An Example of How to Proceed from an Essay Outline to a Final Draft

ENG 101 and 105

In this document, you may find a time sequence of writings showing how one may
proceed from an outline to a final draft. This time sequence includes an outline, a
first draft, a draft showing revisions, and a final draft with additional revisions and a
Works Cited page. Because the documents used in this example were from the web
and did not have page numbers, page citations are not given in the essays.
However, if your source has page numbers, please do include them in your essay.
The topic in this example is a serious one, and a reminder that serious topics are
the most interesting for your essays as well.
Sample Essay
Outline:
I.

II.

III.

IV.

Introduction
a. Problem: Some people have proposed that all nations adopt laws
banning religiously offensive speech.
b. Thesis: This is a bad law because it will either ban all religious speech
or be discriminatory.
Reasons why someone would want to ban religiously offensive speech
a. His religious laws require it
b. Offends what he thinks is holy
c. Offends self because offends what he has identified himself with
d. Might lead innocent people away from true religion
Yet cannot enact such laws because, first of all, they will ban all religious
speech, including that of the people who proposed the law
a. Religions make contradictory statements
b. If monotheist makes the law, a polytheist could use the law to silence
monotheism
c. Likewise, a monotheist could try to use the law to silence polytheism
If law is enforced despite the logical self-contradiction, it will end up being
discriminatory.
a. Essentially some people will try to ban others from criticizing their
religion while maintaining the right to teach their own religion, even
though their religion offends other religions
b. I can offend you, but you are not allowed to offend me.
c. Not fair: discriminatory.
d. Even though a person thinks his religion is true, it is difficult to prove
this objectively so as to convince all people by logic. Religions make
historical claims that, like all historical claims, are difficult to prove
completely, although some claims may be supported with more
evidence than others.

V.

e. Thus, because they are difficult to prove 100 percent true, it is not fair
to use the force of law to compel people to respect only one religion
and allow that one religion to offend all others
f. Mistake of killing Socrates: let us not repeat that mistake.
Conclusion: Thus, although people may wish to enact a law banning all
religiously offensive speech because they have good intentions, such a
law should not be enacted because it will either be terribly unfair or it will
ban all religious speech.

First Draft of the Essay

Recently, in the United Nations Council on Human Rights, some people have
proposed that all nations adopt laws banning religiously offensive speech. While
such a law may sound good at first, and while its supporters may have good
intentions, this is a bad law because it will either ban all religious speech or be
discriminatory.
First of all, what might be the reasons why someone would want to ban
religiously offensive speech? One reason may be that the religious laws of the
people proposing such a law prohibit any speech, images, or action that might
offend that specific religion. Secondly, a person may want to ban religiously
offensive speech because he does not want anyone to offend what he thinks is holy.
Thirdly, because people usually identify closely with their religion, someone may
want to ban speech that offends a religion because it would also offend him as well
for having identified with that religion. Finally, someone may claim that they want to
ban any speech offensive or critical of their religion because such speech might lead
innocent people away from true religion. These reasons are some possible motives
for the proposal that all countries ban religiously offensive speech.
However, it is a very bad idea to enact such laws because, first of all, if taken to
their logical conclusion, they will ban all religious speech, including that of the
people who proposed the law, which is something that the people proposing the law
most likely do not want. It is obvious that different religions make contradictory
statements that might offend each other. For example, monotheists say there is
only one God and that other gods are false. Conversely, polytheists say there are
many gods and the monotheistic claim of one God is false. Thus, even though a
monotheist might want to enact a law banning religious speech so as to ban the
polytheist from implying that his religion is false or that his holy books and prophets
are false, a polytheist can use that very law to ban monotheistic teachings. The
polytheist could claim that the monotheists are offending his religion by saying that
his gods are false gods. Thus, the logical conclusion of a law banning religiously
offensive speech would be that all speech pertaining to religion would likely end up
being banned.
Despite the logical self-contradiction of trying to ban religiously offensive speech,
some may want to persist in their plan to do so. However, even then, such a law
would be wrong because it would be discriminatory. Very likely, whichever religious
group is in the majority or can control the judicial system will end up banning all
other religious speech except their own. The claim of the majority will essentially
be: We can offend you, but you are not allowed to offend us. This is unfair and
wrong. It is unfair because every person should have the freedom to talk about and
practice his or her religion. It is wrong because, given the great number of religions
in the world, and given the difficulty in proving any one religion completely true, it is
hard to objectively prove which religion is true. If only one religion is allowed to be

