Instigator / Pro
7
1458
rating
7
debates
21.43%
won
Topic

Religious Fundamentalism is a Bigger Problem Long-Term Than Current Radical Left-Wing Politics

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
0
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

Aowdd
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
4
1462
rating
21
debates
28.57%
won
Description
~ 881 / 5,000

Pro:
- Must demonstrate what radical left-wing politics is
- Must demonstrate why it is not harmful in its current iteration, or as harmful, as it has been in the past
- Must demonstrate what religious fundamentalism is
- Must demonstrate that religious fundamentalism is more dangerous, long-term, than radical left-wing politics

Con:
- Must demonstrate what radical left-wing politics is
- Must demonstrate why it is as harmful or more harmful in its current iteration than previous forms of left-wing politics
- Must demonstrate what religious fundamentalism is
- Must demonstrate that religious fundamentalism is less dangerous, long-term than radical left-wing politics

Debate should be judged on clarity of arguments, soundness in rationale and logic of arguments, and a lack of fallacies.

Please comment or message for suggestions on things to change, fix, add or remove.

Round 1
Pro
To begin with:
- Must demonstrate what radical left-wing politics is

Radical left-wing politics, in its current iteration, is primarily focused on compensating for historical, generational and systemic failures of racial equality, as well as equality between genders and those of differing sexualities, as well as the misuse of power in institutions and broader social systems. This is also as opposed to left-wing activism and the philosophies that may be associated with left-wing politics. We can have  a discussion on those, but this is speaking directly on the politics and the aim/goals of the political movements, not activism and philosophy.

- Must demonstrate why it is not harmful in its current iteration, or as harmful, as it has been in the past

When radical left-wing politics of the past is discussed, people are usually referring to communism. Communism was and is an incredibly dangerous socio-political ideology, which is concerned with violent revolution and an authoritarian control of economics, culture, discourse, technology, infrastructure and social systems at large.

The current iteration of American radical left-wing politics is a more militant, though, as a whole, non-violent, version of prior civil rights movements. Their aim is to reduce remaining racial, gender, sexual and other demographic based inequalities as much as possible. Their politics do not involve violent revolution, they involve trying to help minority-demographics get better jobs and hold positions of power, authority and economic status as much as non-minority demographics. Their politics do not involve authoritarian control of economics, infrastructure and technology, they involve allowing people of diverse backgrounds to share their voice and opinion. Their politics do not involve the collapse of a socio-economic system, but the ability of everyone within that system to participate on more equal grounds--an attempt at more equal equality, though there may be some overcorrections in their proposals and rhetoric.

The current iteration of left-wing politics has nothing to do with a violent seizure of means or goods, but rather of helping people of differing demographics achieve a quality of life and quality of inner-being as the majority populations of a society.  In addition, this iteration of left-wing politics has nothing to do with private discourse or private lives, it is only concerned with (or only capable of) public discourse, public systems and broader legal systems.

- Must demonstrate what religious fundamentalism is

"Religious fundamentalism refers to the belief of an individual or a group of individuals in the absolute authority of a sacred religious text or teachings of a particular religious leader, prophet, and/ or God . These fundamentalists believe that their religion is beyond any form of criticism, and should therefore also be forced upon others. Logical explanations and scientific evidences have no place in these belief systems if they work against their religious fundamentalists. For fundamentalists, religion dictates every sphere of their daily lives, and they also attempt to involve the entire society into their own belief system, often by the use of force."


Religious Fundamentalism is a form of social, cultural and sometimes economic and political authoritarianism where specific religious doctrines are given authority over all other forms of belief, understanding or philosophy within a given community or society. Within that community or society, legal systems, political systems and socio-economic systems can be controlled by these fundamentalist groups.

- Must demonstrate that religious fundamentalism is more dangerous, long-term, than radical left-wing politics

The current iteration of radical left-wing politics does not espouse violence in the name of an unprovable deity. It does not use myth or superstition, unfounded in logic, science or reason, to espouse violence, to espouse the authoritarian control of an individual's daily life, or to espouse the authoritarian control of one's thoughts and beliefs.

Most forms of radical left-wing politics, as they are now, level off at requesting an end to provable forms of systemic racism, and changes to legal systems and the hiring system of employers. This does not extend to private life, as religious authoritarianism does, nor does it extend to exercising violence, nor does it extend to unlawful seizure, unlawful extra-judicial punishment, or unlawful financial seizure or punishment.

