That Religious Expression Should Be Banned in Public Places

Hi again Thanks for the points, as well as your excellent question. I shall start by discussing your arguments of freedom of religion and speech. In discussing the effect of this law on the freedom of speech, let it be reflected that many democracies function without a constitutional right to free speech. In my country, Australia, we have a functioning and critical press, and an accountable government. However, I believe that this freedom should not be used to cause harm, a belief which is shared by the high court in Schenck V. United States which criminalised speech which created a clear and present danger[1]. In keeping with this, I believe that drawing on previous examples as well as the study of The Vatican listed below, I have proven that organised religion causes enough damage against society as a whole in order for it to be called a clear and present danger. And even if one does not originate from the USA, I would posit that no one truly wants anyone to say anything to anyone anytime. Whether or not the speech causes immediate or long lasting harm, unless the benefit outweighs the damage, a case can be made against free speech. And what does religion give back? Comfort, especially in death, I would argue. But an organised religion does not have a mandate on this; we give it to ourselves. On your second point, of religious freedom, I cannot argue. Although I disagree with many people, I would never force my opinion of the world onto them by law. And unless it is their specific belief to force their opinions onto others, this law would not affect them. It forces them, in fact, to examine their own beliefs with far greater scrutiny, as they are not continually being assaulted with dogma and commandments from others. However, I love your point "I believe that public places are important battlefields for ideologies and opinions" and in all else I would completely agree with you. However, as Christopher Hitchens put it "religion is not coming up with any new arguments." Most religions are forced to defend their position against growing evidence and discoveries (see Darwin"s theory of evolution [1]) and have nothing to offer in return. And what proves that this is not a "fair" argument, or battlefield as you would call it, is that many people chose not to defend their perspective based on fact, but on the strength of their belief; and then ask people to respect it. [2] One particularly hideous example of this, is the consist fact of Jehovah"s Witnesses parents refusing blood transfusions to their children. A doctor could make ten reasonable arguments for a blood transfusion in a medical situation, but a religious parson could make only one: that they believe it to be wrong. This is wrong. Now to my main argument, which I will open by addressing your excellent observation that my example address organised religion, rather than the acts of individuals. I cannot argue with this observation, as it is quite true. My attack on religious expression is an attack on organised religion, because it is they who are causing the problems. I think you will find that the most vocal religions are the most organised, my prominent example in this case being The Vatican. This is an institution which has assets of up to 15 billion (tax free)[3], its own recognised country (which was given in order to gain support for the fascist Italian government) and a congregation of 1.2 billion people. This is a very powerful organisation, which had been involved in politics, policy making and public opinion for years. Three examples which indicate that this is not an organisation which should be allowed into the public forum, making policy are: institutionalised child rape[5], the proliferation of AIDS[6] and its system of government, which amounts to a dictatorship. I believe that I have strongly addressed the points of freedom of religion and speech in my rebuttal, and in combining this with a study of The Vatican, I believe I have provided a strong case against religious expression in public places. At this point, you would point out that in fact I have made a case against organised religion, at which point I would say, where religious expression is involved, these are the same things. Where any charismatic person express" their opinion in public, they will form a religion. It is human nature to follow, and to avoid questioning one"s own actions: best to leave the justifications for an unquestionable text. And if every person followed this dogma, then perhaps we could function well as a society, but an important point that I repeat from my first argument, is that on religion "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." Therefore, I believe my proposition actually democratises religion, something which is very uncommon in organised religion. If every person, whatever their spirituality, decide on their own beliefs and dogmas, then every religion is tailored to the needs of the individual, but in a way that doesn"t infringe on the beliefs of others. And furthermore, I believe that freeing people of the tyranny of group-thought will make them a better person, in that they are forced to examine their opinions without constant validation of others around them. Thank you for reading, and I await your response [1] http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com... [2] http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com... [3] http://www.religioustolerance.org... [4] http://content.time.com... [5] http://www.theguardian.com... [6] http://churchandstate.org.uk...