openly practiced and taught in public and all other religions are silenced, then the
mathematical probability that that one religion is the correct one is very small and it
means that many people will likely be following a false religion. Following a false
religion is very bad for ones life in this world and in the next, if there is life after
death. Thus it is wrong to allow only one religion to be practiced and all other
silenced because it will likely prevent people from learning about different religions,
testing each one, and finding which one or which non-religious philosophy, if any, is
more likely true. It is probably a safe bet to say that most people who read about
Socrates death think his execution was unjust. But Socrates was killed because he
offended the majority religion. Making a law banning religiously offensive speech
would mean that our societies would silence the Socrates of our day. As was the
case for Athens, such a silencing of those who say things that we may think offend
our religious sensibilities may actually be a terrible loss to our chances of gaining
wisdom.
Thus from a logical perspective, it is clear that despite the sincere intentions of
those who want to ban religiously offensive speech, actually doing so is a very bad
idea because it will either result in the banning of all religiousand anti-religious
speech or in a discriminatory system that allows only one religion to be taught and
thus reduces the statistical and logical probability of people finding truth.

Draft Showing Revisions:

Recently, in the United Nations Council on Human Rights, some people have
proposed that all nations adopt laws banning religiously offensive speech. While
such a law may sound good at first, and while its supporters may have good
intentions, this is a bad idealaw because it will either ban all religious speech or be
discriminatory.
First of all, what might be the reasons why someone would want to ban
religiously offensive speech? One reason may be that the religious laws of the
people proposing such a law prohibit any speech, images, or action that might
offend that specific religion, and the person thinks that he must make sure his
religious laws are enforced worldwide. Secondly, a person may want to ban
religiously offensive speech because he does not want anyone to offend what he
thinks is holy. Thirdly, because people usually identify closely with their religion,
someone may want to ban speech that offends a religion because it would also
offend him as well for having identified with that religion. Finally, someone may
claim that they want to ban any speech offensive or critical of their religion because
such speech might lead innocent people away from true religion. Thus the people
trying to prohibit religiously offensive speech seem to have many sincere reasons
for their proposed ban.ese reasons are some possible motives for the proposal that
all countries ban religiously offensive speech.
However, it is a very bad idea to enact such laws because whether applied fairly
or unfairly, such laws will have terrible results. , fFirst of all, if such bans are applied
fairly and taken to their logical conclusion, they will prohibitban all religious speech,
including that of the people who proposed the laws, which is something that the
people proposing the laws most likely do not want. It is obvious that different
religions make contradictory statements that might offend each other. For example,
monotheists say there is only one God and that other gods are false. Conversely,
polytheists say there are many gods and the monotheistic claim of one God is false.
Thus, even though a monotheist might want to enact a law banning religious speech
so as to ban the polytheist from implying that his religion is false or that his holy
books and prophets are false, a polytheist can use that very law to ban monotheistic
teachings. The polytheist could claim that the monotheists are offending his religion
by saying that his gods are false gods. Thus, the logical conclusion of a law banning
religiously offensive speech would be that all speech pertaining to religion would
likely end up being banned. Yet if any religion or even atheism is true, then a ban on
all religious speech is terrible because it will prevent people from having
opportunities to learn the truth.
Despite the logical self-contradiction of trying to ban religiously offensive speech,
some may want to persist in their plan to do so and apply the ban unfairly.
However, even then, such a law would be wrong because it would be discriminatory.
Very likely, whichever religious group is in the majority or can control the judicial

