There is a difference between free expression and acting like everyone should belong to the same religion. 1st amendment, you have the right to believe what religion you want. People who try to get you to do otherwise should go to jail. Simple.
Any expression will influence the way someone thinks, intentional or not. Any line drawn between freedom of speech and the 1st amendment will be arbitrary. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done, but it is often good to realise that what seems a solid line is none more then a consensus. What to you may seem like indoctrination may be freedom of speech to another. For example, I would know of several "Free speech extremists" who would say that threathning someone with hell and damnation would fall under freedom of speech, because you're only acting verbaly and thus not crossing the line between freedom of speech and the abuse of force.
The reason why I say all of this may seem obscured at best, but that'll follow.
Because the point I'm getting to is that this discussion seems to be one between two or more moral systems. This means that what is unacceptable and utterly dorkish to one is perfectly acceptable to the other. Now this doesn't form a problem, unless you have two peopel from different moral systems who both implicitly claim moral superiority. Claiming moral superiority isn't bad in itself, but if two persons try to claim it on diferent grounds, they'll never get anywhere because they'll subconsiously regard the other as morraly inferior and thus the other has to adjust his or her moral system.
So I sugest you guys first try to work out some sort of framework for this discussion before you start throwing more arguments, ad homini and ad fundums at eachother...
With that out of the way, I've got some interesting things for you guys to ponder about:
If everything has a cause, then either there has to be a first cause, in which case you're breaking your axioma, or there is an infinit history, in which case you're also breaking your axioma, because history itself has to have a cause. So logicaly, both positions are equally false. Is this because this is a problem that can't be resolved, because one of the options is actualy right when seen in another light or explained differently, or is it a limit of the frame of reference we're using?
For humans many of our needs and ideas come forth from our subconsious, yet we have no controll over our subconsious. Now an omnipotent being can't have a subconsious, since then it would have no controll over it's own will, and thus it isn't omnipotent. But if it has controll over it's own will, then we get into a logical paradox, since it needs it's will to excert controll over it's will. How do we resolve this?
Just for the moment, assume that the bible was right and we were made in god's image. Now, god is omnipotence, and there must be an infinit gap between anything omnipotent and something that isn't omnipotent. But if there is an infinit difference between something omnipotent and something that isn't omnipotent, then somethign made to be even somewhat like an omnipotent being must be omnipotent (there isn't such a thing as somewhat omnipotent
). So why arn't we omnipotent then?
And another one regarding holy books. This might be a shocking concept, so brace yourselves. Imagine for the moment that the "devil" wants to lead all of humanity astray, away from "god" (I am using "devil" and "God" as general names for respectively an evil trancendental entity and a good transcendental entity). Now, one way to acomplish this would be by creating a false religion, complete with a false book, false prophets and what else you may want. How would it be possible to see the destinction between a holy book written by god's deciples, and a holy book writen by the devil. And by extention of that, can anyone claim that their holy book is definitly not written by the devil or another evil entity?