Children's welfare should take legal priority over their parents' freedom of religion

http://www.msnbc.msn.com... http://www.wnd.com... This first article here shows the proof that Christianity IS under attack. The first part of the very first sentence says that, "Evangelical Christians met up for a Washington event called War on Christians..." That 3 word phrase, "WAR ON CHRISTIANS" shows there is an attack on Christians. It goes right on to say, "Speakers gave impassioned testimonies about Christian persecution across the country." If you continue to read the rest of the article written in '06 you will see many other phrases that show incontestable proof of this. The second article proves the same thing in a different way. It proves that the Christian holiday Christmas and everything implicated with it "is deeply offensive" to those that are not associated with it. "Virtually every Hanukkah card is respectful. Similarly, every Kwanza card is a paper paean to this rootless, recent invention. You won't find many cards taking vulgar shots at those holidays.You will, however, find tasteless cards that mock Christmas. You'll find off-color risque Christmas cards that you'd be embarrassed to be caught looking at. Few even mention Christmas, almost as if the word is so offensive that casual card browsers should be protected from accidental contamination. Secularism is saying, if we can't completely banish Christmas, let's at least turn it into a bad joke." There are many others that I will let you read for yourselves that prove that Christmas, a CHRISTIAN holiday, is trying to be forced out of the year. Why? Because we are apparently a threat to everyone else. Why else, I ask you, would everything involving Christianity be on the brink of extinction? The 9/11 act of terrorism was started in another country and not here on American soil. Yes, as my opponent stated, I don't "have to worry about the USAF bombing my house like many Muslims do," but I do have to worry about everything involving my religion being completely taken away from me because my rligion is the most hated in this country. As he pointed out, "the federal hate crimes bill passed last year makes it an offence to express hatred against an individual or group based on their colour, religion, national origin, gender, disability or sexual orientation." This is very true. However, I do ask that if it is "an offence to express hatred against an individual or group based on..religion...." then why is everyon getting up in arms about parents using their religion as opposed to modern medicine? Shouldn't it be a crime for anyone who speaks out against that? I would assume that my opponent would have to agree with that since he is the one who said in his opening argument, "I, therefore, affirm that since children are powerless to defend themselves, the law should put their best interests ahead of their parents' freedom of religion." and then goes on in his last argument to say that, "the federal hate crimes bill passed last year makes it an offence to express hatred against an individual or group based on their colour, religion, national origin, gender, disability or sexual orientation." This kind of has me confused because in his opening argument he is saying that the law shoud step in over parents' freedom of religin, then goes on later to say that it is an offense to do so. In this case, lik I stated, I would only assume that he woud agree with me on this since he did state that "the law is seen by many as an infringement upon their freedom of speech" but said nothing about religion. In is last link, my opponent posted something that had nothing watsoever to do with the United States of America. They were talking all about kids in other countries like London and the UK but nothing from the US. I am sorry but I d not believe that is very relevent to this debate, as there are other rules and regulations in other countries that have nothing to do with us. If they were to come to this country and try sacificing like they do over in London, yes, my opponnt assumed correctly that I would agree they shold be punished and hve their rights denied. This is not the case, however. We have no control over what other countries do, and therefore, cannot punish them the way we would the citizens of this country. I therefore concede, that, if parents wish to use their rights of religion as America citizens on their children, the law should not step in and they should not be prosecuted for using their freedom to their advantage.