system will end up banning all other religious speech except their own. The claim of
the majority will essentially be: We can offend you, but you are not allowed to
offend us. This is unfair and wrong. It is unfair because every person should have
the freedom to talk about and practice his or her religion. It is wrong because, given
the great number of religions in the world, and given that the historical or
supernatural claims of religions are e difficultty in to proveing any one religion
completely true, it is hard to objectively prove which religion is true. If only one
religion is allowed to be openly practiced and taught in public and all other religions
are silenced, then the mathematical probability that that any one religion is the
correct one is very small and it means that many people will likely be following a
false religion. Following a false religion is very bad for ones life in this world and in
the next, if there is life after death. Thus it is wrong to allow only one religion to be
practiced and all other silenced because it will likely prevent people from learning
about different religions, testing each one, and finding which one or which nonreligious philosophy, if any, is more likely true.
It is probably a safe bet to say that most people who read about Socrates death
think his execution was unjust. But Socrates was killed because he offended the
majority and their religion. Making a law banning religiously offensive speech would
mean that our societies would silence the Socrates of our day. As was the case for
Athens, such a silencing of those who say things that we may think offend our
religious sensibilities may actually be a terrible loss to our chances of gaining
wisdom or asking the questions that may lead us to truth.
Thus from a logical perspective, it is clear that despite the sincere intentions of
those who want to ban religiously offensive speech, actually doing so is a very bad
idea because it will either be applied fairly and result in the banning of all religious
or atheisticand anti-religiousspeech, or it will be applied unfairly in a
discriminatory system that allows only one religion to be taught. and thus
Therefore, whether applied fairly or unfairly, a ban on religiously offensive speech is
evil because it reduces the statistical and logical probability of people finding the
truth about the most important questions in life.

Second Revision:
Despite the Sincere Intentions
Why Banning Religiously Offensive Speech Is a Bad Idea
Recently, in the United Nations Human Rights Council, some people have
proposed that all nations adopt laws banning religiously offensive speech. In fact, in
Resolution 7/19, the Human Rights Council
Urges States to take actions to prohibit the dissemination, including through
political institutions and organizations, of racist and xenophobic ideas and
material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to
racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence.
The Council also:
Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt is an
essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion.
This resolution calling for the prohibition of ideas aimed at any religion or that
show contempt towards religion may sound very appealing at first and the people
who support this idea most likely support it out of sincere and good intentions.
However, a closer look at the logical implications of this resolution show that it is
fact a bad idea because it will either ban all religious speech or be discriminatory
and because it fails to recognize that one can critique an idea out of love for the
person who holds that idea.
First of all, what might be the reasons why someone would want to ban
religiously offensive speech? One reason may be that the religious laws of the
people proposing such a law prohibit any speech, images, or action that might
offend that specific religion, and the person thinks that he must make sure his
religious laws are enforced worldwide. Secondly, a person may want to ban
religiously offensive speech because he does not want anyone to offend what he
thinks is holy. Thirdly, because people usually identify closely with their religion,
someone may want to ban speech that offends a religion because it would also
offend him as well for having identified with that religion. Finally, a person may wish
to ban any speech offensive or critical of his or her religion because such speech
might lead innocent people away from true religion. Thus the people trying to

prohibit religiously offensive speech seem to have many sincere reasons for their
proposed ban.
However, it is a very bad idea to enact such laws because whether applied fairly
or unfairly, such laws will have terrible results. First of all, if such prohibitions are
applied fairly and taken to their logical conclusion, they will ban all religious speech,
including that of the people who proposed the laws, which is something that they
most likely do not want. It is obvious that different religions make contradictory
statements that might offend each other. For example, monotheists say there is
only one God and that other gods are false. Conversely, polytheists say there are
many gods and the monotheistic claim of one God is false. Thus, even though a
monotheist might want to enact a law banning religious speech so as to ban the
polytheist from implying that his religion is false or that his holy books and religious
teachers are false, a polytheist can use that very law to ban monotheistic teachings.
The polytheist could claim that the monotheists are offending his religion by saying
that his gods are false gods. Thus, if applied fairly, a law banning religiously
offensive speech must logically ban all speech pertaining to religion. Yet, if any
religion or even atheism is true, then a ban on all religious speech is terrible
because it will prevent people from having opportunities to learn the truth.
Despite the logical self-contradiction of trying to ban religiously offensive speech
in a fair manner, some may want to persist in their plan to do so and apply the ban
unfairly. However, even then, such a law would be wrong because it would be
discriminatory. Very likely, if these proposed laws are enacted, whichever religious
group is in the majority or can control the judicial system will end up banning all
other religious speech except their own. The claim of the majority will essentially
be: We can offend you, but you are not allowed to offend us. This is unfair and
wrong. It is unfair because every person should have the freedom to talk about and
practice his or her religion. It is wrong because, given the great number of religions
in the world, and given that the historical or supernatural claims of religions are
difficult to prove completely true, it is hard to objectively prove which religion is
true. If only one religion is allowed to be openly practiced and taught in public and
all other religions are silenced, then the mathematical probability of that one
religion being correct is very small, which means that many people would likely be
following a false religion. Following a false religion is very bad for ones life in this
world and in the next, if things such as objective reality, truth, justice, and life after

