Extreme religious symbols ought to be removed from public places.

My opponent: "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." My opponent's original definition was: "Public- 1 a: exposed to general view : open b: well-known, prominent c: perceptible, material" My opponent changes his definition from "exposed to general view" to "a place not privately owned." I do not accept my opponents change in definition just to excuse my examples from the debate. Once a definition has been set in the introduction of an argument, the instigator can not go changing their original description of the argument in further rounds. A "public place" is a vague term. A public place could mean anything from a public park to a public beach, to a public church or shopping mall. Some of these things are privately owned, and some of them are state owned. So public, as my opponent first defined it in his first round, and as I started debating my opinion on acknowledged definitions of his accusation, will be a place exposed to general view. My opponent says, : " Now on the definition of extreme..." I already stated that symbols were not absolute in their meaning of extreme. I stated that extreme is a subjective word; it is an adjective for both extreme goodness and extreme badness. We can have extreme good religious symbols like a church that any person of any faith is allowed into (as long as you are respectful like in any public place). But we can also have bad religious symbols (ones that people might take negatively to). But all in all, it's freedom of speech no matter the way a group might read it. I know that the nation is predominantly Christian, so a Christian symbol hanging up in a public place wouldn't have a larger negative effect than positive. Again, it's subjective just as an American flag has a negative effect on anyone who is anti-American (yes there are anti-Americans even in America). Again, I as an atheist see Christmas decorations up 2 months in advance every year, but it doesn't really matter in a country that respects the religious opinions of everyone. My opponent goes on to say that if a religious symbol is in a public place than the government is promoting it. Public places, again, has been redefined here. If my opponent takes the definition he first implied, then no, the government doesn't have to promote any symbol in public view. Also, my opponent should know that religious groups (or any group really) can rent out the space in a public park for events. It does not in any way mean that the government supports these temporary events, but that the government is tolerant of anyone who wishes to hold a public event. To move further in the argument... My opponent apparently doesn't know what striking down a law implies. A law is struck down one someone raises court concern over it, and it is over turned because of that court case. This is from the wikkipedia site my opponent himself supplies, with an insert by me: "In the 1997, the United States Supreme Court had held the RFRA to be unconstitutional, as applied to state and local governments, in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507. [THIS IMPLIES STRIKING IT DOWN] Unlike the RFRA, which required religious accommodation in virtually all spheres of life, the RLUIPA only applies to prisoners, and Land Use (Zoning) of properties." My opponent then conveniently leaves out his new bill's purpose, which is as follows: "(RLUIPA) is a United States federal law that prohibits the imposition of burdens on the ability of prisoners to worship as they please, as well as making it easier for Churches and other religious institutions to avoid state restrictions on their property use through zoning laws" This bill SUPPORTS religious freedom, so it is a curiosity to me why my opponent even thought it supported his agenda. This bill actually grants religion a bonus over other what other land owning institutions do not have. My opponent then goes on to attack my Sherbert example. He concedes to the first point, then goes on to attack my second point with his new definition of public. Therefore, my argument stands on the second point. And my opponent misses the fact that not all Christian denominations worship like the Amish in wooden little Churches. Roman Catholics love their grand cathedrals and the Mega Churches that Evangelicals are springing up everywhere hardly count as non extreme symbols (an extreme symbol being something out of the ordinary for a symbol. Again, a large church is a very extreme way of showing a symbol). For his second point, his two contentions above were met by my argument. And for his final argument, I have already met it with an repeal on his second. You can not limit a person's ability to worship their god if their denomination requires for them to do it in an extreme, eloquent fashion. In the freedom of no religion section, my opponent's first point is again revoked because of his new definition violation. Then my opponent makes a ridiculous claim that somehow symbols supply heavy peer pressure on citizens. Again, he supplies no psychological backing on this and also doesn't even look at the aspect of freedom of speech or that his attack goes straight into the marketing field. Should we not let any business market for their products, then, because people might just be persuaded? And he also makes it sound like being Christian is a horrible thing that Churches shouldn't be sucking the public into. My opponent seems rather biased against Christianity. Then he spouts a conspiracy theory about the government having a Christian agenda. No one is forced to say the pledge. The existence of "freedom of speech" shows this. And, also, the pledge has nothing to do with our debate. People seeing religious symbols does not violate their right to "do something for the right reasons." Again, a person should do things out of their better judgement, and why not introduce them to all their options? As for his disturbance of the peace argument, I am not sure how a symbol can violate someone's rights. My opponent hasn't even established how other than it would rile up negative emotions. A symbol does not protest, throw rocks, or spit on someone. A person can't brawl with a symbol. He is pretty much throwing an is/ought fallacy here. Because there is a religious symbol, it ought to cause a riot. No, a Mega Church does not cause a riot. Vast amounts of Christmas decorations in the streets dont cause a riot. My opponent has supplied no burden of proof. Then if my opponent even for a second claims that famous pieces of art work like "The Last Supper" have no religious meaning, he is delusional. People can dislike art work, but the public still has a right to put it up in a public gallery or publicly viewed art show. It is ridiculous to claim that we should censor art work just because people don't share the opinion of the artist. Then he states that churches are not a symbol and that they are not extreme because there are many of them. A church, I must state again, is an extreme way of making a symbol. In fact, the whole catholic religion relies on symbols. The priest is a symbol, the waifers are a symbol, the wine is a symbol, the alter is a symbol. It's all symbolic in religion. A building, again, is an extreme way to make a symbol. So to finish my argument, my opponent supplies no example in which an extreme symbol has disrupted the peace. Again, my opponent must keep his definitions, and realize that the symbols are relevant to the faith, not others. Everyone wont agree on everything. Not even the American flag. Regards, Vi