<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Religious Liberty and the Supreme Court</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/10/09/religious-liberty-and-the-supreme-court/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/10/09/religious-liberty-and-the-supreme-court/</link>
	<description>A First Things Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 01:44:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raymond Takashi Swenson</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/10/09/religious-liberty-and-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-26206</link>
		<dc:creator>Raymond Takashi Swenson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 22:16:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/?p=22757#comment-26206</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The argument that the First Amendment was not intended to bar laws that have a general application to all persons regardless of religion seems inconsistent to me with the expansive way the free speech clause in the first amendment has been interpreted, repeatedly, to strike down laws, or carve out exemptions from them, for all sorts of actions like offensive and provative parades, burning American flags, and commercial sexual expression.  Why should judges be afraid of creating exceptions to laws that impact religious freedom when they casually create such exceptions for actions that are just expressions of merely personal opinion, involving no felt duty or obligation to deity or to a congregaiton of fellow believers?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The argument that the First Amendment was not intended to bar laws that have a general application to all persons regardless of religion seems inconsistent to me with the expansive way the free speech clause in the first amendment has been interpreted, repeatedly, to strike down laws, or carve out exemptions from them, for all sorts of actions like offensive and provative parades, burning American flags, and commercial sexual expression.  Why should judges be afraid of creating exceptions to laws that impact religious freedom when they casually create such exceptions for actions that are just expressions of merely personal opinion, involving no felt duty or obligation to deity or to a congregaiton of fellow believers?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joseph Knippenberg</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/10/09/religious-liberty-and-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-26142</link>
		<dc:creator>Joseph Knippenberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:04:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/?p=22757#comment-26142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fixed.  Thanks.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fixed.  Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonah</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/10/09/religious-liberty-and-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-26139</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Oct 2010 05:23:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/?p=22757#comment-26139</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;While he admires, Justice Antonin Scalia’s...&quot;

I don&#039;t think that comma should be there.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;While he admires, Justice Antonin Scalia’s&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think that comma should be there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tweets that mention Religious Liberty and the Supreme Court » First Thoughts &#124; A First Things Blog -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/10/09/religious-liberty-and-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-26131</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention Religious Liberty and the Supreme Court » First Thoughts &#124; A First Things Blog -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Oct 2010 22:38:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/?p=22757#comment-26131</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Doug Goff, DNC DUDES. DNC DUDES said: Religious Liberty and the Supreme Court: In an important article, Allan Hertzke reflects on the threats to re... http://bit.ly/aXQqjl #tcot [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Doug Goff, DNC DUDES. DNC DUDES said: Religious Liberty and the Supreme Court: In an important article, Allan Hertzke reflects on the threats to re&#8230; <a href="http://bit.ly/aXQqjl" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/aXQqjl</a> #tcot [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