death exist. Thus it is wrong to allow only one religion to be practiced and all other
silenced because it will likely prevent people from learning about different religions,
testing each one, and finding which one or which non-religious philosophy, if any, is
more likely true.
It is probably a safe bet to say that most people who read about Socrates death
think his execution was unjust. But Socrates was killed because he offended the
majority and their religion. Making a law banning religiously offensive speech would
mean that our societies would silence the Socrates of our day. As was the case for
Athens, such a silencing of those who say things that we may think offend our
religious sensibilities may actually be a terrible loss to our chances of gaining
wisdom or asking the questions that may lead us to truth.
Furthermore, Socrates also shows us that critical inquiry, while appearing
contemptuous, can actually be motivated by love. Socrates did offend many people
in Athens when he asked them questions and exposed the logical contradictions in
their beliefs. Because humans usually dont like being shown that their sincerelyheld beliefs may be wrong, many people in Athens took deep offense at Socrates.
However, Socrates, in his Apology, claimed to act out of love: Men of Athens, I
honor and love you; but I shall obey God rather than you [. . .] For I do nothing but
go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your
persons and your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the greatest
improvement of the soul. Socrates critique of ideas, while offensive to many, was
actually motivated by love and a desire to help others seek truth and improve their
souls.
The danger of the United Nations Council of Human Rights Resolution 7/19 is
that it tries to link ideas and material aimed at any religion with racial and
religious hatred, hostility, or violence, implicitly towards people. Resolution 7/19
thus seems to assume that most people worldwide will commit the fallacy of ad
hominem and will not distinguish between ideas and the people who hold those
ideas. More specifically, Resolution 7/19 fails to recognize that a person can critique
an idea, including religious ideas, out of love for the people who hold that idea. For
example, suppose that person A claims that sleeping with a virgin is a cure for AIDS.
Person B, on the other hand, may aggressively critique that idea and show
contempt for that idea without in any way hating person A. Person B may be
accused of inciting ideological hatred against the teaching that person A holds.

Nonetheless, person B is probably motivated by compassion for person A and the

innocent virgins that person A will try to exploit in his attempt to cure AIDS. Just as
with Socrates, this compassion is a form of love for ones fellow human beings, not,
as Resolution 7/19 implies, an incitement against the people who hold certain ideas.
Thus, from a logical perspective, it is clear that despite the sincere intentions of
those who want to prohibit religiously offensive speech, actually doing so is a very
bad idea because such a law would either be applied fairly and result in the banning
of all religiousor atheisticspeech, or it would be applied unfairly in a
discriminatory system that allows only one religion to be taught. Therefore, whether
applied fairly or unfairly, a ban on religiously offensive speech is incredibly harmful
because it reduces the statistical and logical probability of people finding the truth
about the most important questions in life. A better approach is to distinguish
between people and ideas, including religious ideas. If we love people, we want
them to find truth. Free discussion, even if offensively against certain ideas,
increases our chances of finding truth. Thus, if we want a world that affirms the
value of human life, both now and in the hereafter, we must allow the free and
critical discussion of religious ideas as an expression of love.

Works Cited
Plato. Apology. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. The Internet Classics Archive. MIT, 2009.
Web. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html.
United Nations Council on Human Rights. Resolution 7/19: Combating Defamation of
Religions. Author, 2008. Web.
http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_7_19.pdf.

