<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Faith groups notch Supreme Court win</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.logipundit.com/2007/06/faith-groups-notch-supreme-court-win.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.logipundit.com/2007/06/faith-groups-notch-supreme-court-win.html</link>
	<description>A Bastion of Reason</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:50:06 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: wdporter</title>
		<link>http://www.logipundit.com/2007/06/faith-groups-notch-supreme-court-win.html#comment-3053</link>
		<dc:creator>wdporter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.logipundit.com/blog/?p=2375#comment-3053</guid>
		<description>That was the third one I was looking for. This is a good one, but I wish there would have been a discussion on the merits of the case.  &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;If one cannot see the inherent lack of Constitutionality in restricting groups from public funding based on their religious affiliation, then they are completely ignorant of what the terms "Freedom" and "Establishment" really mean.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That was the third one I was looking for. This is a good one, but I wish there would have been a discussion on the merits of the case.  </p>
<p>If one cannot see the inherent lack of Constitutionality in restricting groups from public funding based on their religious affiliation, then they are completely ignorant of what the terms &#8220;Freedom&#8221; and &#8220;Establishment&#8221; really mean.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
