Extreme religious symbols ought to be removed from public places.

========= Definitions ========= First I would like to clarify the definition of public places. A public place is, a place not privately own thus my opponent's examples of churches are not valid, because this place is privately owned the owner can ban people from coming in and have them arrested for trespassing. Thus because place is not open to everyone it is not public. Now on the definition of extreme, my opponent claims that extreme symbols have some positive effects to the people who fallow that religion, but it still will be seen negatively by all the people who don't fallow that religion. Using her example, having a large cross would be seen as a negative thing by Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Hindus, Buddhist, and more. Meaning that these symbols would have a much larger negative effect then positive ones. ======= The Law ======= The 1st amendment does protect people's right to practice religion but because the government can not promote religion these religious symbols can't be in public places. Because public place such as a park are owned by the government and having religious symbols in these places would violate the first part of this amendment. Thus it would not be unconstitutional for the government to remove these symbols. Now for the debate over the Sherbert Test First the RFRA was not struck down it has unanimously approved by the House and passed 97 to 3 in the Senate. Now this act was replaced by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act http://en.wikipedia.org... but this act still based the government's ability to limit religious practices on the principles of the Sherbert test. (1) No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government can demonstrate that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly or institution ((A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and ((B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. ((2) Scope of Application. This subsection applies in any case in which-- ((A) the substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability; or ((B) the substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability; or ((C) the substantial burden is imposed in the implementation of a land use regulation or system of land use regulations, under which a government makes, or has in place formal or informal procedures or practices that permit the government to make, individualized assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved. Defend my opponent's attacks 1-I concede that if these people have these symbols that believe in the faith 2-First cross apply what I state in my definitions part of the debate where I state that privately owned churches are not valid examples. Secondly the example of a cross is not an extreme symbol because all Roman Catholic churches have crosses thus this example doesn't meet the definition of extreme as being "exceeding the ordinary". Thirdly because these symbols are above the ordinary then the are more then what is necessary, meaning that it wouldn't burden people's ability worship because they could still worship in a non-extreme way 3-This point will be supported by my 2 contentions that show how it removing these symbols would be better for the state. 4-Cross apply my third argument on the second point that because these are extreme symbols that people can find a non-extreme way to fallow their religion =================== freedom of no religion =================== My opponent's first statement miss interprets the resolution; I'm not arguing that the government will stop people from having the right to put things on there own property but rather if they these symbols can be in public places. Next my opponent claims that these symbols don't cause people to warship a religion but then why dose 10% of people in the US say they're Christian but don't actively fallow the religionhttp://en.wikipedia.org... ? Because of all the religious symbols around them be the one our money or in the pledge it cause people to think that the government supports this religion, and by the government allowing these symbols to be on government owned land it looks as though they support this religion thus causing people to convert to Christianity. Thus this is bad of the US for 2 reasons; 1 it violates the constitution because these symbols are on government owned land and having them there would be respecting a religion. 2 it violates a person's right to not worship a religion because it cause someone to do something for the wrong reasons. ================= disturbing the peace ================= First as I have stated above that the test in a valid way to fallow the topic thus my opponent's first point is mute. Next she claims that it violates a person's freedoms, but the way that the US legal system works is that if you do something that violates someone else's rights then you lose your own. Meaning that if it is found that these symbols cause a disturbance of the peace then it violates other people's rights thus the right to have these symbols will be removed. Next for my opponent's 2 examples; first on both these arguments these are not examples of extreme symbols because they do not go past the ordinary, and both examples are flawed because they are both on privet property not public one thus don't apply to the topic. On the example about art; first these paintings may cause people's right to peace to be violated if the find something they dislike in these peaces. Secondly these works of art have little worth in terms of religion but instead have more historical value meaning removing them doesn't burden worshipers. Next on the church example; on this point just cross my statements from above that these place can violate people's rights and that these things are not considered extreme because there are many large churches. To rap up as a judge you're going to vote for the pro because of the fact that the costs of these extreme symbols outweigh the benefits, because one they violate people's right to no religion and right to peace. Thus because of this it can be seen that it would benefit the country to remove them.