Religious fundamentalism believes itself to be above the law, superior to others, and thus possessing the authority to enforce their beliefs onto others. This will always be a threat to any society, since people are likely evolutionarily primed for religious or spiritual belief systems or structures, and most religious doctrines are created and exercised in ways which cannot be proven satisfactorily by any rational or empirical means.

-

PS: This is all coming from a quasi-Libertarian Agnostic Centrist, if that means anything, and it is not an attack on religion, people's personal beliefs, or the validity of religion and religious experiences of individuals. It is an argument against religious fundamentalism and the wide spread notion that left-wing politics is more dangerous that religious fundamentalism. It is also not necessarily an argument for the rhetoric of left-wing politics.
Con
1.

What leftism is:

leftism is any ideology that supports the following characteristics(I can't name all of them, but I will name as many as I can):

* Higher taxes
* Green policies
* public welfare
* worker's rights
* secularism
* anti traditionalism
* criminal rights
* minority rights
* lgbt rights
* feminism

Radical leftism is:

* Extreme taxes
* Eco-terrorism
* complete government ownership
* communism
* antitheism/anti religion
* extreme anti traditionalism
* Anarchism
* hatred of majority
* gender ideology
* misandrism

2.

First of all, extreme Left groups like communist parties have been responsible for more than 100 million systemic deaths. Far left terrorist groups like Antifa and BLM have looted, robbed, murdered people, disfigured people, arsoned, etc. What do Far right groups like the KKK do(I am against racism and the KKK)? Barely anything, sure they get media attention, but at the end of the day, the modern KKK is just a powerless group of racist old men in silly white costumes who dance around burning crosses. And Westboro? The WBC is just a group of hateful Christian heretics who picket events and protests with signs that say hateful things. Heck, Westboro isn't even a real church, they are hated by conservatives(Conservapedia calls them a "a radical Church of Satan masquerading as a Primitive Baptist church") and not even the most conservative, anti lgbt (real)churches recognize them. As for the Alt right, well you have to understand that "far right" and "Alt right" are not the samething. Far right is a position on the political spectrum, while alt right is a political movement. I believe that the alt right currently is just a bunch of racist memers on the internet who probably do what they do just to trigger normal society. The alt right has fallen since 2017.

Meanwhile the left:

Extreme left wingers like antifa often oppose free speech as shown by this video on minutes 4:19 - 4:30:

BLM also kill police and trick people into donating to them. But then the owner of BLM used that money to buy herself luxuries.

PETA euthanizes innocent animals and want extreme veganism. Peta has killed pets.

Antifa just speaks for itself.

Cancel culture has made innocent people lose their jobs.

political correctness is just policing of speech.

The left has taken over every major part of our culture. Here are the websites/companies hijacked by far leftists:

* twitter
* facebook
* Google
* youtube
* Wikipedia
* Instagram
* Netflix
* disney
* CNN
* NBC
* ABC
* etc

Mean while the far right controls nothing except the attention of the Liberal mainstream media

The liberal media censors any act of terrorism commited by the far left.

Worst of all, the Left has inserted homosexual agenda and gender ideology into kid's entertainment
and here is the proof:


3. Fundamentalism is one of the most misused words in the modern day. The word has become an all-purpose word for a religious extremist. But the fact is, not every religious extremist is a fundamentalist, and not every fundamentalist is an extremist. To start, the term "fundamentalism" only applies to a Protestant Christian movement of ultra-traditional Christians. Fundamentalists believe in these things:

* Biblical innerancy: That the bible is the inerrant(flawless) word of God.
* They are strong adherents to the bible.
* They are traditionalists: They use traditional interpretations of the bible. Fundamentalists adhere to tradition
* They are Protestant

exceptions:

catholics who reject modern theology or adhere to tradition are not considered by scholars to be "fundamentalists"
Islamic extremists aren't "fundamentalist".
traditionalists of any other relgion can't be considered fundamentalists
only protestants can be fundamentalist

Extremism:

What is the definition of extremism? Well the dictionary definition is: "the holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism." But what does an extremist do? Well the root of the word extremism is - of course - extreme. An extremist does extreme things to accomplish their goals, which include:

> Take extreme actions like terrorism.

> Say extreme things like "(insert oppostion here) must die"

An extremist believes in extreme things like:

* "The opposition must die"
* An extremist hates opposing opinions
* An extremist wants to make everyone believe

Examples of religious extremists but not fundamentalists:

> Westboro Baptist Church:

Why they are not fundamentalists:

* Their theology is based on a heresy called hyper-calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism is an extreme form of Calvinism. Calvinism is the belief that God chooses who will be destined to salvation. The opposite of Calvinism is Arminianism(the more biblical position) which states that humans have free will to either accept or reject God and that the consequences of their actions will come in the afterlife.

