Extreme religious symbols ought to be removed from public places.

I will be accepting two of my opponents proposed definitions. Those two definitions are as follows: public and symbol. What I will not be accepting is his proposed objective description of the term "extreme" holding a negative connotation. I do however accept the dictionary definition. Extreme is not objectively given negative qualities in a symbol. To an atheist or agnostic, the sight of a gigantic cross hanging a top the steeple of a massive church in a bustling city may seem like a dramatic, negatively extreme symbol. But to a Roman Catholic, the symbol implies positive devotion to a god they believe is all good, all knowing, and all prevailing. The extremity is positive promotion in their eyes. The god may hold negative ideals in some minds, extraordinary images in others, but that is all it is; a symbol, an idea. An idea can not lash out and touch someone. An action can. In this debate we are arguing the display of symbols; not the actions religious people might do while possibly holding these symbols. Observation one (1) The Law: My opponent argues the first amendment, but fails to deliver what it actually implies. The full amendment, as he states, is as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This means that Congress will never establish a law promoting a religion in any way, or stopping the free exercise of a person's religion (like displaying symbols). Therefore, a church has all the right in the world to exist as a symbol in itself (will discuss churches as symbols later on). Then my opponent goes on to mention the Sherbert test. I will post the test on here as I will be using it through out my argument as an aid: "The Sherbert Test consists of four criteria that are used to determine if an individual's right to religious free exercise has been violated by the government. The test is as follows: For the individual, the court must determine -whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and -whether the government action is a substantial burden on the person's ability to act on that belief If these two elements are established, then the government must prove -that it is acting in furtherance of a "compelling state interest," and -that it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion." What my opponent failed to inform is that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 was struck down, and the Sherbert test was only reinstated with limited application to Federal laws only. Ridding extreme religious symbols from all public places would imply a Federal Law, so it must pass the Sherbert test. So let us begin. 1. whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief Symbols are used by people to represent their sincere religious beliefs. 2. whether the government action is a substantial burden on the person's ability to act on that belief. Ridding a Roman Catholic of their Cross, their public Churches, etc. would hinder the immensely. We can argue that the cross is a very extreme symbol as it depicts the tragic death of Jesus Christ, and holds very strong emotions for Christians. Christianity is about worshipping God, about showing how majestic Jesus Christ is and the Lord is in architecture, literature, music, and paintings to name a few (Such as Christ of Saint John of the Cross, a painting by Salvador Dalï¿½, which paintings are a form of symbolic representation. Should such famous works be removed from public art galleries? I will also discuss this further in my argument). It is sometimes even a political symbol, like the Star of David being used on their National flag (should the Israelis ban that?). If these two elements are established, then the government must prove 3. that it is acting in furtherance of a "compelling state interest" What interest would the state have in removing Churches, paintings, giant crosses that cause no harm, and freedom of speech for a person to put a nativity scene in their front lawn (which is an extreme symbol. Technically, showing that Jesus is god is an extreme symbol in itself as other religions don't believe in it. But again, the symbol is not openly attacking anyone. It is not an action and projection of a belief system some people find very real.) or pass out Bibles (which are also a symbol of Christianity) etc? Removing these would actually harm the state culturally, would harm the majority of the U.S. (Christians), and would be a burden on our money (the act of removing the symbols and enforcing the new law.) And is ridding Freedom of Speech on the state's interests? 4. that it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion. Removing all public symbols is not "least burdensome" or "least restrictive." It is "all" symbols, so creating a massive burden and massive restrictions. Now that we have established that the Sherbert test does not let a law that would remove all extreme public religious symbols exist, we can move on to the next portion of my argument. Contention 1: freedom of no religion My opponent said that allowing symbols in public would be respecting that religion and would be counter the first amendment. No, it wouldn't, because respecting a religion's right to self expression is exactly what the first amendment is about. The government is not putting the symbols up, the people are on their own property. He also said that it would conflict with the people's right to religious neutrality. As I do not see this in the constitution, I am assuming it is an implied right. A symbol does not force you to become religious in any more of a way as an American flag forces you to become nationalist. I see religious symbols all the time, and I, and 11% of the country, are still atheists out of our own convictions. If you can be swayed by a symbol, then your convictions must not be that strong in the first place. That argument is logically flawed. What a person bases their faith on is also their own personal reasoning skills. Should we get rid of the marketing profession, then? Contention 2: disturbing the peace Because my opponent uses the Sherbert test to validate his claim, it is now irrelevant. Also, removing something just because it causes a disturbance in peace (without it being massively violent, which is also subjective to the situation) would violate Freedom of Speech *and or assembly, depending on the situation to assemble and create such a ruckus*. Displaying any symbol is an exercise of Freedom of Speech and should be respected or we will turn into a nation of religious censorship. Now to my two points that I remarked I would return to; a church being a symbol, and religious art work. There are many famous paintings that have significance to the world, and not displaying them would cause a lot of harm culturally. I can give Crucifixion with Saints, Mary Virgin, Mary Magdalen, John and Jerome by Raphael as an example. If this painting is in a public gallery, should we remove it as it is an extreme symbol? It is, after all, a painting of the death of a man in a torturous way. And to my next point of a church being a symbol in Christianity. Christians believe their churches are houses of God and make them grand and elaborate (like the Notre Dame for example) in order to show their respect and awe in god. It is a symbol of their devotion, and therefore a symbol for their religion. Getting rid of all extreme symbols (I would consider a massive Church, any building really, an extreme way of making a symbol) would hinder in the worshipping process of all Christians. Regards, Vi