Third Revision
Timothy Hagen
ENG 101 and 105
Date
Essay I
Despite the Sincere Intentions
Why Banning Religiously Offensive Speech Is a Bad Idea

In 2008 the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) passed Resolution 7/19,
titled, Combating defamation of religions. The key admonition of the resolution is
that the HRC Urges States to take actions to prohibit the dissemination, including
through political institutions and organizations, of racist and xenophobic ideas and
material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial
and religious hatred, hostility or violence. The HRC also Emphasizes that respect
of religions and their protection from contempt is an essential element conducive
for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
This resolution calling for the prohibition of material . . . that constitute
incitement to . . . hatred, hostility or violence and the prohibition of ideas aimed
at any religion or that show contempt towards religion may sound very appealing
at first and the people who support this idea most likely do so out of sincere and
good intentions. However, this resolution should be rejected by nations worldwide
because it contains four logical errors and a classic bait-and-hook political
maneuver. More specifically, the resolution exemplifies the logical fallacy of ad
hominem by confusing people with ideas, and it is this logical fallacy that is
employed in the bait-and-hook maneuver; if logically applied, the prohibition on

religious speech will either ban all religious speech or be discriminatory, neither
option being good for humanity; and finally, the resolution fails to recognize that
one can critique an idea out of love for the person who holds that idea.
First of all, this resolution commits the fallacy of ad hominem by confusing
humans with ideas. It implies that limiting material that may incite people to racist
and xenophobic violence against people is the same as limiting language that is
offensive to religious ideas. The term religious ideas as used in this paper includes
teachings of religions, including commands of certain practices, so long as the
practices are not physically harmful to others. Since conscience dictates that it is
unjust to commit an act of violence against a person simply because of that
persons birth identity, most humans worldwide would likely agree with the
admonition against violence towards people on the basis of race, nationality, or
religion. Thus they would be inclined to support Resolution 7/19. Indeed, insofar as
the resolution discourages violence against people, it is a good resolution.
However, the problem arises when this good idea of limiting violence towards
people is used to gain support for a very harmful ideathe proposal to ban all
material that is offensive towards religious ideas. Here is where the Resolution
commits the bait-and-switch maneuver, which I think is more aptly called a baitand-hook maneuver in this context. It tries to attract support by presenting a good
and just idea, which is the bait, and then tries to sneak in a very harmful idea,
which is the hook. This bait-and-hook maneuver is a result of the ad hominem
fallacy, but can also be classified as a logical fallacy on its ownthe second fallacy
of the Resolution.
Before detailing the reasons why banning religiously offensive speech is so
harmful, it may be helpful to speculate as to why someone would want to ban

religiously offensive speech. This gives us the chance to assume the best of the
people who drafted and supported Resolution 7/19, for they may have committed
the logical errors unwittingly and thus may not have intended what appears to be a
bait-and-hook maneuver. One reason that a person may sincerely wish to prohibit
religiously offensive material may be that the religious laws of the people proposing
such a ban prohibit any speech, images, or action that might offend that specific
religion, and the person thinks that he must make sure his religious laws are
enforced worldwide. Secondly, a person may want to ban religiously offensive
speech because he does not want anyone to offend what he thinks is holy. Thirdly,
because people usually identify closely with their religion, someone may want to
ban speech that offends a religion because it would also offend him as well for
having identified with that religion. Finally, a person may wish to ban any speech
offensive or critical of his or her religion because such speech might lead innocent
people away from true religion. Thus the people trying to prohibit religiously
offensive speech seem to have many sincere reasons for their proposed ban.
However, it is a very bad idea to enact such a ban because, whether applied
fairly or unfairly, such a law will have terrible results. First of all, if such a prohibition
is applied fairly and taken to its logical conclusion, it will ban all religious speech,
including that of the people who proposed the law, which is something that they
most likely do not want. It is obvious that different religions make contradictory
statements that might offend each other. For example, monotheists say there is
only one God and that other gods are false. Conversely, polytheists say there are
many gods and the monotheistic claim of one God is false. Thus, even though a
monotheist might want to enact a law banning religious speech so as to ban the
polytheist from implying that his religion is false or that his holy books and religious