* a rundown of all the biblical heresies/sins of the Westboro baptist church:
1. "God hates fags" The reality is that, although homosexual actions are sinful, God does not hate sinners. The only thing God hates is sin.
2. Whenever something bad happens to America/homosexuals/people who are not westboro, the church members will say something like "This is judgement from God". This is sinful, I mean, who are these people to speak for God, this is again sinful because, in a fundamentalist's/evangelical's eyes - they are speaking of things that God hasn't revealed.
3. Whenever they say “[Anyone who WBC hates] is going to hell”. First of all, they are usurping the throne of God by saying who is going to hell or not. In an evangelical's eyes this is sinful because they are judging in cases that only God can judge. Only God knows everything a person does, thinks, feels, what goes on in their mind, what goes on in their bodies, what they do every millisecond, etc.
4. Hypercalvinism: The idea that God chooses who will accept him is heretical because contradicts the biblical idea that God loves all of his creations infinitely. God granted humanity free will(which is why evil and good exists) and they can use it to accept or reject God. Hyper Calvinism is why the WBC acts the way it does, because they believe that since God decides who he will save, the westboro can show utter hatred and dismissal towards gays
5. The way they preach is condemned by the bible. Any form of "bible thumping" forgets a couple things about the bible. First of all the bible states to "love thy neighbor" and to preach the gospel with love, but Westboro does, as conservapedia puts it "While mainstream Christianity rejects homosexuality as sin, following God's example, true Christians love the sinner. In contrast, WBC demonstrates no love for the sinner, and their attitude is considered to be one of hate. While the name implies that the church is affiliated with other mainstream Baptist churches, the WBC is independent of mainstream Christianity,".

sources:


> Al qaeda:

are they extremists: yes

are they fundamentalist: No. Why? Because for one, they are Muslim. The fundamentalist label can only be applied to Protestants. Also their conduct violates both the bible and the quran.
4.

Again as I said in #2, do the following:

* The far left controls nearly every big media company, the far right only owns the attention of the liberal media
* Modern US far right wingers often protest peacefully(although their goals are detestable), The far left almost always riots.
* The far left pours its indoctrination into modern kid's shows, the far Right never does anymore
* The far right is often pro free speech, the far left hates free speech
* Most of the notorious far right wing groups are powerless these days, meanwhile far left groups are extremely powerful and extremely active.

Round 2
Pro
Alright. Let’s do this.
 
You didn't engage with the actual topic/argument, and you didn't deal with my arguments. So, first, I'm going run through everything you just said.
 
We're going to talk about what you said, what’s relevant and what’s not, and talk about your arguments a little.
 
Then, I'm going to return to what my actual argument is, see if I can elucidate it better, then hand it back off to you.
 
Sound good?
 
Cool.
 
Also, it's okay that you made these arguments, I don't mind. I used to say all these same lines.
It's just that you're not actually dealing with the argument I've presented to you.
So, we're gonna try for a second go at it, alright?
 
Alright. Let's go for it.
 
First off.
 
What am I trying to argue?
I’m trying to argue, very specifically, that religious fundamentalism is more dangerous long-term than the current iteration of far-left politics.

I’ll go more in depth on some of this, and see if I can’t find some more interesting points to discuss here. But, in the meantime, let’s discuss everything you just said to me.
 
So, nearly all of your examples of Leftist Policies are what many call Radical Leftist Policies. Your Radical Leftist Policies are, like, the 1% of the 1% of the crazies on the Left. Just like KKK members are the 1% of the 1% of the crazies on the Right.
 
Before I go any further, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or AOC, is considered by many to be Far Left. These were the goals of her Green New Deal:
 
“There are five goals, which the resolution says should be accomplished in a 10-yearmobilization effort:
  • Achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers
  • Create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States
  • Invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century
  • Secure for all people of the United States for generations to come: clean air and water; climate and community resiliency; healthy food; access to nature; and a sustainable environment
  • Promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (“frontline and vulnerable communities”)”

 
AOC is the “Far Left”, or the current iteration of the “Far Left”.


Can you explain to me anything she wanted to do with the Green New Deal you would label as extremist? Or morally wrong the same way you would consider the actions of 20th Century Stalinists and Maoists morally wrong or evil?
 
