Extreme religious symbols ought to be removed from public places.

First to define some key words in this resolution and set the realm of the debate. Extreme- 1 a: existing in a very high degree b: going to great or exaggerated lengths : radical c: exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected Symbol- 1: an authoritative summary of faith or doctrine : creed2: something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance; especially : a visible sign of something invisible Public- 1 a: exposed to general view : open b: well-known, prominent c: perceptible, material Now even thought the resolution doesn't state that we should focus on the US I think that it would be beneficial to both the Pro and Con because in the US we have a thing called the constitution that protects the rights of religion while we have a thing called congress that tries to create loop holes in this document that could limit this ability. Thus I believe the realm of the debate should be set as the pro arguing that the US should remove extreme religious symbols in the US, while the con argues that the US government should not remove extreme religious symbols in the US. So now with that out of the way we can get down to the real debate Observation 1: the law I believe that everyone is educated in that by the first amendment saying "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" gives us as citizens the freedom of religion. But what people may not know is the laws that determine what would prohibit the free exercise of religion, the US congress in 1993 passed the Religious Freedom Restoration http://en.wikipedia.org... which reinstated something called the Sherbert Test http://en.wikipedia.org... which has 4 criterions that must be meet to prove that the government is prohibiting religious freedom. So if the government proves that some of these things are not meet then it dose not infringe on the freedom of religion. Contention 1: freedom of no religion Now while people have the right to practice there religion people also have the right not to have others religion forced on them. Looking at the definition of symbol it is an object that has represents something else or a deeper meaning, and by having this object in a public place it means that these people are trying to show this deeper meaning to the general public. Thus by allowing these symbols to be in public places the government is no longer protecting a person's right to religious neutrality. One's decision to join a religion should be based on what they see they can get out of this religion rather then what they see on the street. Secondly on this point allowing for these symbols to be in public places violates the first part of the statement defending freedom of religion that states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" thus by allowing for these symbols to be in public it would be respecting this religion. Contention 2: disturbing the peace Because of the word extreme being included in this resolution it means that these symbols will become a disruption of the peace. For example an extreme religious symbol could be a burning cross now this would attract a lot of attention and would become a disruption of the peace. Now as it states under the Sherbert Test that if the government proves that the removal of these symbols is for the betterment of the public then it is constitutional for them to do so. So thus because the extreme nature of these symbols the government has the constitutional responsibility to remove them.