5 the reasons why I should win this debate. Thank you all for taking the time to read everything. VOTE CON!!!

Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Mr.Chorlton 2 years ago
Mr.Chorlton
Are ISIS using the Koran as an excuse or are they interpreting the text a different way? They are calling themselves Islamic State now so it is in the name of Islam. Who's to say who's right about the interpretation of the Koran seeing as though there is no one person or group in charge to say? What's your take on this Sabrina?
Posted by sabrin100 2 years ago
sabrin100
It looks like non-Muslims know more about Islam , than Muslims . ISIS and others are not following Islam at all. This has been decided long time ago , by all traditional groups ( the 4 groups including Shia and Sunni) .
Posted by cwt002 2 years ago
cwt002
The problem with the list of Christian Terrorist Groups if you compare what they do to the teachings of Christ you will see there is no comparison at all. If in fact, members of these groups were Christian, they would be defined as bad Christians.

The problem with Islam if you compare lets say ISIS or many other Muslim organizations you will find they are following the Koran through there actions. In other words, they are putting into practice Mohammad's commands.

Lastly, many people in the US will claim to be Christians but have no idea what that even means.
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
Neither are dangerous by themselves.
Posted by A341 2 years ago
A341
@YYW Then debate me.
Posted by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
To affirm this requires a conscious choice ignore reality.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Swedishperspective 2 years ago
Swedishperspective
A341Mr.ChorltonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not thoroughly enough manage to explain how Christian zealots or fundamentalists brought about the Iraq war and, consequently, how terrorist organisations arose as a result of that. As Con explained there is a much more complicated chain of events here that I would have wanted Pro to further elaborate upon in order to receive my vote. It is not just a matter of intentional violence. The Christian voting block might indeed have inadvertenly caused the Iraq war and, perhaps, previous wars in the Middle East through their particular voting patterns and would thus ultimately be, to a great extent, responsible for the events now taking place (and no, I am not in any way trying to void the terrorists themselves from any responsibility for what has happened and is currently going on). This is an interesting point that, in my opinion, could have settled the debate for Pro had he given the time to expound on the cause and effects of how the Christian voting block have chosen to vote.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
A341Mr.ChorltonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round and conceded some of con's arguments.