So, moving on to your first argument, I’m arguing that the current iteration of Leftist politics is less dangerous, long-term, than Religious Fundamentalism. So, I’m not talking about 20th century Communism. That’s not the current iteration

Also, you mention far right politics. I’m not talking about Far-Right politics. Unless you want to say that Religious Fundamentalism and Far-Right politics are the same thing. I am not saying that. That’s not my claim. I didn’t say anything about Far-Right politics.
 
[SO, for you, for readers, for voters, and potentially, for moderators, please disregard anything involving Far Right politics, because it has nothing to do with this discussion, unless Con can show the two (Religion and Racism) are connected.]
 
So, now, I’m going to get to a definition of Religious Fundamentalism. And I’m going to do a better job of it this time.
You’re actually wrong about the definition. Fundamentalism is not limited to Protestantism, that’s just the name of a Protestant movement. Here’s some definitions from Free Dictionary, then a list of extra sources.
 
fun·da·men·tal·ism  (fŭn′də-mĕn′tl-ĭz′əm)
n.
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.
a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 1800s and early 1900s in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.
 
fundamentalism (ˌfʌndəˈmɛntəˌlɪzəm)
n
1. (Ecclesiastical Terms)Christianity (esp among certain Protestant sects) the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true
2. (Islam) Islam a movement favouring strict observance of the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law
3. strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs
 
fun•da•men•tal•ism (ˌfʌn dəˈmɛn tlˌɪzəm)
 
n.
1. (sometimes cap.) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to Modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.
 

Have you ever read George Orwell’s1984?
You know how they alter historical records? You know how they erase histories altogether? You know how they keep entire perspectives or narratives silenced?
You know how you’re supposed to believe everything Big Brother says?
And you know how you’re not supposed to question the orders handed down by Big Brother?
 
That’s what Religious Fundamentalism is.
 
I’m not talking about KKK, I’m not talking about terrorism, and I’m not talking about Republicans.
I’m not talking about Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians, Centrists or Center-Left Liberals.
I’m not even a Leftist, personally, or even actually advocating for Leftism. I’m not going after Right-of-AOC politics whatsoever.
 
I’m talking about a very specific thing. Religious Fundamentalism.
It is a form of adherence to religious doctrine in which members of a religious community are not allowed to question the doctrine of a religion, nor are they allowed to deviate from the teachings of their community’s religious leaders.
That’s what I’m saying.
And I’m saying that specific thing is worse than our current Radical Left-Wing Politics (AOC’s Green New Deal).
 
Okay. Now. Why do I think Religious Fundamentalism is more dangerous, long-term, than the current iteration of Radical Left-Wing Politics?
 
Religious Fundamentalism is so dangerous, long-term, because it operates under axioms and a metaphysical framework which can neither be proven nor disproven—you can’t show me that God exists, but I can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, just like I can’t prove that unicorns don’t exist [they might exist somewhere]).

In addition, many religions have beliefs set in place which ask their followers to believe that what they do in this life does not matter as much as what happens to them in the next life, so, all of their actions in this life need to follow the religious doctrines and teachings in order for their next life to achieve some ascended state.

This means that people who follow these teachings might not believe this life, and therefore, the lives of others they share this world with, are not as important as what happens to them in the next life. Actions one might typically consider to be impermissible become permissible.

On top of this, if one is taught not to question religious doctrine, or the teachings of a religious leader or community figure, and to treat their word as infallible, then these leaders can use their religious authority and infallibility to lord power over others. If a large enough group believes their doctrine and their religious leaders’ teachings and mandates are infallible, that group might go out and try to make the world unnecessarily worse for others.

Why?

Because this life matters less to them than the next, and because they, and they alone, have the authority to do so under the supreme wisdom passed onto them through their religion.

This will always be a problem for humans.

Hopefully, some day, racism, pollution and poverty won’t be problems for humans, and, therefore, Leftists won’t have to go on being so annoying about things.
 
Anyway, that’s what I’ve got.
That's my argument.
I hope that helps.

Thank you for your time and your arguments so far =)
Con
Most of these so called "Fundamentalists" and bible thumpers are only a nuisance, they are wackos that we laugh at, heck most of them follow the law. The far left can burn down your house, rob you, kill you, defame you till you lose your job, etc. Right wing states are often less crime ridden and cheaper to live in than democrat states. For example:

Florida:

As a Floridian, I can tell you that republican governor Ron Desantis has done a great job. Such as:

* Great management of covid. In Florida, most people are vaccinated, and quarantine has dissolved. Now everyone just wears masks to work.
* Giving power to parents by censoring the teaching of LGBTQ+ concepts of classrooms from kindergarten to third grade.
* In December 2019, DeSantis announced civics requirements in Florida public high schools.
* He has also been very active in keeping businesses open (or letting them re-open quickly) during the CCP flu pandemic, even despite criticism that he was putting his state's large senior population at risk; notably he declared professional wrestling matches to be "essential businesses".
* On May 12, 2021, DeSantis announced that he would be granting pardons to anyone who had been unjustly charged/fined for refusing to wear face masks or social distance in areas of Florida that were imposing unconstitutional covid flu edicts.


