That Religious Expression Should Be Banned in Public Places

Hello and thanks for your arguments. Very eloquent.I'd like to note that I stand by my pro-freedom-of-speech and anti-censorship views.REBUTTAL"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."Just because the government and press are functional and work well does not mean that the citizens have all the rights and privileges they should have. The U.S. used to consider slavery legal, and they had a pretty good press and 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 criminalized speech which created a clear and present danger."I agree, somewhat. The Schenck V. U.S. was cast doubt upon in 1969 in favor of the Brandenburg test. The freedom of speech does not cover any speech which does not pass the Brandenburg test (intent, imminence, and likelihood) [1]. If somebody is organizing a huge party of people so that they can go on a killing spree and is telling the public why they should join this group, they should be convicted. However, if someone is not advocating for participation in illegal activities, just changes to the law (saying "killing should be legal" =/= "I am going to kill") they should be okay. I don't see how advocating for religion to be accepted as an ideology poses an imminent threat of lawless action or how trying to get people to change their views on religion is a clear danger. "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."I have to disagree. Religion is not necessarily harmful in it of itself, it's more that the morals of some religions are horrible and cause so much death and destruction. It's kind of like how some political philosophies are harmful (killing is right, NAMBLA[2], etc.), but that doesn't mean having a political philosophy is automatically harmful."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."This is not true. Many people would love to go out and voice their opinions, as this is how ideas form, laws are created and removed, and better ideas come about. Even if this were true, people should still have the right to be heard if they so chose to speak. "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."We don't always know what the long or short-term effects of things will be, and religion is a perfect example. Maybe Jesus did exist and was divine, and accepting Christianity is the most beneficial choice anyone has ever made. Or, maybe Islam is correct and accepting Christianity is the worst idea anyone's ever had. This brings me back to my point that public places are a battleground for opinions and ideas, because every idea should be given a chance. Even ideas that have fundamental flaws should be given the chance to be presented, as these flaws could be resolved through discussion, or the person who had the idea can come to realize the flaws and throw the idea away this is a very important process and is comparable to testing a prototype or early version of a product to see if it stands up to the test."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."Yes, comfort, and a sense of community. But although I believe that people are giving this comfort to themselves, they believe that god or Jesus (aren't they the same person?) or whatever is giving them comfort, and there is a small chance they could be right. Religion is the trigger for this comfort, so in essence religion is what's comforting these people."Most religions are forced to defend their position against growing evidence and discoveries (see Darwin"s theory of evolution ) 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. "It does not have to be a fair fight for the fight to happen, and most battles aren't. Even about this very debate, you say "I'm sorry to be boring, but I'm afraid the argument is genuinely suicidal. I like to jump into the deep end!". There is always the possibility that religious people will come up with a good argument and turn the tables. Even if they don't, some (such as I) can be shown the error of their ways through logic and good points/arguments. " 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."Again, they could be right. What if Jehovah really is there, watching over those kids? That could be the best decision of their lives."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."Many, many people work hard to ensure that the battleground of opinions and ideologies is as level as possible, so that ideas are weighted by their substance, not by who said them or how charismatically they were said. Although there is some bias, the anonymity of the internet allows for people to put their arguments out there and have them be judged for the quality of the arguments, not the quality of the person."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."I disagree with this paragraph the most. If everyone were to decide for themselves what their religion entailed, there would be nobody to point out the flaws in their beliefs, run different interpretations by them, or present other books or evidence that could otherwise impact the person's view. Not having criticism is a bad thing. Also, if there is nobody telling me I shouldn't take the bible word for word, how do I decide whether or not I should stone gays or discriminate against them? That infringes on the rights of others. Group thoughts are not always constructive, and they are very helpful in the process of creating good ideas. You need other people to see things you can't and fix your ideas. Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...1[alternate]. http://www.law.cornell.edu...2. http://www.nambla.org...