You’ve got some balling to do, Lain.

“of” is only allowed when followed by a determiner or pronoun; it is required in the latter case, and even though “the” is a determiner, I would omit “of” here and would only add it if it was just “both of the words.” full stop. You can omit the “one” if you want to if it is obvious and you’re lazy/artistic; this is called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis_(linguistics). (I would also change the first “extremists” to “extremist” to maintain parallel structure as adjectives; not that it’s not grammatical to use two objects of different parts of speech.) No need to combine the “heck” sentence into the preceding one; in fact the combination’s a run-on. It should be separate sentences.

Having subordinate clauses—those that begin with subordinating conjunctions like “even when”—stand alone is common in transcribing speech. Your edit makes it seem less impassioned, less angry. (Though it would’ve been a good edit if it was not immediately repeated one or two sentences later, “actually” is not a grammar issue.)

This changes the meaning. The original sentence didn’t necessarily say we should term “laws” using the term “unacceptable”. It said we should find wording/rhetoric/a term for laws that are unacceptable so that we may get people to speak out.

“Or actually are religious extremism” uses “are” in one of its modern senses: embody. The sentence means “Or that restrictions from unacceptable laws embody religious extremism.” Though this sentence is grammatically correct, I agree that I would’ve changed that sentence to be more clear, like “Or actually are religiously extremist.” Since “or” is a coordinating conjunction, my statement above about subordinate clauses also applies to this coordinate clause. See also https://www.grammarly.com/blog/sentences/starting-a-sentence-with-a-conjunction .

You do not need “Let’s” here; this is a normal imperative. The act of putting “that” after a verb before an embedded clause is completely optional and whether to keep the “that” is a matter of great debate; in formal writing, some say one should replace such "that"s with a comma, which is also grammatical. IMO omitting the “that” is better for the pacing and more powerful here. You changed the meaning in your edit of “20 or 30”: the original sentence emphasizes the recentness of this treatment and gave an approximate date as “20 or 30”. “20 to 30” has a very subtly different meaning that in the end has little difference, but again both are correct, and the original form with “or” emphasizes that this is an approximate guess. Finally, there’s no need for your new “with…” here; that meaning is implied and concision is often more powerful. In fact I’d argue this edit ruins the flow.

This sentence does have serious grammatical errors but you missed the meaning of “at all”—which is quite a bit more extreme than “in general”—and the “also” part, which I would rectify by adding an “either” after “with”.

“opposed to these things” is unnecessary and flow-ruining, though I wouldn’t say the same of your next (and last) edit. I like that one (and the ones I didn’t comment on). I’m not sure why but even though it’s grammatical I think it’s good to clarify/emphasize “a significant element in what?”. Maybe it’s my looking-for-a-thesis-statement-in-the-conclusion thinking? There also is another grammar error here: you can’t put “a very small % of” and “any” at the same time since the latter “evaluates to” a single entity/person out of those opposed; “any of” should be removed. It’s also technically correct but very awkward to refer to people with “those” in its pronoun sense (fine if it’s a determiner). Would’ve replaced with “them”.

Lot harder to do that when like 90% of the country’s wealth is in the south