<?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: If The Government Recognizes One Religion, Must It Recognize All Religions ?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/11/12/if-the-government-recognizes-one-religion-must-it-recognize-all-religions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/11/12/if-the-government-recognizes-one-religion-must-it-recognize-all-religions/</link>
	<description>Life. Liberty. Property. Defending individual freedom and liberty, one post at a time.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:04:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Akston</title>
		<link>http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/11/12/if-the-government-recognizes-one-religion-must-it-recognize-all-religions/#comment-61120</link>
		<dc:creator>Akston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:22:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelibertypapers.org/?p=3184#comment-61120</guid>
		<description>Whether it&#039;s about limiting speech or about establishing a religion, it seems like a classic &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tragedy of the Commons&lt;/a&gt;.  Government owned lands are always ripe for it.

Sounds like another argument to keep &quot;public&quot; lands to a minimum to me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whether it&#8217;s about limiting speech or about establishing a religion, it seems like a classic <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons" rel="nofollow">Tragedy of the Commons</a>.  Government owned lands are always ripe for it.</p>
<p>Sounds like another argument to keep &#8220;public&#8221; lands to a minimum to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Littau</title>
		<link>http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/11/12/if-the-government-recognizes-one-religion-must-it-recognize-all-religions/#comment-61117</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Littau</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:26:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelibertypapers.org/?p=3184#comment-61117</guid>
		<description>I am so glad this case has made it to SCOTUS. How can the theocrats argue against another religious group putting a religious monument on government property without undermining their own arguments for putting the ten commandments on government property? It’s going to be interesting to say the least!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am so glad this case has made it to SCOTUS. How can the theocrats argue against another religious group putting a religious monument on government property without undermining their own arguments for putting the ten commandments on government property? It’s going to be interesting to say the least!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KipEsquire</title>
		<link>http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/11/12/if-the-government-recognizes-one-religion-must-it-recognize-all-religions/#comment-61116</link>
		<dc:creator>KipEsquire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:18:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelibertypapers.org/?p=3184#comment-61116</guid>
		<description>This is actually not a freedom of religion case at all (much to the chagrin of both theocrats and wall-of-separation types); it is being argued strictly on &quot;viewpoint-discriminatory government-sponsored speech in a public forum&quot; grounds.

A good primer here:

http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr001=unvk809g02.app7b&amp;abbr=pr&amp;page=NewsArticle&amp;id=10137&amp;security=1002&amp;news_iv_ctrl=1241</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is actually not a freedom of religion case at all (much to the chagrin of both theocrats and wall-of-separation types); it is being argued strictly on &#8220;viewpoint-discriminatory government-sponsored speech in a public forum&#8221; grounds.</p>
<p>A good primer here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr001=unvk809g02.app7b&#038;abbr=pr&#038;page=NewsArticle&#038;id=10137&#038;security=1002&#038;news_iv_ctrl=1241" rel="nofollow">http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr001=unvk809g02.app7b&#038;abbr=pr&#038;page=NewsArticle&#038;id=10137&#038;security=1002&#038;news_iv_ctrl=1241</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

