Extreme religious symbols ought to be removed from public places.

My opponent again tries to re-define public to mean a publicly owned place. My opponent gives "examples" of how he kept his definition, but they all lead to my same conclusion. He quotes, "rather then what they see on the street" without realizing streets are government owned. He quotes, "thus by allowing for these symbols to be in public it would be respecting this religion" without stating who would be "respecting this religion," so I only assumed the general public. In fact, respecting a religion is not unconstitutional. Only if the government itself promotes the religion is it unconstitutional (I've mentioned this before). And finally, he goes, "public place it means that these people are trying to show this deeper meaning to the general public." That again doesn't show "government owned land." That shows a place where the general public can see. Next I will show you how a church is an extreme symbol using my opponent's own definition. Extreme- 1 a: existing in a very high degree Churches exist in very high degrees. b: going to great or exaggerated lengths : radical Mega Churches are extreme, radical, and exaggerated. c: exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected Catholic churches exceed the ordinary -grandiose. The very fact you can identify a church amongst other buildings makes it "exceeding the ordinary." It has salient features, and unique architectural forms, bells, etc. My opponent is grasping at straws. The RLUIPA states nothing about removing religious symbols. My opponent shows you all of the components of the RLUIPA in his round 2 argument. There is nothing there that states the government can remove religious symbols. My opponent again throws the Sherbert act at me, but if the government will allow the extreme symbol of the 10 commandments to remain on Government Property (source: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us...) Van Orden v. Perry, the Court allowed a Ten Commandments monument to be located on Texas' capitol grounds. "The Supreme Court based its decision upon the nature of the monument and the historical significance of religion in American life. The Court wrote that having religious content or promoting a message consistent with religious doctrine does not, by itself, violate the Establishment Clause. In examining the context in which the religious text was used, the Court found that the monument conveyed a secular moral message about proper standards of social conduct and the historical relationship between those standards and the law." Two more cases where the government has allowed religious symbols on government property (source: http://www.pluralism.org...): "In June of 2003, a court ruled that a Ten Commandments plaque that has hung for 83 years on the facade of the Chester County, PA courthouse does not constitute an official endorsement of religion, and may remain there for the sake of historical preservation." "On April 6, 2004, a court ruled that city officials in Cincinnati could not bar religious displays on a downtown plaza during the Christmas and Hanukkah seasons." Next, my opponent makes another ridiculous claim; that somehow the "10%" of Christians that don't go to church in his statistics are somehow confused. The exact quote from his Wikipedia site is, "The largest religion in the US is Christianity, with nearly 78.5% of the population identifying themselves as Christian.[1] About 62% of the population are members of a church.[2]" This, in no way states, quoting him, "when I use Wikipedia to show how more then 10% of the US population says they are Christians because of all the symbols that they se around them like the pledge and our money." My opponent must realize that Unitarians don't need to go to church; non denominationals don't need to - he doesn't get the right to say why that 10% aren't in church. Some of them may be confused (that's legitimate, as religion is a deep, philosophical question), but he can't make up a reason for it. My opponent then gives the burning cross as the only example of an "extreme religious symbol." A burning cross was a battle symbol used through out northern Europe, mainly by the Scottish, before a battle. It was in no way a religious symbol, but a battle symbol. The symbol today is an intimidating way for the Ku Klux Klan to scare their enemies. In the U.S. Supreme Court case, Virginia v. Black (http://www.supremecourtus.gov...) Judge Thomas wrote after about banning cross burning, "prohibits only conduct, not expression. And, just as one cannot burn down someone's house to make a political point and then seek refuge in the First Amendment, those who hate cannot terrorize and intimidate to make their point." They banned cross burning because it is a CONDUCT, not an expression. Therefore, my opponent really has no negative extreme religious symbols. Then my opponent goes on to try and debunk the extreme nature of the Last Supper. Obviously, there is still an original last supper, and just the image itself is an extreme symbolic piece. Again, removing it would violate freedom of speech, and I've never heard of a case where someone was offended over the Last Supper. I'd also like to correct my opponent that not all religions use "churches." Most religions, however, have places of worship. Pagans worship nature, so should we remove forests because they "offend" anti-pagans? My opponent makes a claim in his overview that I present no negatives, but obviously I have done so on many occasions. One of my most obvious remarks was: "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?)." So, all in all, judges, extreme religious symbols should not be removed from public places. They are a form of freedom of speech, freedom of religion. They have been allowed in the past, and show the ever accepting and diverse society America is supposed to be. I now leave it to you, judges, to vote as you please with your own evaluations of the debate. Happy judging. Regards from the contender, Vi