Utah:

* Despite that, Utah has extremely permissive gun laws, as evident here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Utah

How The left ruins states:

California:
California is a far left wasteland. Used drugs are all over the streets, crime is everywhere, there are more homeless people in Cali than there are grains of sand, the democrats have made a 1 party system, the schools are the worst in the nation, the state is overpopulated with illegal immigrants, the health care is the worst, the average IQ is the lowest in America, extreme amounts of business regulations that make impossible to succeed, gay agenda and gender ideology and CRT are taught to indoctrinate extremely young kids, being the worst governed state, expensive house prices, terrible environmental policies that create more problems than they solve, etc.
sources:

Liberals:

* want to allow pregnant women who don't want to give birth for even the dumbest reasons to be able to brutally kill their unborn babies.
sources:

* Want to legalize marijuana and other drugs, and marijuana can cause permanent iq loss, depression, anxiety, suicide planning, psytochic episodes, harm athletic performance, danger while driving, give horrible birth defects to newborns, affect performance, etc.
sources:

* Want to defund the police

* Want you to be unable to reject customer services despite your religious beliefs.

* Lose your hard earned money so that some lazy homeless person can get free cash.




Round 3
Pro
I can't tell if the opponent is trolling or not. Or if they haven't been reading my argument, or even know what the argument is.
Is this website a trolling site?
Like, that's cool, but I'm trying to move on from my trolling days.

So, my argument has nothing to do with Right Wing politics. The opponent keeps swerving to that.

In addition, they don't seem to be engaging with the actual concept of Religious Fundamentalism, and the difference between it and "your average bible-thumpers."

I have nothing wrong with bible-thumpers, nor do I think they're a problem in any way, or doing any harm to society.

Good job, my Floridian friend. As crazy as you fuckers are, seems like a cool state.

I'm not going to get into my thoughts on Utah.



As far how the left ruins states, you gave one example my friend.

Liberals:

- Want to allow women the right to end a pregnancy early. I have some issues with abortions beyond a certain stage of development, but the vast majority of abortions take place early in gestation


- Want people to have autonomy over what they put into their body, as well as reduce crime and bolster the economy by adding a highly sought after commodity to be sold legally and taxed; and this is actually becoming an increasingly bi-partisan belief

- Probably want to defund the police, but I think they're more concerned with ending unnecessary police violence. If you think unnecessary police violence is an okay thing, we can talk about that.

- Want businesses to be unable to discriminate against people off the basis of race, religion and sexuality. If you think discrimination against people off the basis of race, religion and sexuality is an okay thing, we can talk about that as well.

- Typically want higher taxes for the hyper-wealthy, or a progressive tax, and they typically want tax money to go towards things like education reform, criminal reform, better social systems that rehabilitate people, public transit systems that help people get to their jobs easier (all of which are things that would reduce homelessness and crime, and increase the number of productive people within a society) and programs that will allow the Earth to remain habitable for generations to come

The opponent has done nothing to satisfactorily rebut my arguments. They actually have done nothing whatsoever to refute my arguments. They will not engage with my argument. I can't tell if they even know what my argument is.

Nothing they said about right-wing politics has anything to do with any of my positions, and I feel as though I have refuted their arguments about Liberals.

As far as their argument about Far Left people can burn down your house, rob you, kill you, defame you, etc., I have a few thoughts:

1) Historically, religious institutions have done things like this, or have given people a greater sense of authority for doing something like this.

2) I'd like to see the evidence you have of this, and how widespread this problem actually is.

3) I'd like you to prove the term "can", because right wing people "can" do this as well. What do you mean by that?

In addition, I'm not really going to argue about California. They're not doing great, I don't disagree with that. But that's only one state, and most of the problems seem to be rooted in major cities, with the exception of state taxes, or in non-political natural disasters.

I feel like you're seriously derailing the conversation, you haven't engaged with any of my arguments about Left Wing politics, nor have you engaged with any of my arguments about Religious Fundamentalism.

Considering nothing you've said so far has provided any sort of actual rebuttal to what I've said, I'm going to assume you've more or less conceded.

Con
Forfeited