Religion as a form of worship should be banned

I shall start by thanking my opponent for the time he must have put into his far from satisfactory answers. Also; my opponent refers to me as 'CON'. I am not Con: I am Pro!First, I’d thank my opponent for his response, and well, sadly, he has failed to accurately refute my arguments and went off course and decided to play semantics and unreasonable technicalities.This is an unbelievable blow bellow the belt. My opponent hasn't even bothered to give an example of the 'unreasonable technicalities' so that I can refute this ludicrous claim.There is a big difference between prohibiting religious worship (which is the resolution) and abolishing a civil rights law.My opponent goes on for several paragraphs about this, continually repeating himself, but this sentence sums up what he was saying. I made it quite clear to my opponent in the last round that I understand the laws protecting religious worship. My resolution clearly states that I think that these laws should be removed, not that they can be removed. Enough said, I hope not to have to repeat this in the next round.Faith And HopeHe goes around trivializing what 'faith' is, and as I said in the previous round, there are many definitions of faith, and I’ve defined faith as a trust in something or someone, faith can also mean hope but they have no differences, some people consider faith as an important aspect of life...I clearly defined both faith and hope using bona fide dictionary definitions. Their philosophical definitions carry no weight in a non-philosophical debate.God's ExistenceOnce again my opponent is putting words in my mouth:Next, CON then counters my statement of the possibility of God’s existence saying it isn’t a fact but he previously failed to give factual evidence on his assertion on denying God’s existence.I did not suggest that God doesn't exist. What I stated was that my opponent can't state things that he is not willing to back up. He stated in round two: "There are lots of evidence and arguments supporting the existence of God, but that’s another topic...". I must repeat that I did not suggest that God does not exist as my opponent claims. That has nothing to do with this debate.DogmaMy opponent claims that he does not no what I am talking about when I compare the dogmatic nature of religion to Hitler's propaganda. I think this is an excuse for him not to argue against my allegation but I shall reassert my allegation against opponent so as to make sure he has no excuse to ignore it....having propaganda like what Hitler can’t happen again so violently like what happened then.I'm afraid my opponent hasn't backed this up with either proof or a logical argument. Therefore we must assume, even if just for argument's sake, that that kind of brainwashing can be abused again.Is that clear to my opponent? Either prove me wrong or accept the fact that brainwashing can be used again for the sake of provoking racial, sexual or gender hatred, etc.In fact; in the catholic church; both gender and sexual hatred are encouraged. Neither homosexual people nor women are allowed to participate in the hierarchal system of the church[1][2].We have secular laws, where the church and state are separated in most countries, and the church is accepting it, most people aren’t robots who are controlled by the church, they have minds too, they can choose to believe in the church’s teachings or not, it’s their right to do so and no one has the right to deprive the people of their beliefs.There are vulnerable, uneducated, people in the world (mostly in Africa) who are exploited by the Catholic Church. The biggest lie: condoms don't prevent AIDs[4].Hitler's ReligionI'd also like to point out that Hitler’s Religion and his ways of conquering and governing is argumentative and therefore irrelevant.I'd like to point out that:Hitler was a Christian because he was born Catholic, he never publicly renounced his Catholicism, and he wrote in Mein Kampf, "By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord".[3]The catholic church considers all people who are baptised in the catholic church as catholics. They therefore must embrace Hitler in the same way. Also; I didn't mention hitler's methods of conquering and governing. That has nothing to do with the debate.ConclusionAs I have already pointed out: there are currently laws that protect religious worship. My BOP is to prove that religion as a form of worship should be banned, not that it can be banned.Now that my opponent is clear on this I hope that he can respond to my claims.Thank you.