I agree with your critique of the private-public distinction, and find it illuminating. I disagree with what I see as your distinction between types of talk that have consequences and types that don't. Your writing seems at times to adopt the position of the religious person. There are two ways in which this seems wrong. First, we choose what books we read and who we talk to with an idea of what sorts of beliefs we will be led to.
Religion presents the most obvious example.
Perhaps now we are at a stage where honesty will work better for the remover of religion. It may also work better for the promoter of religion. Now and then I suspect you of being the latter. Another distinction I see as unworkable is the one you make on pp. I think that any belief can fit either category for any person.