That Religious Expression Should Be Banned in Public Places

Thank you again for accepting my topic, and I hope that you enjoy our debate. On choosing this topic, the most important part for me was the qualifier "in Public Places". The argument for whether or not religion or religious expression should exist is a whole other debate. On that note, I would like to define the key term. I would define religious expression, as the act of expressing religious perspectives or practises verbally or physically, religion being defined as [1]"the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices". Firstly, I would like to set out the structure of how I shall argue my point. My first argument shall solely consist of proving that religious expression creates tension in public places. My second argument shall subsist of proving that ultimately the advantages of freedom of religion and speech do not cover this tension. The first argument is by far the easiest, as examples of religious tension are scattered throughout history. I point to two prominent examples as being the continuing history of the crusades and the Rape of Nanking. Firstly, the Crusades. Arguably, they were started in an attempt by Pope Urban to spread his power, but that does not explain the long history of conflict which moved the borders of Christendom and Islam back and forth several times. This started in 1096[2], and arguably goes as far as the British and French management of Middle Eastern territories post World War 1. This demonstrates how dangerous it can be, for two religions to share a similar enough history that they have related beliefs i.e. the importance of Jerusalem, but are different enough to justify killing the other. I would argue that this long and bloody history constitutes religious expression, as at least the Christian side were commanded to "save" the holy land by someone who embodied a god[3] (pope Urban). They were acting on a core tenant of the Christian belief, god as the highest authority, and risked eternal damnation otherwise. And the expression of that belief led to bloodshed. The second example sounds surprising, as it is commonly thought of through an ethnic perspective, rather than a religious one. By my perspective, examine the structure of Japanese society pre-World War 2: The emperor is the god, who was appointed by divine instruction from the sun goddess [4]. As taken from Confucianism, the social structure is very rigid, so far so that occupations were by law hereditary. Then take the entry of industrialisation and European government, but a very filtered one. The Japanese took the colonialism, the factories and the mass proletariat class system, but did not take the growing middle class, or works right movements. They took the idea of a constitution and an elected parliament, but liked the German system which allowed the emperor total control whenever he liked. And due to the geography of Japan, there was never allowed a proliferation of new ideas and the like amongst the population. This rigid class system mentality, with a God at the top, is one that so easily falls into war. Because although it is not called by it by the word specifically, the Japanese social system was, by the definition given, a religion: a body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practises. That The Rape of Nanking was mentioned specifically, because it illustrates so well how badly it can go. An estimated [5]300,000 (contested) civilians were massacred, because they were seen as beneath the Japanese soldiers. In that same way that Pope Urban decreed that the Godly tenant "thou shalt not kill" did not apply to Muslims, the Japanese religion left no room for the dishonoured or the lower classed. I simply use these historical examples to illustrate how badly it can go wrong. Looking at religions in general, one can see how easily it could wrong. If I chose to start a religion in which the killing of the red headed were mandatory, than I would call it an exercise of my religious expression the act of killing them. And although the hypothetical is seemingly ridiculous, I believe that it illustrates how sublimely stupid a justification the reason of religion is. Its truth notwithstanding, the multitude of religions that exist in the world, most of which theoretically cannot coexist peacefully, demonstrates the need for society to make new laws which make it easier to do so. Thank you for reading, and I await you first argument. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://www.religionfacts.com... [3] http://gbgm-umc.org... [4] http://asianhistory.about.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...