teachers are false, a polytheist can use that very law to ban monotheistic teachings.
The polytheist could claim that the monotheists are offending his religion by saying
that his gods are false gods. Thus, if applied fairly, a law banning religiously
offensive speech must logically ban all speech pertaining to religion. Yet, if any
religion or even atheism is true, then a ban on all religious speech is terribly harmful
to humanity because it will prevent people from having opportunities to learn what
may be the truth. This is the third logical problem of the resolutionit does not
recognize the logically untenable conclusions of its own proposal.
Despite the logical self-contradiction of trying to ban religiously offensive speech
in a fair manner, some may want to persist in their plan to do so and apply the ban
unfairly. However, even then, such a law would be wrong because it would be
discriminatory. Very likely, if this proposal is enacted, whichever religious group is in
the majority or can control the judicial system will end up banning all other religious
speech except their own. The claim of the majority will essentially be: We can
offend you, but you are not allowed to offend us. This is unfair and wrong. It is
unfair because every person should have the freedom to talk about and practice his
or her religion. It is wrong because, given the great number of religions in the world,
and given that the historical or supernatural claims of religions are difficult to prove
completely true, it is hard to objectively prove which religion is true. If only one
religion is allowed to be openly practiced and taught in public and all other religions
are silenced, then the mathematical probability of that one religion being correct is
very small, which means that many people would likely be following a false religion.
Following a false religion is very bad for ones life in this world and in the next, if
things such as objective reality, truth, justice, and life after death exist. Thus it is
wrong to allow only one religion to be practiced and all other silenced because it will

likely prevent people from learning about different religions, testing each one, and
finding which one or which non-religious philosophy, if any, is most likely true. This
is the fourth logical problem of the resolution. If the resolution is applied unfairly, it
is no longer advancing justice, and thus is in logical contradiction with the very
essence of law.
It is probably a safe bet to say that most people who read about Socrates death
think his execution was unjust. But Socrates was killed because he offended the
majority and their religion. Making a law banning religiously offensive speech would
mean that our societies would silence the Socrates of our day. As was the case for
Athens, such a silencing of those who say things that we may think offend our
religious sensibilities could actually be a terrible loss to our chances of gaining
wisdom or asking the questions that may lead us to truth.
Furthermore, Socrates also shows us that critical inquiry, while appearing
contemptuous, can actually be motivated by love. Socrates did offend many people
in Athens when he asked them questions and exposed the logical contradictions in
their beliefs. Because humans usually dont like being shown that their sincerelyheld beliefs might be wrong, many people in Athens took deep offense at Socrates.
However, Socrates, in his Apology, claimed to act out of love: Men of Athens, I
honor and love you; but I shall obey God rather than you [. . .] For I do nothing but
go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your
persons and your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the greatest
improvement of the soul. Socrates critique of ideas, while offensive to many, was
actually motivated by love and a desire to help others seek truth and improve their
souls.

Just like the people of Athens, Resolution 7/19 fails to recognize that a person
can critique an idea, including religious ideas, out of love for the people who hold
that idea. For example, suppose that person A claims that his religious teacher told
him that sleeping with a virgin is a cure for AIDS. Person B, on the other hand, may
aggressively critique that idea and show contempt for that idea without in any
way hating person A. Person B may be accused of inciting ideological hatred
against the teaching that person A holds. Nonetheless, person B is probably
motivated by compassion for person A and the innocent virgins that person A will
try to exploit in his attempt to cure AIDS. Just as with Socrates, this compassion is a
form of love for ones fellow human beings, not, as Resolution 7/19 implies, an
incitement against the people who hold certain ideas. This is the fifth logical
problem of the resolution, tied closely to the first problem of ad hominem. The
resolution is uninformed about the possible just and loving use of critical speech.
Thus, from a logical perspective, it is clear that despite the sincere intentions of
those who want to prohibit religiously offensive speech, actually doing so is a very
bad idea because such a law would either be applied fairly and result in the banning
of all religiousor atheisticspeech, or it would be applied unfairly in a
discriminatory system that allows only one religion to be taught. Therefore, whether
applied fairly or unfairly, a ban on religiously offensive speech is incredibly harmful
because it reduces the statistical and logical probability of people finding the truth
about the most important questions in life. A better approach is to distinguish
between people and ideas, including religious ideas. If we love people, we want
them to find truth. Free discussion, even if offensively against certain ideas,
increases our chances of finding truth. To affirm human life, both now and in the
hereafter, we must prohibit racist and religious violence against people but

simultaneously allow the free and critical discussion of religious ideas as an

expression of love.

Works Cited

Plato. n.d. Apology. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. 2009. The Internet Classics Archive. MIT.
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html.
United Nations Council on Human Rights. 2008. Resolution 7/19: Combating
Defamation of Religions.
http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_7_19.pdf.